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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12029160. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because no new inventive structure or function is presented in the claims over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12029160.
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 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nannen (USPN 5906051).
Regarding claim 1, Nannen discloses a handheld trimmer (Figure 1) comprising: a trimmer shaft (16); a motor (automatic drive means that drives shaft 16) attached to the trimmer shaft; a rotating head assembly (Figure 1) including a rotating head (indicator 18) coupled with the motor (via assembly shaft 16) and attached to the trimmer shaft; and a glider assembly (indicator 50) connected to the rotating head assembly, the glider assembly including: a glider shaft (42/44) coupled at one end with the rotating head assembly (shaft 42/44 is directly coupled to the rotating head), a main glider plate (indicator 76) connected to an opposite end of the glider shaft (towards the end portion 44), the main glider plate being part-spherical or saucer shaped (Figure 1 shows a spherical shape) and including a concave side (inside) and a convex side (outside), and a bearing (84) acting between the main glider plate and the glider shaft (seen in figure 1), wherein the bearing is structured and co-operable with the main glider plate such that the main glider plate is free spinning and disconnected from influence by the rotating head at all times.
Regarding claim 2, Nannen discloses wherein the rotating head assembly is independent of the glider assembly (They are not rotationally fixed making them independent), wherein the main glider plate (indicator 76) is spaced from the rotating head assembly by the glider shaft (as seen in figure 1), and wherein ends of the glider shaft extend into and terminate adjacent the rotating head assembly and adjacent the glider plate, respectively (The ends of the glider shaft extend into and are attached as claimed).
Regarding claim 3, Nannen discloses wherein the main glider plate is configured to support a weight of the handheld trimmer during operation of the handheld trimmer (Resting the glider plate on the ground would support a weight).
Regarding claim 4, Nannen discloses wherein the main glider plate is selectively positionable relative to the rotating head assembly to adjust a cutting height of the cutting line (Column 5 lines 14-19).
Regarding claim 5, Nannen discloses wherein the cutting line comprises molded or shaped cutting line (Cord shaped line 24).
Regarding claim 8, Nannen discloses glider assembly for a handheld trimmer including a rotating head (18) that supports a cutting line (24), the glider assembly comprising: a glider shaft (42/44) coupleable at one end with the rotating head (top portion of shaft 42); a glider plate (indicator 76) connected to an opposite end of the glider shaft (connected to portion 44), the glider plate being part-spherical or saucer shaped (Figure 1 shows a spherical shape) and including a concave side (inside non-ground contacting) and a convex side (outside ground contacting), wherein the glider plate includes an integrated bearing channel (80) adjacent the concave side (seen in figure 1); and a bearing (84) secured in the bearing channel and acting between the glider plate and the glider shaft.
Regarding claim 9, Nannen discloses wherein the bearing channel includes shoulders, and wherein the bearing is supported on the shoulders of the bearing channel (shoulders 86).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Satoh (USPN 4254550).
Regarding claim 8, Satoh discloses glider assembly for a handheld trimmer including a rotating head (18) that supports a cutting line (26), the glider assembly comprising: a glider shaft (32) coupleable at one end with the rotating head (threaded connection to head member 14); a glider plate (38) connected to an opposite end of the glider shaft (connected to non-threaded portion), the glider plate being part-spherical or saucer shaped (plate 38 is a flat round saucer shape with curved edges) and including a concave side (inside non-ground contacting) and a convex side (outside ground contacting), wherein the glider plate includes an integrated bearing channel (formed together by casing member 42 and plate 38) adjacent the concave side; and a bearing (40) secured in the bearing channel and acting between the glider plate and the glider shaft.
Regarding claim 9, Satoh discloses wherein the bearing channel includes shoulders, and wherein the bearing is supported on the shoulders of the bearing channel (The top and bottom outer edges of the bearing are held in place by shoulders formed by member 42 and plate 38 as seen in figure 2).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scott (USPN 6971223).
Regarding claim 8, Scott discloses a glider assembly (107) for a handheld trimmer (100 figure 1, handheld at handles 102) including a rotating head (spindle 200 figure 2) that supports a cutting line (108), the glider assembly comprising: a glider shaft (figure 3 shaft 201) coupleable at one end with the rotating head (internal end within head); a glider plate connected to an opposite end of the glider shaft (outer bottom end), the glider plate being part-spherical or saucer shaped (figure 3 shows a spherical shape) and including a concave side (inside) and a convex side (outside), wherein the glider plate includes an integrated bearing channel (opening that holds bearing 313) adjacent the concave side; and a bearing (313) secured in the bearing channel and acting between the glider plate and the glider shaft.
Regarding claim 9, Scott discloses wherein the bearing channel includes shoulders, and wherein the bearing is supported on the shoulders of the bearing channel (bottom shoulders that holds bearing 313 from passing through).
Regarding claim 10, Scott discloses wherein the bearing channel defines a central opening (hole which bolt 318 passes through) in the glider plate and a recess in the convex side of the glider plate (recess holds bearing 313), the glider assembly further comprising a threaded connector (318) threaded through the bearing into the glider shaft (as shown in figure 3), wherein a proximal end of the threaded connector is at least partially positioned with the recess (as seen in figure 3).
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nannen (USPN 5906051) in view of (US 2011/0232436).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Nannen is lacking a 1HP or less motor and lines that are molded aerodynamically to allow for low power cutting.
Morabit discloses a string trimmer with molded lines and a 1HP or less battery (64) powered motor (Abstract, ¶0025, 0029. Figure 29 shows low horsepower motor)
discloses wherein the cutting line comprises molded or shaped cutting line (Cord shaped line 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nannen by utilizing molded blades and a low horse power battery operated motors as taught by Morabit for the purpose of providing efficient cutting power to a trimmer while maintaining efficient low power requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Brandon (USPN 6666009)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J BEHRENS whose telephone number is (303)297-4336. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-2pm MST.
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, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at (571) 272-8971. 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.
/ADAM J BEHRENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights