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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The ABSTRACT language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc.
In this case “present invention provides” should be removed.
The title of an invention should clearly and comprehensively reflect the subject matter and kind of the invention for which protection is sought, in other words the title should be commiserate with the claimed invention.
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.
Claim 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In re cl. 1, 2, 4, 6: the word “preferably” renders the claims indefinite. It is unclear if the pin, the groove spacing, the length range, the elastic component being a spring is claimed positively and distinctly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kirn et al (CN 1239912).
It should be noted that the recitation "operable so that," "configured to” etc. is considered as merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Since it is the language itself of the claims which must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention, without limitations imported from the specification, whether such language is couched in terms of means plus function or consists of a detailed recitation of the inventive matter. Limitations in the specification not included in the claim may not be relied upon to impart patentability to an otherwise unpatentable claim. In re Lundberg, 113 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1957).
[AltContent: textbox (Groove(s) )][AltContent: textbox (Groove has a radially outward opening)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Stopping mechanism with a protrusion pin)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Arresting disc (groove ring))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
808
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“… a bevel gear transmission device (12) and a work spindle 13 of the drive motor. the main shaft 13 is rotatably supported on a ball bearing 14 and a needle bearing 15, two bearing designed as a radial bearing …”
“… the working spindle 13 along the working rotation direction until the bottom of the groove 45 and the operation handle 29 so that it can be fixed to act in the groove 28 and the groove ring 27 with the working shaft 13 together to stop rotating.”
1. An electric tool comprising:
a body (housing 10) internally provided with a motor (see quote, inherent motor is considered an electric motor, as established in the art);
an operating component (blade 18), which operating component is mounted on one side of the body (fig 1);
an output shaft, which is configured to transmit output of the motor to the operating component (main shaft 13),
wherein an arresting disc (marked up) is provided on the output shaft (fig 1), and a groove is formed on the arresting disc (marked up); and a stop mechanism, which comprises a protrusion, preferably a pin (marked up), the stop mechanism being operable so that the protrusion extends to insert into the groove to lock the output shaft (intended use / capability as shown in figs 6 & 7; see quote).
2. The electric tool according to claim 1, wherein the groove extends radially along a base of the arresting disc and has a radially outward opening (shown/taught above), and in that the protrusion is configured to enter the groove radially inwards through the opening (figs 6, 7), wherein, specifically, the groove is formed at an edge of the base (shown/taught above), preferably at least two grooves are arranged on the base, and, preferably, the at least two grooves are evenly spaced circumferentially (“preferably … at least two” & preferred arrangement is shown/taught above).
“Here, the handle 29, the rotating pin 31 and the stop projection 32 is partially, especially made of plastic handle 29 is set on the rotating pin 31 away from the stop block 32 near one end, here, one end side of the rotating pin section 311 extends axially beyond handle 29 and is supported in the bearing flange 16. rotating the pin section 311 a formed as a torsion spring of a reset spring 33 pushed to the end side on one end of the spring is fixed on the bearing flange 16, and the other end of the spring is fixed on the rotary pin 31.”
5. The electric tool according to claim 2, wherein the stop mechanism further comprises: an operating component (handle, see teaching above), which protrudes from a housing of the body and joins one end of the protrusion (fig 1); and an elastic component, which is connected to the operating component and/or the protrusion and provides the protrusion with a restoring force offset towards a direction in which the protrusion detaches from the groove (spring, see teaching above).
10. The electric tool according to claim 1, wherein the output shaft is a motor shaft of the motor (13), one end of the output shaft near the motor is provided with a recessed shaft shoulder (1st end, near the motor, fig 1), a recessed platform portion extends from the shaft shoulder towards the other end of the output shaft (2nd end, near the groove ring), and a central through-hole of the arresting disc is provided with a flat portion corresponding to the platform portion (fig 8), wherein an end face of the arresting disc rests against the shaft shoulder (via the element 63), and the flat portion is assembled on the platform portion (assembled as in fig 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirn et al (CN 1239912, cited above).
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Kirn teaches the claimed invention above, except as noted:
3. The electric tool according to claim 2, wherein a plurality of protruding curved segments extending circumferentially are arranged on the base, and in that a spacing between adjacent curved segments forms the groove, wherein, specifically, the number of the curved segments is four, specifically the plurality of curved segments extend along a circumferential edge of the base, and specifically a length of the curved segment is ⅙-⅕ of the circumference of the base (design choice, the number of curved segments & length, not taught/shown).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the curved segments and the length of the segments as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum number or length involves only routine skill in the art; and/or, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
4. The electric tool according to claim 3, wherein each end of each curved segment is formed with an extension segment that extends radially relative to the curved segment, and in that opposite extension segments of adjacent curved segments are laterally parallel to each other to jointly define the groove, wherein, preferably, the length of the extension segment extending radially inwards relative to the curved segment is ⅕-⅓ of the radius of the base (same obviousness is applicable here as in re cl. 3 above).
Claim(s) 8, 9, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirn et al (CN 1239912, cited above), in view of Dyer et al (2018/0104809).
Kirn teaches the claimed invention above, except as noted:
14. The electric tool according to claim 1, wherein the electric tool is an electric tool for gardening, particularly an edger or mower (not shown).
Dyer teaches an electric tool has been known to be an edger, par. 2 & 34, or other movable implements:
“[0034] As also shown, different types of attachment components 104 may be attached to the motor housing 102. By way of example, and as shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B, the attachment component 104 may be a chainsaw attachment 114. In another example, and as shown in FIG. 10, the attachment component 104 may be a hedge trimmer attachment 116. In other examples, the attachment component 104 may be other types of movable implements that the electric motor contained in the motor housing 102 may actuate or articulate. The other types of movable implements may include edgers, blowers, string trimmers, cultivators, etc. Accordingly, the power tools 100 disclosed herein may be implemented with any of a number of different types of tools.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Kirn with the teachings of Dyer, with a reasonable expectation of success since applying the electric tool mechanism across “different types of tools” (Dyer) is a well known to one skilled in the art.
8. The electric tool according to claim 1, wherein the electric tool further comprises a transmission gear, the base of the arresting disc is integrally formed on an end face of the transmission gear, and in that a driving gear is fixedly mounted on an output end of the motor shaft of the motor, and in that the transmission gear and the driving gear externally engage, wherein, specifically, the diameter of the transmission gear is larger than that of the driving gear, and, specifically, the output shaft of the electric tool is coaxially and fixedly connected to the transmission gear (not shown in Kirn, however, it is taught in Dyer, fig 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the transmission mechanism of Kirn with the teachings of Dyer, with a reasonable expectation of success since picking and choosing from a finite arrangements in driving the operating component would not be outside of one skilled, in order to provide greater torque to the operating component.
9. The electric tool according to claim 8, wherein an assembly shell for accommodating the driving gear and the transmission gear is provided in the housing of the body, wherein the inner contour of the assembly shell fits the outer contour of the driving gear and the transmission gear, and the motor shaft, the output shaft of the electric tool, and the protrusion respectively run through the assembly shell (obvious design of the housing / shell in the combination and avoid interference in use).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 11-13, 15-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Wiker (CN 10160587) teaches a clamping disc-stopping device (fig 1).
Krout et al (EP 1759813) teaches an arresting disc (632) on output shaft, a groove (710), a stop mechanism, pin (692).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARPAD FABIAN-KOVACS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6990. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th.
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, Joseph Rocca can be reached on (571) 272-8971. 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.
/ARPAD FABIAN-KOVACS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671