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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 11,15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ruhl et al. (4,133,389).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Ruhl et al. discloses an apparatus comprising:
A housing (15)
A control means (45)
A motor (22) disposed within the housing (15), wherein the motor (22) has a first end (right side of motor considered first end – Figure 1) and a second end (left side – Figure 1) opposite the first end along a longitudinal axis of the motor (along 38), and wherein the motor comprises:
A drive member (38) extending from the first end of the motor and configured to output a rotational force in response to activation of the motor via a control signal generated in response to activation of the control means (45)
A working tool (20,21) disposed proximate to a first end of the housing, the working tool (20,21) comprising at least one tine disk (55)
A drivetrain (Figure 2) disposed within the housing (15) and in direct mechanical communication with the drive member (38) of the motor, and wherein the drivetrain is configured to transfer the rotational force generated by the drive member (38) of the motor (22) to the working tool (20,21) such that the at least one tine disc of the working tool rotates
Wherein the at least one tine disk (55) comprises a first tine disk having a first set of tines (57) and a second tine disk having a second set of tines (57)
Wherein the first set of tines (57) is disposed at an acute angle relative to the longitudinal axis and is rotatable about a first axis of rotation of the first tine disk (Figures 3,6)
Wherein the second set of tines (57) is disposed at a different acute angle relative to the longitudinal axis and is rotatable about a second axis of rotation of the second tine disk in response to the transfer of the rotational force from the motor to the working tool (Figures 3, 6)
Wherein the second axis of rotation is non parallel to the first axis of rotation (Figure 3)
Regarding claim 6, Ruhl further discloses a handle, wherein at least the first end of the motor is disposed between the handle and the first end of the housing (left side of housing considered first side of housing (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Ruhl discloses that the second end of the motor is disposed between the handle and the first end of the housing (figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, Ruhl discloses guards (50,52) external to the housing.
Regarding claim 15, the apparatus is a handheld power tool.
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) 2, 14, 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruhl et al. (4,133,389) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Link (5,850,882).
Regarding claim 2, Ruhl et al. discloses the invention as described above, but fails to specifically disclose a speed adjustment means configured to control a speed or power of the motor. Like Ruhl et al., Link also discloses a hand held tiller with a housing, control means, motor, drive member and working tool. Unlike Ruhl et al., Link discloses a variable speed switch (26) to control the speed of the working tool. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a speed control in Ruhl et al. as taught by Link to provide increased control of the working tool as the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Regarding claim 31, the combination discloses the invention as described above but fails to specifically disclose a printed circuit board. The combination does disclose the control needs for barely adjusting the speed of the motor. The examiner takes Official Notice that printed circuit boards are well known in the art as a control means in motor speed control applications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a printed circuit board as part of the control means in combination.
Regarding claim 32, the combination discloses the invention as described above including the power activation means and a speed adjustment means but fails to specifically disclose that the power activation is on the bottom of the housing and the speed control is on the top of the housing. Ruhl does disclose a control mechanism on the bottom of the housing and Link does disclose a control mechanism on multiple sides of the housing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the power activation means on the bottom of the housing in the speed adjustment means on the top of the housing since it has been held that rereading parts invention involves him routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See also, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 14, Ruhl discloses the invention as described above, but fails to disclose utilizing a planetary gear system to transfer power from the motor to the tine discs. Like Ruhl, Link also discloses a hand held tiller with a housing, control means, motor, drive member and working tool. Unlike Ruhl et al., Link discloses an extended drive shaft with the motor mounted near the handle and a planetary gear system mounted to transfer power from the motor to the drive shaft (column 2 lines 66-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a planetary gear system to transfer power from the motor to the tine discs as it would be combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claim(s) 5, 8-10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruhl et al. (4,133,389) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Parkey (10,278,321).
Regarding claim 5, Ruhl et al. discloses the invention as described above, but fails to disclose any support details of the housing. Like Ruhl, Parkey also discloses a hand held tiller with a housing, control means, motor, drive member and working tool. Unlike Ruhl et al., Parkey discloses support elements (32,46) disposed within the housing and configured to support the drive train (32/46 coupled to housing (Figure 2) provide support to the drive train – column 2 lines 10-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize support members for the motor and drive train within the housing in Ruhl as taught by Parkey to ensure maintained alignment of the gears during use by not allowing the elements to shift within the housing as the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Ruhl discloses the invention as described above, but fails to disclose that the motor is located between the handle and the second end of the housing or that a battery is disposed in the housing. Like Ruhl, Parkey also discloses a hand held tiller with a housing, control means, motor, drive member and working tool. Unlike Ruhl et al., Parkey discloses that the motor and a battery can be disposed adjacent the handle such that the motor is disposed between the handle and the second end of the housing with an elongated drive shaft and transfer housing to drive the tool and that a battery can be utilized for rechargeable operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an elongated drive shaft and housing/motor arrangement in Ruhl as taught by Parkey and to utilize a rechargeable battery as taught by Parkey as it would be combining prior art elements accordin to known methods to obtain predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Regarding claim 10, the combination discloses a top handle.
Regarding claim 20, the combination discloses the handheld power tool further comprises a transfer housing (Parkey - 61) coupled to a first end of the motor (28) and a gear train disposed within the transfer housing, the gear train configured to transfer the rotational force generated by the motor to the working tool.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruhl et al. (4,133,389) in view of Dueitt (6,615,928).
Regarding claim 12, Ruhl et al. discloses the invention as described above including the guard but fails to disclose that the guard is transparent. Like Ruhl et al., Dueitt discloses a powered garden tool with a shield (18). Unlike Ruhl et al., Dueitt discloses that the shield can be transparent (column 3 lines 31-37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of current invention to utilize a transparent shield in Ruhl et al. as taught by Dueitt to allow the operator to more effectively monitor earth working operations during use.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruhl et al. (4,133,389) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Foster et al. (4,003,436).
Regarding claim 19, Ruhl discloses the invention as described above but fails to disclose that the second set of tines rotate in response to the transfer of rotational force from the first set of tines to the second set of tines. Like Ruhl, Foster also discloses a hand held tiller with a housing, control means, motor, drive member and working tool. Unlike Ruhl et al., Foster discloses that instead of a direct drive from a drive gear to both tine gears, the drive gear can be connected to only the first tine disc which then transfers power to the second tine disk (Figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the power transfer gear arrangement in Ruhl as taught by Foster as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 5-12, 14-16, 19-20 and 31-32 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The common knowledge/well-known in the art statement in the previous action is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of Official Notice.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jamie L McGowan whose telephone number is (571)272-5064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00-5:00 CST.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/JAMIE L MCGOWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671