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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
Reference characters "1" and "2" have both been used to designate the same tool. The tool is a hedge trimmer and there does not need to be two separate numbers from the broad and narrow disclosures. One number needs to be utilized throughout the Application.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because:
In Figure 4 on the left side, there is an occurrence of the label “16” that does not appear to be correct. The right-most occurrence of “16” in Figure 4 correctly labels the first area while the occurrence on the left side appears to be pointing at a spacer structure. The left side “16” should be deleted or replaced with the proper number.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0025], both occurrences of the phrase “that clamp a blade plane” are unclear. It is not understood what the phrase means. All occurrences throughout the specification need to be addressed in the same manner.
In paragraph [0026], the phrase “designed to overlap directly or with an overlap” is unclear. Both options allow for the same overlap? It is not understood what the phrase means. All occurrences throughout the specification need to be addressed in the same manner.
In paragraph [0028], the phrase “top view from below” needs to be replaced with “bottom view”.
In paragraph [0030] line 10, the phrase “has screw bosses that are not” needs to be replaced with “has screw bosses 30 that are not”.
In paragraph [0037], the phrase “closed upper side 19” is unclear. What allows for a side to be considered closed?
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-4, 8, 11, 15, and 16 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.
With regards to claim 2, it is unclear what structure allows for the second blade bar to be comprised by the arrangement. Claim 1 discloses screws and, as written in claim 2, the second blade bar is comprised by the arrangement in a manner unrelated to the claim 1 screws which is not supported. Claim 2 needs to disclose the screws fasten the second blade bar in the same manner as the claim 1 structures because this is the only way there is support. Claim 4 has the same issue with the spacer elements.
With regards to claim 8, it is unclear what structure allows for a side to be considered closed?
With regards to claim 11, a recess of the cover is now claimed. As written, the bosses are part of the cover but in a way unrelated to the recess which is not supported. The boss has to be in the recess because this is the only way there is support.
With regards to claim 11, it is unclear how the guide rail can be essentially along the recess the it is inserted into. It is unclear how the recess is “guided” along another item?
With regards to claim 15, as written, the arrangement is not connected to the housing which is not supported. As written, the motor is not in the housing which is not supported. As written, the first bar is not in working engagement with the motor which is not supported. As written, the first bar is not the portion driven by the motor which is not supported.
With regards to claim 16, the garden tool is not positively claimed in claim 1 as it is introduced as an intended use of the arrangements. It is unclear what the intentions of claim 16 are since it does not further limit the arrangement.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 9, and 12-16 are rejected (claims 8 and 16 as best understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanada et al. (2019/0338839) in view of Huang (6,910,276).
With regards to claims 1 and 15, Hanada et al. disclose the invention including a blade arrangement for a garden tool (20) having a guide rail (60), a first blade bar (21) configured to be movable relative to the guide rail (26), a cover (62), the first blade bar is configured to be guided so as to be displaceable in an oscillating manner (26, paragraph [0042]), the guide rail is arranged between the cover and the first blade bar (Fig. 5), the first blade bar has slotted holes (28), the guide rail has through-openings (Fig. 5), the first blade bar is fastened to the cover by way of screws (63), and the screws (63) are guided through the slotted holes and the trough-openings (Fig. 5).
With regards to claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 15, and 16, Hanada et al. disclose a second blade bar (22), the first bar is configured to be movable relative to the second bar (21, 26, 22, 27), the second bar is configured to be movable relative to the guide rail (22, 27), at least one of the screws has a threaded portion and a screw head (63), the cover has a closed upper portion (Fig. 5), the through-openings of the guide rail are round (Fig. 5), the screws have threads (63), a housing (12), and a motor configured to drive the trimmer (paragraph [0062]).
However, with regards to claims 1, 5, 14, 15, Hanada et al. fail to disclose the cover has screw bosses, the screws are screwed to an internal thread of the screw bosses, the threaded portion of the at least one screw is arranged within the screw bosses, the spacer portion of the at least one screw is arranged within one of the slotted holes of the first blade bar, and the screw bosses have reinforcing structures.
Huang teaches it is known in the art of trimmers to incorporate the outer most structure of blade arrangement adjacent the nuts to have screw bosses (12), the screws (13) are screwed to an internal thread of the screw bosses (122, Fig. 2), the threaded portion of the at least one screw is arranged within the screw bosses (122, Fig. 2), the spacer portion (131) of the at least one screw is arranged within one of the slotted holes of the first blade bar (Fig. 2), and the screw bosses have reinforcing structures and the screw bosses have reinforcing structures (horizontal portion of 12 reinforces the boss to some extent). It would have been within one’s technical skill to have applied the screw bosses to the cover (62) of Hanada et al. as it is the outer most structure adjacent the nuts (65) and for the threaded portion to pass through the guide rail as well. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have provided Hanada et al. with the bosses, as taught by Huang, because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
With regards to claims 4 and 9, Hanada et al. in view of Huang fail to disclose spacer elements arrange between the bars and the through-openings have an internal thread.
It would have been obvious to incorporate a spacer element structure in between the bars to reduce friction between the bars during the oscillatory movement of the blades. Reducing the friction allows for greater longevity of the bars and a smoother blade movement. It would have been obvious to have incorporate an internal thread to the through-openings so that the threaded screws can more securely fasten to the guide rail. Using threaded fastened is known in the art. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of Hanada et al. in view of Huang to obtain the invention as specified in claims 4 and 9. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
With regards to claims 12 and 13, Hanada et al. in view of Huang fail to disclose the guide rail has a U-profile with two free ends against the cover.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the guide rail of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. The guide rail 60 in Hanada et al. beards against the cover (62). A U-shape reduces the weight of the guide rail and still allows for the guide rail to bear against the cover with its free ends that define the U-shape. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of Hanada et al. in view of Huang to obtain the invention as specified in claims 12 and 13. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanada et al. (2019/0338839) in view of Huang (6,910,276) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kitahara et al. (11,963,489).
With regards to claim 7, Hanada et al. in view of Huang disclose the invention including the spacer portion is cylindrical with a diameter of the spacer portion being smaller than a width of the slotted hole (131, Fig. 2).
Hanada et al. in view of Huang fail to disclose the diameter of the spacer portion is between 90 and 99 percent of the width of the slotted hole.
Kitahara et al. teach it is known in the art of spacer portions in trimmers to adjust the distance between the cylindrical spacer portion diameter and the width of the slotted hole (W1, W2, Fig. 4 and W3, W4, Fig. 7). In light of Kitahara et al., it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the diameter any reasonable percentage of the width including within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of Hanada et al. in view of Huang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanada et al. (2019/0338839) in view of Huang (6,910,276) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 112369237 (the copy of this reference provided includes a machine translation).
With regards to claim 10, Hanada et al. in view of Huang disclose the invention but fail to disclose the screw thread is self-tapping.
CN 112369237 teach it is known in the art of trimmers to incorporate self-tapping screws (9, claim 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Hanada et al. in view of Huang with the self-tapping screws, as taught by CN 112369237, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanada et al. (2019/0338839) in view of Huang (6,910,276) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mayer (4,619,045).
With regards to claim 11, Hanada et al. in view of Huang disclose the invention but fail to disclose the cover has a recess guided along the guide rail and the guide rail is inserted into the recess.
Mayer teach it is known in the art of trimmers with a cover (16) and guide rail (14) to incorporate the cover with a recess guided along the guide rail (19) and the guide rail is inserted into the recess (Fig. 2). It would have been well within one’s technical skill to have made the recess in the cover to accommodate both the guide rail and the bosses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Hanada et al. in view of Huang with the cover recess, as taught by Mayer, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 pm.
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 D Ashley can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
24 March 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights