Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/704,165

HEAD FOR BRUSH CUTTERS

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Apr 24, 2024
Examiner
DONG, LIANG
Art Unit
3724
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Tecomec S R L
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
52%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 52% of resolved cases
52%
Career Allow Rate
250 granted / 480 resolved
-17.9% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+32.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
68 currently pending
Career history
548
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
51.6%
+11.6% vs TC avg
§102
21.0%
-19.0% vs TC avg
§112
25.4%
-14.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 480 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18704165, filed on 4/24/2024. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/24/2024 was filed on the filing date of the application on 4/24/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “plurality of elastic elements” in claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 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. Claim Objections Claims 4-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 4, “said element” and “the element” should be “the at least one elastic element” to keep terms consistent. Same issues for claims 6-7. “regarding claim 5, “has a first portion” should be “has the first portion” to avoid lack of antecedent bases issues. Appropriate correction is required. 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 limitation(s) is/are: “elastic means” as recited in claim 1 (first, “means” is a generic placeholder; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “elastic”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “elastic” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the means) “elastic” as recited in claim 1 (first, “element” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “elastic”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “elastic” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the element) 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. 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 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. Claim 11 is 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. Regarding claim 11, it is unclear if “a plurality of elastic elements” is part of “at least one elastic element” or an additional elastic element. 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, 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprungman (US 20150342116 A1) in view of Dai (US 20210321560 A1). Regarding claim 1, Sprungman teaches a head for brush cutters, rotatable about an axis, of the type comprising: - a first shell (208, see Figure 3) having a first peripheral portion and a first central portion, the latter being peripheral crossed and/or connected to a hollow shaft (236) engageable with a drive shaft (203), of the brush cutter, to impart a rotation of the head about the axis; said first peripheral portion defining a first concave shape and said hollow shaft extending inside the first concave shape, away from the first peripheral portion (see Figure 3); - a second shell (216, see Figure 3), couplable to the first shell, having a second peripheral portion and a second open central portion; said second peripheral portion defining a second concave shape, with concavity facing the first shell, and defining by coupling with the first portion an inner compartment; said second concave shape having concavity facing the second shell (see Figure 3); - a pair of eyelets (204), placed at the second peripheral portion or at the first peripheral portion, adapted to allow to load cutting wire inside the inner compartment and to facilitate the dispensing, outside the inner compartment, of cutting wire segments during the use of the head (see Figure 3); - a spool (210), for accumulating cutting wire (110), placed inside the compartment and movable between a first position, in which the spool is rotationally coupled to the first and the second shell so as to rotate integral therewith maintaining a prefixed length of wire segments outside the pair of eyelets, to a second position, in which the spool is rotationally decoupled from the first and the second shell so as to rotate independently with respect thereto feeding a prefixed length of wire segments outside the pair of eyelets (see Figure 3); said spool having therein a hub (center hub of 210, see Figure 2B) axially coupled to the hollow shaft and slidingly movable thereon during the movement of the spool from the first position to the second position and vice versa (See Figure 2); - a knob (218) coupled to the spool and protruding outside the second central opening portion so as to impart, when bumped against a surface, the movement of the spool from the first position to the second position allowing the spool to dispense wire segments outside the pair of eyelets (paragraph 0055 and 0059); - an elastic means (212) active on the spool adapted to maintain the spool in the first position or adapted to return the spool to the first position by counteracting the action imparted by the knob (see Figure 3); Sprungman fails to teach wherein the head comprises at least one elastic element, coupled to the hub and to the hollow shaft so as to provide at least a first portion in contact with the hub, adapted to absorb part of the vibrations generated during the rotation of the head about the rotation axis. Dai teaches a trimmer including at least one elastic element (110g), coupled to the hub and to the hollow shaft so as to provide at least a first portion in contact with the hub (as it contact the middle portion, see Figure 5), adapted to absorb part of the vibrations generated during the rotation of the head about the rotation axis (paragraph 0063). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Sprungman to add at least one elastic element, as taught by Dai, in order to absorb shock in the system (paragraph 0063 of Dai). Regarding claim 2, modified Sprungman further teaches said hollow shaft has an inner cylindrical portion and an outer cylindrical portion each terminating at a head surface, placed in an opposite position with respect to the first central portion of the first shell (see Figure 2A of Sprungman). Regarding claim 3, modified Sprungman further teaches said hollow shaft is coupled with clearance inside the hub (see Figure 2A of Sprungman). Regarding claim 4, modified Sprungman further teaches said elastic element has a circular shape in section (as modified by Dai, see Figure 3 of Dai). Regarding claim 5, modified Sprungman further teaches said elastic element has a first portion, located outside the element, in contact with the hub and a second portion (at least in contact with the upper portion of the hub, see Figure 2A of Sprungman and Figure 3 of Dai), located inside the element, abutting the hollow shaft (at least the portion of the hollow shaft that is with the upper shell, see Figure 2A of Sprungman and Figure 3 of Dai). Regarding claim 6, modified Sprungman further teaches said elastic element is ring shaped (as modified by Dai, see Figure 3 of Dai). Regarding claim 7, modified Sprungman further teaches said hollow shaft further has a groove, obtained on the outer cylindrical portion and defined by an annular recess to accommodate the elastic element (as modified by Dai, see Figure 3 of Dai). Regarding claim 8, modified Sprungman further teaches said second portion is in contact with the bottom of the groove obtained on the outer cylindrical portion (as modified by Dai, see Figure 3 of Dai). Regarding claim 9, modified Sprungman further teaches said hollow shaft is coupled to a bushing having a tubular stretch, coupled to the inner cylindrical portion of the hollow shaft, a section enlargement defining, together with the head surface, a groove for accommodating the elastic element (as modified by Dai, see Figure 3 of Dai and see Figure 2A of Sprungman). Regarding claim 10, modified Sprungman further teaches said second portion is in contact with the tubular stretch of the bushing (as modified by Dai, see Figure 3 of Dai). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 11, modified Sprungman further teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 1 stated above. Modified Sprungman fails to teach the head comprises a plurality of elastic elements, each coupled to the hub and to the hollow shaft so as to provide a plurality of respective first portions in contact with the hub, adapted to absorb part of the vibrations generated during the rotation of the head about the rotation axis. Examiner note there appeal to be no obvious reason for the device of modified Sprungman to add additional elastic elements on top of what is claimed in claim 1. Therefore claim 11 appear to be allowable if the 112b rejection is overcome. Claims 12-17 are 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. Regarding claim 12, modified Sprungman teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 1 stated above. Modified Sprungman fails to teach said elastic element, defined by a flanged body, has an upper extension from the first portion, extending away from the first portion, defining a shoulder therewith. Furthermore, no additional prior art could be found to teach the claimed limitations either alone nor in combination to further modify the device of Sprungman and Dai. Thus claim 12 is allowable, claims 13-17 are allowable by virtue of its dependency on claim 12. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 PM. 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, Ashley Boyer can be reached at 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. /LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 2/26/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 24, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600053
CUTTING TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600048
AUTOMATICALLY RETRACTING SCRAPER WITH BLADE STOP
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589513
MACHINE FOR CUTTING DECORATIONS FOR FRUSTOCONICAL BODIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589522
FLOOR CUTTING MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12563996
HOLDING DEVICE FOR AN ASSEMBLY THAT IS TO BE FRACTURED
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
52%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+32.2%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 480 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month