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
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation reading “ the throttle lever being attached at an upper side of the rear gripping portion; …, the lock release lever being attached at a bottom of the rear gripping portion”, Should read “the throttle lever being attached at a bottom an upper side of the rear gripping”. (The corrected claim language corresponds with what is shown in figure 1 and what is disclosed in par 0019-0020 where it is noted that “Furthermore, on a lower side of the rear gripping portion 51, there is a throttle lever 54 provided as an operation means for allowing the cutter assembly 6 to drive, and on an upper side of the rear gripping portion 51, there is a lock release lever 55 provided to prevent and release a displacement (operation) of the throttle lever 54.”).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPUB 20210100170, Suzuki.
Regarding Claim 1, Suzuki discloses a hedge trimmer comprising a cutter assembly 12 and a drive operating portion (90, 126, 140, 50 and 82) for driving and operating the cutter assembly (par 049 and 0055), wherein:
a front handle assembly (grip 126) located adjacent to the front end of the drive operating portion (fig. 2), the front handle assembly being configured with:
a front gripping portion that is rod-shaped (elongated shaft), the front gripping portion being elongated along a crossing direction, the crossing direction crossing the longitudinal direction in the plan view (fig 2); and
a trigger lever (128, shown in figs 2 and 6) movably attached to a bottom of the front gripping portion in the plan view (fig 2, and. See:par. 0043), the trigger lever being configured to selectively transfer drive power from a power source to the cutting assembly (see par 0043);
a rear handle assembly (150) located adjacent to the rear end of the drive operating portion (fig 2); and
a body 86 having the power source (battery “B”),
wherein the trigger lever 128 is elongated from the bottom of the front gripping portion along an obliquely downward direction that extends obliquely toward the front end of the drive operating portion in the plan view (see annotated fig 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
438
545
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Suzuki discloses the hedge trimmer according to claim 1: wherein the front gripping portion has a central axis along the crossing direction, and the trigger lever has an elongated shape and is along the central axis of the front gripping portion. (see annotated fig 2, shown herein).
PNG
media_image2.png
396
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 of this title, 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2019206875 A1, Nagy.
Regarding Claim 3, Suzuki lacks the hedge trimmer according to claim 1, wherein the crossing direction, along which the front gripping portion is elongated, extends obliquely toward the rear end of the drive operating portion in the plan view, and the crossing direction is inclined with respect to a first direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction in the plan view.
Nagy discloses a motor powered handheld hedge trimmer, in the same field of endeavor as the motor powered handheld hedge trimmer of Suzuki and discloses: that in such an assembly it is known to have a front handle 28 being attached to a central pole 22 of the device: such that a crossing direction, along which the front gripping portion 28 is elongated, extends obliquely toward a rear end of the pole in a plan view (fig 2a, 2c), and the crossing direction is inclined with respect to a first direction perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the pole in a plan view, in order to improve the ergonomic handling of said device, par. 7 of description section.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki by having the crossing direction, along which the front gripping portion is elongated, extends obliquely toward the rear end of the drive operating portion in the plan view, and the crossing direction is inclined with respect to a first direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction in the plan view in order to improve the ergonomic handling of said device as taught in Nagy.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Nagy as applied to Claim 4 above, and further in view of JP2011239747A, Kojima.
Regarding Claim 4, Suzuki includes the hedge trimmer according to claim 3: wherein the rear handle 142 assembly includes a rear gripping portion 160, that is rod-shaped (fig 1), the rear gripping portion is elongated along another crossing direction (right to left), and the another crossing direction crosses the longitudinal direction in the plan view, and the crossing direction and the another crossing direction are approximately parallel to each other (fig 1) (even if the angle of the Suzuki device were modified to be at a slight angle in view of Nagy, the Suzuki rear angle extends approximately parallel to the front handle).
Alternatively, if it is argued or found that the handle 160 is not parallel to the angled rod of the front grip (as modified above in view of Nagy), then Suzuki may be said to lack this feature.
Kojima shows a motor powered handheld hedge trimmer, in the same field of endeavor as the motor powered handheld hedge trimmer of Suzuki and discloses: that such an assembly includes a rear handle 140 that is angled forward toward a drive of the device, and which would be parallel to a front handle that was angled toward a rear of the device (As the handle of Suzuki is as modified in view of Nagy), in order to vary the angle of said handle depending on a worker (eight par. of description section of Kojima.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki by having the angle of the rear handle be tilted toward the drive of the device, which would render the crossing direction thereof to be approximately parallel to the crossing direction of the front handle, as modified in view of Nagy, in order to vary the angle of said handle depending on a worker as taught by Kojima.
Regarding Claim 5, in Suzuki, the hedge trimmer also include:
the rear handle assembly further configured with: a throttle lever 172 configured to control the drive power from the power source, the throttle lever being attached at an upper side of the rear gripping portion (depending on how the gripping portion is held); and a lock release lever 170 configured to selectively lock an operation of the throttle lever, the lock release lever being attached at a bottom of the rear gripping portion (depending on how the device is oriented).
Regarding Claim 6, in Suzuki, a distal end of the front handle assembly 126 is located at one side with respect to the longitudinal direction in the plan view (right side, fig 1), and a distal end of the rear handle assembly 142, e.g. at 184, is located at the other side with respect to the longitudinal direction in the plan view ( as see(n) fig. 1).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki as applied to Claims 1-2 above, and further in view of legal precedent.
Regarding Claims 7-8, in Suzuki, the angle between the obliquely downward direction and a vertical direction (e.g. of the trigger), which is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction in the plan view, appears to be, in a range of 10 degrees to 45 degrees.
It would have been obvious as a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki by having the angle between the obliquely downward direction and a vertical direction (e.g. of the trigger), which is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction in the plan view, be, in a range of 10 degrees to 45 degrees, since the changing of a shape of an element of an invention was held to be in the realm of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art, see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), and MPEP 2144.04-IV.B. Further, the Applicant has not established any criticality to the particular angles claimed per Claims 7-8.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Nagy as applied to Claim 3 above, and further in view of legal precedent.
Regarding Claim 9, in Suzuki, the angle between the obliquely downward direction and a vertical direction (e.g. of the trigger), which is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction in the plan view, appears to be, in a range of 10 degrees to 45 degrees.
It would have been obvious as a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki by having the angle between the obliquely downward direction and a vertical direction (e.g. of the trigger), which is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction in the plan view, be, in a range of 10 degrees to 45 degrees, since the changing of a shape of an element of an invention was held to be in the realm of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art, see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), and MPEP 2144.04-IV.B. Further, the Applicant has not established any criticality to the particular angles claimed per Claim 9.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki and Nagy in view of Kojima as applied to Claims 4-6 above, and further in view of legal precedent.
Regarding Claims 7-8, in Suzuki, the angle between the obliquely downward direction and a vertical direction (e.g. of the trigger), which is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction in the plan view, appears to be, in a range of 10 degrees to 45 degrees.
It would have been obvious as a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki by having the angle between the obliquely downward direction and a vertical direction (e.g. of the trigger), which is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction in the plan view, be, in a range of 10 degrees to 45 degrees, since the changing of a shape of an element of an invention was held to be in the realm of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art, see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), and MPEP 2144.04-IV.B. Further, the Applicant has not established any criticality to the particular angles claimed per Claims 10-12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/11/25, with respect to the prior are rejections of claims 1-2 under 35 USC 103 have been considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Suzuki lacks “wherein the trigger lever is elongated from the bottom of the front gripping portion along an obliquely downward direction that extends obliquely toward the front end of the drive operating portion in the plan view”. Applicant points to figures 1 and 6 of Suzuki for this proposition. However, fig 2 of Suzuki clearly shows that this configuration is disclosed.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/11/25, with respect to the prior are rejections of claims 3-5 under 35 USC 103 (as the claims have now been amended) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the prior art rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Suzuki.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs/USPGPUBs 4974325 20140074118 20160138271 disclose state of the art handles for trimmers and thus, each of these references disclose elements relevant to the present invention/application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-5336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern standard.
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 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 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.
/FERNANDO A AYALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
03/27/2026