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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5-17-26 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation reading “the trigger lever having a first part located directly adjacent to the bottom of the front gripping portion and a second part outwardly opposite to the first part along an obliquely downward direction” should read: “the trigger lever having a first part located directly adjacent to the bottom of the front gripping portion and a second part located outwardly opposite to the first part along an obliquely downward direction”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The claim limitations of the trigger lever having a first part located directly adjacent to the bottom of the front gripping portion and a second part outwardly opposite to the first part along an obliquely downward direction do not have antecedent basis in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation of Claim 1 reading: “the trigger lever having a first part located directly adjacent to the bottom of the front gripping portion and a second part outwardly opposite to the first part along an obliquely downward direction, the obliquely downward direction extending obliquely toward the front end of the drive operating portion when viewed along the crossing direction” and “the second part of the trigger lever is located at a forward position more toward the front end of the drive operating portion than the first part of the trigger lever” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. First, no first or second part of the trigger lever 43 are mentioned in the Specification. Thus, it is not clear which parts are the claimed first and second parts of the trigger. Looking at the figures, particularly figure 3, a part of the trigger lever 43 that is directly adjacent to the bottom of the front gripping portion is shown in annotated fig 3 below. Also, a second part of the trigger lever that is outwardly opposite to the first part along an obliquely downward direction, is shown in annotated fig 3 below. However, the oblique downward direction cannot be said to extend obliquely toward the front end of the drive operating portion when viewed along the crossing direction. Also, if the first and second parts are as annotated, as best understood, then the second part is not located at a forward position more toward the front end of the drive operating portion than the first part of the trigger lever. For instance, the part of the trigger lever that is closest to the bottom of the front gripping portion is also closest to the front end of the drive operating portion as seen when comparing figure 2 and figure 3. Because the claimed first or second parts of the trigger lever are not defined in the specification and because the figures do not support a the trigger lever having a first part located directly adjacent to the bottom of the front gripping portion and a second part outwardly opposite to the first part along an obliquely downward direction, the obliquely downward direction extending obliquely toward the front end of the drive operating portion when viewed along the crossing direction” and “the second part of the trigger lever is located at a forward position more toward the front end of the drive operating portion than the first part of the trigger lever, these limitations were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
486
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 1-12 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.
The limitation of Claim 1, reading: “the trigger lever having a first part located directly adjacent to the bottom of the front gripping portion and a second part outwardly opposite to the first part along an obliquely downward direction the obliquely downward direction extending obliquely toward the front end of the drive operating portion when viewed along the crossing direction” and “the second part of the trigger lever is located at a forward position more toward the front end of the drive operating portion than the first part of the trigger lever” is indefinite. As noted above, the terms “first part” and “Second part” of the trigger lever are not defined in the Specification. Also, the drawings appear to show that the lowest part of the trigger lever, i.e. the part furthest from the bottom of the gripping portion, extends away from the from the front end of the drive operating portion in a downward oblique direction, as opposed to toward the drive operating portion. See annotated fig 3 above. For purposes of advancing prosecution, the limitations will be interpreted as, “the trigger lever having a first part located directly adjacent to the bottom of the front gripping portion and a second part outwardly opposite to the first part along an obliquely downward direction the obliquely downward direction extending obliquely toward the front end of the drive operating portion when viewed along the crossing direction” and “the second part of the trigger lever is located at a forward position more toward the front end of the drive operating portion than the first part of the trigger lever”, as shown in annotated fig 3 below. In this annotated figure, the interpreted first part is located further from the bottom of the gripping portion 42, but can technically be considered to be adjacent to the bottom of the gripping portion. Also, even though the first part shown below extends from the first part in a downward oblique direction, the second part can be said to extend toward the front end of the drive portion from the first part, and the obliquely downward direction can be said to extend obliquely toward the front end of the drive operating portion when viewed along the crossing direction even if this extension is upward, and thus different from the direction of the downward direction, as the arrow is shown below.
PNG
media_image2.png
568
546
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20210100170, Suzuki in view of USPN 4643263, Karden.
Regarding Claim 1, Suzuki discloses a hedge trimmer comprising:
a cutter assembly 12 that is elongated along a longitudinal direction between a front end and a rear end of the cutter assembly in a plan view when the hedge trimmer is placed on a plane,
and a drive operating portion (60/62) 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’s. 1-2), 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 1-2 and 6) movably attached to a bottom of the front gripping portion (fig 2, and. see par. 0043), the trigger lever having a first part (see annotated fig 1 below) located directly adjacent to the bottom of the front gripping portion and a second part (located) outwardly opposite to the first part along an obliquely downward direction (see annotated fig 1 below), the obliquely downward direction extending obliquely toward the front end of the drive operating portion when viewed along the crossing direction (see 35 USC 112 interpretation above, and annotated fig 1 below [even though the direction extends downward and away from the drive section, an “extension” of the direction may be said to extend toward the drive portion), 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).
Suzuki lacks the second part of the trigger lever is located at a forward position more toward the front end of the drive operating portion than the first part of the trigger lever.
Karden discloses a handheld motor driven cutting tool (abstract), in the same field of endeavor as the handheld motor driven cutting tool of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a handle 12 having a trigger lever 26 for controlling a motor/drive of the device, similar to the handle/trigger lever of Suzuki, and discloses that in such assembly the handle/trigger lever assembly can be made adjustable to be placed in various positions relative to the drive of the body (see fig. 1) wherein in certain positions a part of the trigger 26 closest to the body is positioned more toward the front end of the drive operating portion than a portion of the trigger lever that is located furthest from the drive operation portion, (see fig 1, and col. 2, 50-60) in order to ensure comfortable working positions of the handle for operators, col 1, 10-30.
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 making the front handle/trigger portion be adjustable relative to the body and the drive of the device (which configuration would allow the second part of the trigger lever is located at a forward position more toward the front end of the drive operating portion than the first part of the trigger lever, in certain positions) in order to ensure comfortable working positions of the handle for operators as taught by Karden.
PNG
media_image3.png
569
668
media_image3.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_image4.png
396
672
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, in Suzuki as modified above, in certain adjustable positions of the front gripping portion, 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.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Karden 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 and Karden as applied to Claims 1-2 above, and further in view of legal precedent.
Regarding Claims 7-8, in Suzuki as modified above, 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, can be, in certain adjusted positions 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 Karden 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 Karden and Kojima as applied to Claims 4-6 above, and further in view of legal precedent.
Regarding Claims 10-12, 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 5/17/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims (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 grounds of rejection is made in view of Suzuki and Karden.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs/USPGPUBs 20080034518 5725422 12611761 20240278377 10307886 10406718 6241594 20070212991 3308535 4996773 20110056996 20030228833 20210100170 6880251 4924571 12611761 20120211250 and 9950416 and CN208322987U disclose state of the art motor tools with obliquely angled handles, while USPNs/USPGPUBs USPGPUB 20080034518, Lindroth discloses an adjustable handle for a vegetation device. 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
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights