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 .
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 (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.
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) 1-5, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada, et al. US4848846.
Regarding claim 1, Yamada, et al. teaches a brush cutter 1 comprising:
a handle assembly 11;
a working head assembly (Figure 12) comprising:
a working implement 13;
a bevel gearcase 34 (wherein 34 surrounds at least the end of the gears 37, 36, and 38, thus is considered a bevel gearcase); and
a bevel pinion 37 disposed in the bevel gearcase (as shown in Figure 12) and extending from a first end (right side in Figure 12) to a bevel end (left side by 37 of Figure 12), wherein the bevel end is functionally coupled (via 36 and 38) to the working implement 13, wherein the bevel pinion 37 is supported in a cavity (inside 15) by a first bearing (one of 39) and a second bearing (another of 39) disposed around an outer surface (outside surface of 16a) of the bevel pinion 37, and wherein the first bearing (one of 39) and the second bearing (another of 39) are separated by a gap (wherein Figure 12 shows at least a nominal gap between 39);
a shaft 16a extending at least partly (as shown in Figure 12) between the handle assembly 11 and the working head assembly (Figure 12);
a tubular shim (see Figure A below, annotated from figure 12, where the shim is held inside the rightward extending tubular portion of 34 adjacent bearings 39) disposed between the shaft and the bevel gearcase (wherein the shim is radially between the shaft and the gearcase as shown in Figure 12) of the working head assembly; and
PNG
media_image1.png
672
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: annotated Figure 12
a motive device 4 (wherein 4 is an engine, which is a motive device) operable to rotate the bevel pinion 37 for actuating the working implement 13.
Regarding claim 2, Yamada, et al. teaches wherein the working head assembly (Figure 12) further comprises:
an output shaft 16b secured to the working implement 13; and
a bevel gear 38 connected to an exterior of the output shaft 16b and engaged with (via 36) the bevel pinion 37 (as shown in Figure 12).
Regarding claim 3, Yamada, et al. teaches the bevel pinion 37 extends in a direction substantially parallel (wherein 37 and 16a are axially aligned as shown in Figure 12) to the shaft 16a.
Regarding claim 4, Yamada, et al. teaches wherein the first bearing (one of 39) is disposed at the first end (wherein first bearing 39 is selected to be in the first end) of the bevel pinion 37.
Regarding claim 5, Yamada, et al. teaches the second bearing (another of 39) is disposed at the bevel end (Figure 12 left side) of the bevel pinion 37.
Regarding claim 7, Yamada, et al. teaches the tubular shim is disposed at an end (as shown in Figure 12, wherein the shim is disposed on towards the left side of 16a, which is thus considered the end) of the shaft 16a disposed in the working head assembly (Figure 12).
Regarding claim 8, Yamada, et al. teaches the tubular shim is secured (via bearings 39 and via the tubular being inserted into the right side of the gearcasing) onto an outer surface (outside surface of 16a) of the shaft 16a.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada, et al. in view of Schindler, et al. US20180116378.
Regarding claim 9, Yamada, et al. teaches the claim, as described above, and teaches a clip assembly 9 secured to the brush cutter (as shown in Figure 2). The clip assembly 9 includes engaging holes 9a, wherein “A selected one of the engaging holes 9a is used to engage with a fixing device (not shown) connected to a shoulder belt (not shown), so that the engine 4 is suspendingly (sic) shouldered by an operator by means of the belt” Column 3: 45-50.
Yamada, et al. does not teach the clip assembly comprising:
a first base portion;
a second base portion pivotably connected to the first base portion, wherein the first base portion and the second base portion define an interior cavity for receiving the brush cutter 1;
a loop pivotably connected to the first base portion; and
a stopper configured to limit a degree of rotation of the loop with respect to the first base portion.
Schindler, et al. teaches a clip assembly 1 (figure 4) for a brush cutter 2 comprising:
a first base portion (left side 13);
a second base portion (right side 13) pivotably connected (via pivot around 40, as shown in Figure 5) to the first base portion, wherein the first base portion and the second base portion define an interior cavity I(the circular section inside 13) for receiving (as shown in Figure 2) the brush cutter 2;
a loop 29/42 pivotably connected (around axis 69) to the first base portion (as described in ¶0064, wherein 29 is shown attached to 42 and lugs 43, thus are pivoted around axis 69); and
a stopper 15 configured to limit a degree of rotation (via 15 stopping loop 29/42 from rotating past stopper 15 on either side of axis 69) of the loop with respect to the first base portion.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date. to modify Yamada, et al.’s clip assembly to be replaced with Schindler et al.’s clip assembly to provide easy assembly and pivotable looped attachment for a harness or strap (such as Schindler et al.’s strap 29) to attach to an operator for support during use. Doing so is an alternative detachable means for providing a clip location for a user shoulder belt or harness.
Regarding claim 10, Schindler, et al. teaches the stopper extends from the loop (via the 44) and contacts the first base portion (as shown in Figure 4, wherein 15 extends upwardly from 13) to limit the degree of rotation of the loop.
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada, et al. in view of Hungerford US 2618986.
Regarding claim 12, Yamada, et al. teaches the handle assembly 11 comprises:
an elongated pole (wherein 11 is pole-shaped extending laterally from 1) terminating at an end face (ends supporting grips 10); and
a grip 10 at least partially surrounding the elongated pole and the end face (as shown at least in Figure 5).
Yamada, et al. does not teach wherein the grip comprises a protrusion that extends from an interior surface of the grip into the end face of the elongated pole to resist rotation of the grip relative to the elongated pole.
Hungerford teaches that it is well-known in the art for a handle grip 10 to have a protrusion 30 (Figure 6) that extends from an interior surface (inside 18) into the end face (left side of 32) of elongated pole 32 to resist rotation of the grip relative to the elongated pole (Col 3: 2-5 "internal annular flange 30 extending axially inwardly from the end 20 to frictionally grip the inner surface of the hollow handle bar 32", wherein frictional grip necessarily resists at least some relative rotation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Yamada, et al.’s grip to include Hungerford’s grip with a protrusion, as described above, to provide frictional grip to the pole 11. Doing so permits a user to hold the grip without it turning around the pole and provide sufficient support for the cutter during use.
Regarding claim 13, Hungerford teaches the protrusion comprises an asymmetrical shape (when taking a cross section thru the wall of 32, since 30 is provided in a different shape and lateral extent than 12, and, in the alternative, when taking a cross section vertically thru any of the segments that include the lateral extent of 30, wherein the left and right sides are differently shaped).
Regarding claim 14, Yamada, et al. teaches the handle assembly 11 further comprises:
a second elongated pole (two are shown) terminating at a second end face (two are shown); and a second grip 10.
Yamada, et al. is silent as to whether the second the grip at least partially surrounding the second elongated pole at the second end face.
Hungerford teaches the grip 10 at least partially surrounding the elongated pole 32 at the end face (as shown in Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Yamada, et al.’s second grip to be attached to its second pole 11 in view of Hungerford’s grip 10 surrounding the elongated pole (Hungerford 32) as a known means for mounting a grip to a pole.
Regarding claim 15, Yamada, et al. teaches an actuator 21 configured to operate (by changing the orientation Column 5: 33-37 “pivoting the lever 21 back and forth, it is possible to change the orientation of the rotary cutter 13 in accordance with a particular ground condition, thereby enabling the operator to conduct most effective and efficient mowing operations”, wherein a change of orientation is considered operating the cutter, since it changes the angle of the cutter. It is noted that the claim does not define “operating”, thus the term is given its broadest reasonable interpretation) of the cutter the brush cutter 1.
Yamada, et al. does not teach the second grip comprises the actuator.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Yamada, et al. to move the position for the operating actuator to be on the second handle. Doing so will enable an operator to change the operation of the brush cutter while holding the grip during use. Note that it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only 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) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 7/21/2026, with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments that Yamada does not teach a bevel gear case, and a tubular shim are refuted. As described above, Yamada does teach a bevel gear case, since housing 34 surrounds the bevel gears, thus it is considered a gear case. Also, as described above, the tubular element adjacent bearings 39 is considered the tubular shim. The tubular shim is radially between the claimed gearcase and the shaft.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 7/21/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 16-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 16-20 has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the combination does not teach the loop is pivotable between first and second positions at a maximum angle of rotation less than 20 degrees. Such a limited range of motion in the loop arrangement for Schindler would not be obvious, as Schindler relies upon nearly 180 degree movement of the loop to connect to an operator, since the loop is top mounted.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Cathleen Hutchins whose telephone number is (571)270-3651. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11am-9:30PM EST.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/CATHLEEN R HUTCHINS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672 9/3/2026
Prosecution Insights