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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse in the reply filed on 7/28/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 16-20 have been amended to be commensurate in scope to overcome the requirement for restriction of these claims from claims 1-15. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are being further examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 6/17/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. A copy of CN 111669966 B has not been provided. Further, it is noted that the copy provided of CN 111669966 A (which is not listed in the IDS) appears to be incomplete. The IDS has been placed in the application file, but the information related to this reference (or these references) has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show any structure of either "a first communication unit" in claims 8 and 20, "a terminal device" in claims 8 and 20, "a second communication unit" in claims 8 and 20, "a detection module" in claim 10, or "a control module" in claim 10. In particular, the structures that embody "a first communication unit," "a detection module," and "a control module" are unclear and unknown. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 specification is objected to for its use of the term Bluetooth®, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology. Furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: "a connection assembly" in claim 1; "a transmission assembly" in claim 1; "a first communication unit" in claim 8; "a terminal device" in claim 8; "a second communication unit" in claim 8; "a detection module" in claim 10; "a control module" in claim 10; "a display assembly" in claim 13; "a first communication unit" in claim 20; "a terminal device" in claim 20; and "a second communication unit" in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification describes:
"a connection assembly" as having corresponding structure of a connection tube in para. 0052;
"a transmission assembly" as having corresponding structure of a drive shafts or drive shafts in paras. 0052 and 0053;
"a terminal device" as having corresponding structure of a mobile phone, a tablet, or a computer in para. 0064; and
"a display assembly" as having corresponding structure of a display screen, a display light, or display lights in para. 0069.
The specification fails to clearly link structure corresponding to "a first communication unit," "a second communication unit," "a detection module," and "a control module" to the claimed functions of these limitations. Accordingly, claims 8, 10, and 20 are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth below.
If Applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1 and 16 each recite "when the electric motor is in a maximum-efficiency state, a ratio of output power of the electric motor to a weight of the lawn edger is greater than or equal to 180 W/kg." Claims 2 and 17 each further limit this ratio to being "greater than or equal to 200 W/kg." These recitations define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result (i.e., a desired power-to-weight ratio), but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The claimed ratio could be changed to any value larger than 180 W/kg, and the support given in the original disclosure would amount to the same. Such disclosure of function alone is little more than a wish for possession. Accordingly, claims 1, 2, 16, and 17 do not satisfy the written description requirement and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Additionally, claims 2-15 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 1, and claims 17-20 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 16.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1 and 16 each recite "a rear housing formed with a coupling portion" in line 5. The relationship between the rear housing and the coupling portion defined by "formed with" is unclear, such that whether the coupling portion is an element of (i.e., part of) the rear housing (or separate and distinct therefrom) cannot be determined. Further, whether a coupling portion is an element of (i.e., part of) the claimed device or merely "formed with" a part of the coupling device is unclear. As such, the metes and bounds of the claimed device cannot be determined. Therefore, claims 1 and 16 are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Additionally, claims 2-15 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 1, and claims 17-20 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 16.
Claims 1 and 16 each recite "when the electric motor is in a maximum-efficiency state, a ratio of output power of the electric motor to a weight of the lawn edger is greater than or equal to 180 W/kg." Claims 2 and 17 each further recite "the ratio of the output power of the electric motor to the weight of the lawn edger is greater than or equal to 200 W/kg." It is unclear how this claimed intended result (i.e., a power-to-weight ratio greater than or equal to 180 W/kg or 200 W/kg) is accomplished, such that the metes and bounds of the structure required to achieve this claimed intended result cannot be determined. Thus, the metes and bounds of the above recitations cannot be determined since it is unclear where the limits of the structure required to meet the above recitations lie. Therefore, claims 1, 2, 16, and 17 are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 9 recites "the first communication unit and the second communication unit are each a Bluetooth unit." Since a trademark or trade name is used in the claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See MPEP § 2173.05(u). Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 11 recites "an axis of rotation of the output shaft is basically perpendicular to an extension direction of the straight tube portion." The manner in which said axis and said extension direction are "basically perpendicular" is unclear. In other words, the meaning of "basically perpendicular" is not clear in this context. Thus, the metes and bounds of the "basically perpendicular" relationship in claim 11 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 11 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
As set forth above, claim limitations "a first communication unit" in claim 8, "a second communication unit" in claim 8, "a detection module" in claim 10, "a control module" in claim 10, "a first communication unit" in claim 20, and "a second communication unit" in claim 20 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structures, materials, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link structures, materials, or acts to the functions. The specification only describes functionality with respect to these limitations. Therefore, claims 8, 10, and 20 are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If Applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, Applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (US 5,603,205) in view of Yamaoka et al. (US 2016/0088792).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 6, and 16, Foster discloses a lawn edger, comprising:
an output shaft (of 24; connecting 28 to the bulk structure of 24) for mounting a blade (28) for cutting grass;
a shield (of 24; about 28 and positioned between 28 and an operator at the rear of the device) surrounding at least part of the blade (see Figs. 1-4);
a front housing (of 24; the bulk structure of 24) accommodating at least part of the output shaft (see Figs. 1-4);
a rear housing (of 20) having a coupling portion for coupling a battery pack (as described in col. 5, lines 30-35);
an electric motor (of 20 as described in col. 5, lines 30-35 and col. 7, lines 42-47) mounted in the rear housing to drive the output shaft;
a connection assembly comprising a connection tube (including or of 18) for connecting the front housing to the rear housing (see Figs. 1-4), wherein at least part of the connection tube (including 36 and/or 38) extends curvedly (see Figs. 1-4); and
a transmission assembly (including "drive shaft" as described in col. 7, lines 42-47) for transmitting power between the electric motor and the output shaft comprising a first drive shaft (portion of "drive shaft" adjacent 20) connected to the electric motor and disposed at a rear end of the connection tube, a second drive shaft (portion of "drive shaft") for driving the output shaft, and a connection shaft (portion of "drive shaft" through 32) for connecting the first drive shaft to the second drive shaft, wherein the connection shaft is flexible (see col. 7, lines 42-47);
wherein at least part of the connection shaft is disposed in the connection tube (see col. 7, lines 42-47).
Foster does not explicitly disclose when the electric motor is in a maximum-efficiency state, a ratio of output power of the electric motor to a weight of the lawn edger is greater than or equal to 180 W/kg, as claimed. However, Yamaoka teaches a lawn edger comprising an electric motor (see para. 0034-0035), wherein, when the electric motor is in a maximum-efficiency state (as defined by use or a user), a ratio of output power of the electric motor to a weight of the lawn edger is greater than or equal to 180 W/kg (see para. 0070).
Yamaoka is analogous because Yamaoka discloses a lawn edger comprising an electric motor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lawn edger of Foster with power-to-weight means as taught by Yamaoka so that the weight of the lawn edger can be decreased while the output power is increased. (See Yamaoka, para. 0070.) Additionally, providing the lawn edger of Foster with power-to-weight means as taught by Yamaoka is also a combination of prior art elements (i.e., the lawn edger of Foster with the power-to-weight means of Yamaoka) according to known methods to yield predictable results (as taught by Yamaoka). See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 2 and 17, in view of the modification made in relation to claims 1 and 16, Yamaoka teaches the ratio of the output power of the electric motor to the weight of the lawn edger is greater than or equal to 200 W/kg (see para. 0070).
Regarding claim 11, Foster discloses the connection tube (including or of 18) comprising a straight tube portion (of 38) and a curved tube portion (of 36) connected to each other (via 32), the straight tube portion is connected to the rear housing (of 20; see Figs. 1-4), the curved tube portion is connected to the front housing (of 24; see Figs. 1-4), and an axis of rotation of the output shaft is substantially perpendicular to an extension direction of the straight tube portion (see Fig. 4).
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster in view of Yamaoka as applied to claims 2 and 16 above, and further in view of Bukowski et al. (US 2018/0317396)
Regarding claims 3 and 18, neither Foster nor Yamaoka explicitly discloses the output power of an electric motor being greater than or equal to 1200 W, as claimed. However, Bukowski teaches a lawn edger comprising an electric motor (including 105), wherein the output power of the electric motor is greater than or equal to 1200 W (see para. 0041).
Bukowski is analogous because Bukowski discloses a lawn edger comprising an electric motor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with power means as taught by Bukowski for more power as desired. Additionally, providing the above combination with power means as taught by Bukowski is also a simple substitution of one known element (e.g., power means including the electric motor of Bukowski) for another (e.g., that of the above combination) to obtain predictable results (as taught by Bukowski). See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster in view of Yamaoka as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Pritzen (US 2022/0024015).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, neither Foster nor Yamaoka explicitly discloses the weight of a lawn edger being less than or equal to 5.5 kg. However, Pritzen teaches a lawn edger (including 1, 1', or 1''') comprising an electric motor (of 4), wherein the weight of the lawn edger is less than or equal to 5.5 kg (see "in particular of at most 5 kg," in para. 0007).
Pritzen is analogous because Pritzen discloses a lawn edger comprising an electric motor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with weight(s) as taught by Pritzen for ease of handling, carrying, movement, and/or manipulation. Additionally, providing the above combination with weight(s) as taught by Pritzen is also a combination of prior art elements (i.e., the lawn edger of the above combination with the weight means of Pritzen) according to known methods to yield predictable results (as taught by Pritzen). See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster in view of Yamaoka as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Notaras et al. (US 6,516,598)
Regarding claim 7, Foster also discloses the connection tube (including or of 18) comprising a straight tube portion (or 38) and a curved tube portion (of 36) connected to each other (via 32), wherein the straight tube portion is connected to the rear housing (of 20; see Figs. 1-4), the curved tube portion is connected to the front housing (of 24; see Figs. 1-4), and the curved tube portion is bent relative to the straight tube portion at an angle (see Figs. 1-4). Neither Foster nor Yamaoka explicitly discloses an angle at which a curved tube portion is bent relative to a straight tube portion is greater than or equal to 135° and less than or equal to 155° as claimed. However, Notaras teaches a lawn edger (see Figs. 12-15) comprising a front housing (connecting 30 to 14), a rear housing (housing of 4 and/or including 3), an electric motor (including 4), and a connection tube (including 305 and 30), wherein the connection tube comprises a straight tube portion (of 305) and a curved tube portion (of 30) connected to each other, the straight tube portion is connected to the rear housing (see Figs. 12-15), the curved tube portion is connected to the front housing (see Figs. 12-15), and an angle at which the curved tube portion is bent relative to the straight tube portion is greater than or equal to 135° and less than or equal to 155° (as described in col. 9, lines 6-17).
Notaras is analogous because Notaras discloses a lawn edger comprising an electric motor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with angled means as taught by Notaras for an operator’s desired cutting angle. (See Notaras, col. 10, lines 27-40.) Additionally, providing the above combination with angling as taught by Notaras is also a combination of prior art elements (i.e., the lawn edger of the above combination with the angled means of Notaras) according to known methods to yield predictable results (as taught by Notaras). See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claims 8, 9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster in view of Yamaoka as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Nyberg et al. (US 2021/0252688)
Regarding claims 8 and 20, neither Foster nor Yamaoka explicitly discloses a first communication unit and a terminal device comprising a second communication unit as claimed. However, Nyberg teaches a power tool comprising a first communication unit (including 41) and a terminal device (including 10) comprising a second communication unit (including 43), wherein the first communication unit is connected to the second communication unit by wireless communications (see para. 0089), and the terminal device is capable of displaying state information of the power tool (via 19).
Nyberg is analogous because Nyberg discloses an elongated handheld power tool comprising an electric motor and communication units. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with communication means as taught by Nyberg in order to wirelessly transmit data and/or receive data. (See Nyberg, para. 0089.)
Regarding claim 9, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 8, Nyberg teaches the first communication unit (including 41) and the second communication unit (including 43) each being a Bluetooth® unit (see para. 0089).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster in view of Yamaoka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Feng et al. (US 2021/0394389).
Regarding claim 10, neither Foster nor Yamaoka explicitly discloses a detection module and a control module as claimed. However, Feng teaches a power tool comprising an electric motor (103), a detection module (detection or sensing module of 101 that "detects" the rotational speed of the motor as described in para. 0037) configured to detect an operating parameter (rotational speed) of the electric motor (see para. 0037), and a control module (of 101 that outputs control signals as described in para. 0037) configured to determine, according to the operating parameter, whether the electric motor is in a locked-rotor operating state and, when the electric motor is in the locked-rotor operating state, control the electric motor to stop rotating (see para. 0037).
Feng is analogous because Feng discloses an elongated handheld power tool comprising an electric motor, a detection module, and a control module. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with detection and control means as taught by Feng in order to prevent damage and for safety. Additionally, providing the above combination with detection and control means as taught by Feng is also a combination of prior art elements (i.e., the lawn edger of the above combination with the detection and control means of Feng) according to known methods to yield predictable results (as taught by Feng). See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster in view of Yamaoka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Codeluppi (US 2011/0162214).
Regarding claim 12, neither Foster nor Yamaoka explicitly discloses a carbon fiber tube as claimed. However, Codeluppi teaches a lawn edger comprising a connection tube (including or of 1, 2, and/or 3), wherein the connection tube is a carbon fiber tube (see para. 0019).
Codeluppi is analogous because Codeluppi discloses a lawn edger comprising a connection tube. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with material means (i.e., carbon fiber) as taught by Codeluppi for high mechanical resistance and great lightness. (See Codeluppi, para. 0019.)
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster in view of Yamaoka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki (US 2021/0100170)
Regarding claim 13, Foster also discloses a main handle mounted to the connection assembly and used for a user to hold. Neither Foster nor Yamaoka explicitly discloses a display assembly for displaying at least speed information as claimed. However, Suzuki teaches a power tool comprising an electric motor (80), a connection assembly (including 62), a main handle (including 142) mounted to the connection assembly (via 140) and used for a user to hold, and a display assembly (including 186) for displaying at least speed information of operating of the power tool (see para. 0051).
Suzuki is analogous because Suzuki discloses an elongated handheld power tool comprising an electric motor, a connection assembly, a main handle, and a display assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with display means as taught by Suzuki in order to display the current target rotational speed of the motor. (See Suzuki, para. 0051.)
Regarding claim 14, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 13, Suzuki teaches the display assembly comprising a display screen (see Figs. 1 and 7).
Regarding claim 15, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 13, Suzuki teaches the display assembly (including 186) being disposed on a housing of the main handle (including 142; see Figs. 1 and 7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Brotto et al. (US 2007/0240892) describes a power tool system having a power output to weight ratio within a range between about 76 to 129 W/lb (about 167.2 to 283.8 W/kg) in para. 0023 and shows a lawn edger (1700) in Fig. 17.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joel F. Mitchell whose telephone number is (571)272-7689. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:00.
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, Christopher 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.
/JFM/9/30/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
