DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/01/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: hub in claims 18-22.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
-Regarding claim 18, the phrase “wherein one of the arms includes a hub, the hub connecting the first arm to the second arm and including an opening to allow the electrical cable to pass through” is unclear. Examiner notes “wherein one of the arms” does not specifically refer back to either the first arm and second arm of claim 17. As such, it is unclear if these are the same or different arms as previously claimed. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as “wherein one of the first arm or the second arm, includes a hub…”.
Claims 19-22 dependent from claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are rejected as being dependent from a rejected parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ota (US. 2017/0273239).
Regarding claim 17, Ota teaches a poled cutting device (1)(Figure 1) comprising:
a pole (2) having a first end and a second end (3)(Figure 1 and 4A-$b Noting rear end side and leading end sides):
a cutting implement (5), a motor housing (4) and a motor (40) in the motor housing on the first end of the pole (Figures 1 and 7; Paragraph 0087);
a handle (6) and a battery housing (20,21) on the second end of the pole (Figure 1; Paragraph 0096); the pole including a first pole section (14) and a second pole section (15)(Figures 1-2B);
a hinge (16) having a first arm (31) connected to the first pole section and a second arm (32) connected to the second pole section, wherein the first arm is rotatable (Via pivot element 33) with respect to the second arm (Figures 2A-2B and 4A-4B); and
an electrical cable (28) connecting the battery housing to the motor, the electrical cable being fully contained within the first pole section, second pole section and hinge (Figures 3C, 4B and Paragraphs 0113 and 0114 noting the wiring hose 28 contains within a plurality of wires within connecting the first and second ends of the device).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 18-22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ota (US. 2017/0273239) in view of Peterson (US 2010/0126029).
Regarding claim 18, Ota teaches the poled cutting device of claim 17 but does not provide wherein one of the arms includes a hub, the hub connecting the first arm to the second arm and including an opening to allow the electrical cable to pass through.
Peterson teaches it is known in the art of poled cutting devices to provide a pole with a first part (22) and a second part (extension of pole past element 72 as shown in Figure 12) and a hinge having a first arm (70) connected to the first pole section and a second arm (72) connected to the second pole section, wherein the first arm is rotatable (around axis 94) with respect to the second arm (3, 4 and 12; Paragraph 0051); and wherein one of the arms includes a hub, the hub connecting the first arm to the second arm and including an opening to allow the electrical cable to pass through (Figure 4 noting the hallow portions within the first and second arms thereby allowing the transmission drive elements/wires and electrical components to extend therethrough).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Ota to incorporate the teachings of Peterson to provide the hinge arms with a hub allowing for wiring to pass through. Doing so allows for rotation of the cutting tool with respect to the pole components as desired while still providing the desired electrical connections.
Regarding claim 19, the modified device of Ota provides the poled cutting device of claim 18, wherein the hub further includes a cutout to allow the electrical cable to pass around the hub (Peterson Figure 2 noting spacing such as chamber 108).
Regarding claim 20, the modified device of Ota provides the poled cutting device of claim 19, further including a housing (92,98) placed around the hub to enclose the electrical cable (Peterson Figure 4; Paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 21, the modified device of Ota provides the poled cutting device of claim 20, further including a latch (35) for locking the first pole section to the second pole section in a straight configuration (Ota Figures 3A-4B).
Regarding claim 22, the modified device of Ota provides the poled cutting device of claim 21, wherein the latch is located on one of the first pole section or second pole section, and a bracket is located on the other one of the first pole section or second pole section, the latch being secured to the bracket to the lock the first pole section to the second pole section in a straight configuration (Ota Figures 3A-3C; Paragraphs 1008-0111).
Related Prior Art
Below is an analysis of the relevance of references cited but not used
- "892 cited references A-M on page 1 and A and F on Page 2 establish the state of the art with a variety of pivoting and rotatable handheld cutting devices using a variety of driving mechanisms for the cutting elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD D CROSBY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICHARD D CROSBY JR/ 05/26/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights