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 Status
This Office action is in response to the amendments filed of 6/25/2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1, 8, and 14 have been amended.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maniwa (US 2009/0241351 A1) in view of Heston (US 2018/0123500 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Maniwa discloses pruning shears (Fig. 1), comprising: a housing comprising a motor portion (the outer cover of 4 – Fig. 1) and a handle portion (9 – Fig. 1); a motor (the portion of 4 not including the outer cover of 4 – Fig. 1) disposed within the motor portion of the housing (see Fig. 1); a motor control unit (15 – Fig. 3) operably coupled to the motor (para. 0037); and a trigger assembly (the assembly of 1 and 12 – Fig. 1) disposed within the handle portion and operably coupled to the motor control unit to control the motor (para. 0035, lines 3-7 and para. 0036), wherein the trigger assembly comprises a trigger (1 – Fig. 1) and a primary trigger movement detector (12 – Fig. 1), wherein the primary movement trigger detector senses movement of the trigger when the trigger is pressed and sends a signal to the motor control unit to control operation of the motor (para. 0036).
However, Maniwa does not disclose a redundant trigger movement detector.
Heston teaches a tool (100 – Fig. 1) comprising a trigger assembly (the assembly of 118 – Fig. 1 and 204 – Fig. 2), wherein the trigger assembly comprises a trigger (118 – Fig. 1), a primary trigger movement detector (a first of 204 – Fig. 2; para. 0031), and a redundant trigger movement detector (a second of 204 – Fig. 2; para. 0031), wherein the primary trigger movement detector and the redundant trigger movement detector each sense movement of the trigger when the trigger is pressed and send signals to a motor control unit (108 – Fig. 1) to control operation of the motor (para. 0031). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Heston, would have recognized that the redundant trigger movement detector provides a backup in case the primary trigger movement detector fails.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the pruning shears of Maniwa to include a redundant movement trigger detector as taught by Heston in order to provide a backup in case the primary movement trigger detector fails.
Maniwa, as modified by Heston, further teaches:
Claim 2, the primary trigger movement detector (12 – Fig. 1, Maniwa) comprises a trigger potentiometer coupled to the trigger (para. 0036, Maniwa).
Claim 3, the trigger potentiometer transmits a primary signal indicative of a distance that the trigger is pressed based on a movement of the trigger potentiometer (para. 0036, Maniwa).
Claim 4, the motor control unit sends a primary signal to the motor to set a speed of the motor based on the distance the trigger moves detected by the trigger potentiometer (para. 0035, lines 3-7 and para. 0036, Maniwa).
Claim 5, the redundant trigger movement detector (a second of 204 – Fig. 2, Heston) comprises a magnet disposed on the trigger and a trigger hall board adjacent the trigger to sense movement of the magnet (para. 0031 of Heston teaches that the redundant trigger movement detector is a Hall effect sensor; a Hall effect sensor has a magnet and a trigger hall board).
Claim 6, the trigger hall board transmits a redundant signal indicative of a distance that the trigger is pressed based on movement of the magnet sensed by the trigger hall board (para. 0031, Heston; as noted above, Heston teaches that the redundant trigger movement detector is a Hall effect sensor; a Hall effect sensor works by using a trigger hall board to sense the displacement of a magnet).
Claim 7, the motor control unit sends a redundant signal to the motor to set a speed of the motor based on the distance that the trigger moves detected by the trigger hall board (para. 0031, Heston).
Claim 8, a method of operating pruning shears, the method comprising: receiving a primary signal from a primary trigger movement detector (12 – Fig. 1 and para. 0036, Maniwa); receiving a redundant signal from a redundant trigger movement detector (a second of 204 – Fig. 2 and para. 0031, Heston); determining a noise associated with the primary signal, the redundant signal, or a combination thereof (para. 0031, Heston; a voltage out of the normal range is interpreted to be noise); and at least partially based on the noise, preventing operation of a motor (para. 0031, Heston; note that disabling output from the trigger prevents operation of the motor).
Claims 9-14 recite materially the same subject matter as above and are rejected based on the same reasoning.
Claim 15, the motor control unit is further operable to selectively threshold the at least one trigger hall sensor voltage signal (para. 0031, Heston; note that a voltage being out of range requires a threshold).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 16, the limitation “the motor control unit is further operable to convert the at least one trigger potentiometer voltage signal to at least one estimated hall voltage signal value” is not taught by the combination of Maniwa and Heston which merely teaches a signal from a potentiometer and a signal from a Hall effect sensor. There is no teaching that the signal from the potentiometer is converted to a hall voltage signal value. Furthermore, although such a conversion is not technically difficult, there is no known teaching in a tool of using a potentiometer as a primary sensor, a Hall effect sensor as a secondary sensor, and converting the signal from the potentiometer to a hall voltage signal value.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that the asserted modification results in redundancy with no advantage provided based on the cited references. It would make no sense to combine Heston into the device of Maniwa as Maniwa already provides control of the device through use of a potentiometer and another detector would be unnecessary. To support this position, applicant supplies many citations of case law.
In response it is noted that applicant’s arguments appear to rest on the assertion that modifying Maniwa to comprise another detector would be unnecessary. It seems that applicant is really arguing that such a modification would provide no benefit (since in principle any improvement could be considered unnecessary). However, as noted above in the rejection of claim 1, there is a clear benefit to adding a redundant sensor, it would improve the reliability of the pruning shears by providing a backup in case the primary movement detector fails. Therefore, applicant’s argument is found to be not persuasive.
Further regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Heston is misapplied to Maniwa because Heston teaches separate buttons that separately control the direction of a motor with the sensors 204 associated with a specific button as shown in Fig. 2. Furthermore, as taught by Heston, such buttons would not be integrated in Maniwa because it would make Maniwa difficult to use with no benefit.
In response, it appears that applicant is basing the argument on Fig. 2. However, Fig. 2 is not being used to provide this teaching. It is cited simply for convenience to show that the sensors are present but the rejection is based on the teaching of para. 0031 which notes that the position of a trigger is detected by the sensors. It doesn’t disclose any detectors being associated with a button. The teaching in Fig. 2 is simply one example implementation. Therefore, applicant’s argument is found to be not persuasive.
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 THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7012. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9:00-5:00.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
7/6/2026
Prosecution Insights