DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
In the reply filed July 22, 2026, the applicant amended claims 1 and 5.
Currently claims 1-19 are under examination.
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 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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McLain (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0034391).
Regarding Claim 1, McLain discloses an outdoor tool comprising:
A powerhead (McLain: 31);
A user control member (McLain: Paragraph [0032], 34);
A grip member (McLain: grip portion of 31 and/or 24);
A tool unit powered by the powerhead (McLain: 31);
The tool unit comprising:
An elongated body (McLain: 36, 48) comprising a shaft (McLain: 36, 48) and a cutting element (McLain: 9) extending radially from the shaft (McLain: 36, 48), and a connector (McLain: connecting portions of 34), the connector (McLain: connecting portions of 34) configured to couple with a complementary connector (McLain: connecting portions of 34 opposite 31) of the powerhead (McLain: 31), wherein the tool unit is configured to be rotatably driven by the powerhead (McLain: 31), wherein the powerhead, the user control member, and the shaft extend along a longitudinal axis (McLain: 31, 24, control member 0f 31 and shaft all appear to extend along a longitudinal axis)
Regarding Claim 2, McLain discloses the outdoor tool of claim 1, wherein the user control member (McLain: Paragraph [0032]) is disposed on the grip member (McLain: grip portion of 31)
Regarding Claim 3, McLain discloses the outdoor tool of claim 1, wherein the user control member (McLain: Paragraph [0032]) and the grip member (McLain: 24) are spaced apart.
Regarding Claim 4, McLain discloses the outdoor tool of claim 1, further comprising a support assembly (McLain: 39, 53, 61, 14) configured to support the outdoor tool in a generally upright standing position (McLain: Figure 11: standing position) with an end of the tool unit in contact with a support surface (ground).
Regarding Claim 5, McLain discloses the outdoor tool of claim 4, wherein the support assembly (McLain: 39, 53, 61, 14) comprises a pair of legs (two halves of 39) configured to contact the support surface.
Regarding Claim 6, McLain discloses the outdoor tool of claim 4, wherein the support assembly (McLain: 39, 53, 61, 14) is configured to be moved between a support position in which the support assembly (McLain: 39, 53, 61, 14) supports the outdoor tool in the generally upright standing position (McLain: Figure 11: stand position) with the end of the tool unit in contact with the support surface, and a collapsed position(McLain: Figure 11: kneel position).
Regarding Claim 7, McLain discloses the outdoor tool of claim 1, wherein the powerhead (McLain: 31) and the tool unit are removably coupled (chucked).
Regarding Claim 9, McLain discloses the outdoor tool of claim 1, wherein the outdoor tool has a maximum length configured to allow a user to dig a hole in a ground surface when the user is in a standing position (McLain: auger 22 ).
Regarding Claim 10, McLain discloses the outdoor tool of claim 1, wherein the cutting element (McLain: 9) extends around the shaft (McLain: 36, 48) in a helical direction (9 may be replaced by 22).
Regarding Claim 11, McLain discloses the outdoor tool of claim 1, wherein the cutting element (McLain: 9) is spaced apart from both the connector (McLain: connecting portions of 34) of the tool unit and a distal end of the shaft (McLain: 36, 48) opposite the connector (McLain: Figure 12: tool unit connected only indirectly to shaft (McLain: 36, 48) by 40, 41).
Regarding Claim 12, McLain discloses the outdoor tool of claim 1, wherein a distal end of the shaft (McLain: 36, 48) opposite the connector (McLain: connecting portions of 34) comprises a pointed and/or a helical profile (McLain: auger 22) configured to initiate digging a hole when the tool unit is rotated.
Regarding Claim 13, McLain discloses the outdoor tool of claim 12, wherein the cutting element (McLain: 9) is spaced apart from the distal end of the shaft (McLain: 36, 48) (McLain: Figure 13: separated by 3, 2).
Regarding Claim 14, McLain discloses the outdoor tool of claim 1, wherein the outdoor tool is configured to dig a hole in a ground surface, the maximum depth of the hole corresponding to a length extending from a distal end of the shaft (McLain: 36, 48) opposite the connector (McLain: connecting portions of 34) to an end of the cutting element (McLain: 9) proximate the connector (McLain: connecting portions of 34) (depth of hole must be dependent on length of tool digging said hole).
Regarding Claim 15, McLain discloses the outdoor tool of claim 1, further comprising a grip section (McLain: Figure 10, 17, 18: unlabeled adjustment portion above 36) disposed on the shaft (McLain: 36, 48) of the tool unit.
Regarding Claim 16, McLain discloses the outdoor tool of claim 15, wherein the grip section comprises a cutaway portion (McLain: Figure 10, 17, 18: unlabeled adjustment portion above 36 comprises removed section of shaft (McLain: 36, 48) for emplacement of adjustment portion) of the shaft (McLain: 36, 48) between the connector (McLain: connecting portions of 34) and the cutting element (McLain: 9).
Regarding Claim 17, McLain discloses the outdoor tool of claim 1, wherein the powerhead (McLain: 31) comprises a motor (McLain: Paragraph [0025]) and a power source (McLain: Paragraph [0025]) disposed at an opposite end of the powerhead (McLain: 31) relative to the complementary connector (McLain: connecting portions of 34 opposite 31) of the powerhead (McLain: 31).
Regarding Claim 18, McLain discloses the outdoor tool of claim 1, wherein the complementary connector (McLain: connecting portions of 34 opposite 31) of the powerhead (McLain: 31) is configured to interchangeably receive the tool unit and at least one second tool unit (McLain: 9 or 22), the second tool unit selected from the group consisting of a string trimmer, a pole saw, a hedge trimmer, an edger, a brush cutter, a blower, a broom, and a brush (McLain: Paragraph [0020]).
Regarding Claim 19, McLain discloses an outdoor tool comprising:
A shaft (McLain: 36, 48), a handle (McLain: grip of 31) at an end of the shaft (McLain: 36, 48), a tool (McLain: 9, 22) at an opposite end of the shaft (McLain: 36, 48), the tool comprising at least two elements pivotally coupled together (chucked connector comprises at least two gripping elements), and an actuator (motor) disposed proximate to the handle (grip of 31), wherein actuation of the actuator in a first direction causes the at least two elements to pivot closer together, and actuation of the actuator in a second direction opposite the first direction causes the at least two elements to pivot away from each other (McLain: Paragraph [0025]: connection is reversible);
Wherein the tool is adapted for removing vegetation from the ground and/or for grasping and placing vegetation into the ground.
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 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLain in view of Basek (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0037765).
Regarding Claim 8, McLain discloses the outdoor tool of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the tool unit has a maximum length in a range from about 24 inches to 48 inches.
Basek discloses an adjustable gardening tool wherein the tool unit has a maximum length in a range from about 24 inches to 48 inches (Basek: Paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s filing to have utilized the tool length of Basek in the invention of McLain with the reasonable and well known effect of providing a tool that is adjustable optimal for an operator using the tool while standing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The use of language specifying that the two legs of the support structure are configured to be in contact with the support surface, specifically: “wherein the support assembly comprises a pair of legs configured to contact the support surface”, when combined with the other limitations of claim 5, is sufficient to distinguish the applicant’s invention from prior art and obvious variations thereof.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1 the applicant argues that McLain fails to disclose the powerhead, user control member and shaft extending along a longitudinal axis as required.
The examiner respectfully submits that while the user control member, while a portion of the user control member is perpendicular to an axis extending through both the shaft and powerhead, element 34, which may be considered an element of the control mechanism of the device, extends about a longitudinal axis that also extends through the shaft and powerhead.
Regarding claim 19, the applicant argues that McLain fails to disclose two elements pivotally coupled together and fails to disclose how the two elements are actuated to cause the at least two elements to pivot closer together.
The examiner respectfully submits that, as a chucked connector, an operator holding the chucked connector in one hand, while activating the motor (in a first direction or reverse) would cause the gripping elements of the chucked connection to both pivot about a central axis and to move toward the central axis (together) or away from it (apart), and as such, meets the limitations as they are currently presented.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS S WOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-5954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 8:30 AM - 7:00 PM 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 A 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.
DOUGLAS S. WOOD
Examiner
Art Unit 3672
/DOUGLAS S WOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3672
/Nicole Coy/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights