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 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/737,154 (Pub. No: US 20240316747 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is obvious that the narrower apparatus of (amended) claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/737,154 (Pub. No: US 20240316747 A1) covers the broader apparatus (amended) claims 1 and 11 of the instant application, wherein “a detent recess” and “a detent projection” of claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/737,154 (Pub. No: US 20240316747 A1) covers “a mechanical detent connector” of claims 1 and 11 of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 2-10 and 12-13 are provisionally rejected under the nonstatutory double patenting rejections, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claims.
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
safety button and switching lever of amended claims 10 and 12
plug-in pin of claims 9 and 11
guide of claim 9
must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. 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
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 lines 1-4 “wherein extension tube” should be –wherein the extension tube--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rickard et al. (US 5802724 A) in view of Izatt et al. (US 20060207235 A1), provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 8/4/2026 and 10/2/2026 respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Rickard discloses a processing device (10, Fig. 2) comprising:
a handling device comprising;
a handle portion (18),
a connecting portion (20/74), and
an extension tube (16) connected between the handle portion and the connecting portion (Fig. 15, col. 3 lines 21-25), wherein the connecting portion is in a form of a socket (58) that comprises electrical contacts (28, 60 in Fig. 1 or 104, 106, 110, 112 in Fig. 7) and a mechanical detent connector (56);
an electrical power supply comprising at least one rechargeable battery located within a housing (14) (col. 5 lines 5-10) and connected to the electrical contacts in the socket of the connecting portion (col. 3 lines 28-32); and
a tool (tool 12 includes interchangeable work tools 66, 76, 84, 90) detachably connected to the connecting portion of the handling device (Figs. 2-6, col. 4 lines 21-23), wherein the tool is inserted into the socket of the connecting portion and being locked in the socket by the mechanical detent connector (col. 3 line 66 – col. 4 line 2 detent 52 is adapted to cooperate with mechanical detent connector 56 in order to secure the attachment with respect to socket 20).
Rickard teaches wherein the rechargeable battery is located within the housing (14) instead of within the extension tube (16).
Izatt discloses a similar battery powered tool (10) comprising an extension tube (24) connected to a handle portion (17) at one end and a work tool (12) at an opposite end, wherein rechargeable batteries (15) are located within the extension tube for supplying power to the work tool (Fig. 2 or 8B, para. [0030] “batteries 15, affixed to housing 24 inside or otherwise…Batteries 15 may also be a rechargeable type”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery arrangement of Rickard after that of Izatt, wherein the rechargeable batteries are disposed within the extension tube, as a mere simple substitution of one known power supply arrangement for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Rickard in view of Izatt discloses the processing device according to claim 1. Rickard further teaches wherein the tool is an electrical tool (Figs. 2-6 tool 12 includes interchangeable electric work tools 66, 76, 84, 90), and
wherein, when the electrical tool is inserted into the socket (58) of the connecting portion of the handling device, the electrical tool is in contact with the electrical contacts in the socket (Fig. 7, col. 5 lines 13-19 “extension plugs 110 include female contact channels 112 therein adapted for cooperation with the contact prongs 106”) and locked inside the socket by the mechanical detent connector (56) (col. 3 line 66 – col. 4 line 2 detent 52 adapted to cooperate with mechanical detent connector 56 in order to secure the attachment with respect to connecting portion 20).
Regarding claim 3, Rickard in view of Izatt discloses the processing device according to claim 1. Rickard further teaches wherein the extension tube (16) is extendable (via extension 72) to extend or shorten a distance between the handle portion (18) and the connecting portion (Fig. 3, col. 4 lines 36-47 when extension 72 is attached to extension tube 16 to extend the length of the tool, connector 74 acts as the connecting portion and is adapted to receive and support any of the attachments in the same manner as disclosed for connector 20).
Regarding claim 4, Rickard in view of Izatt discloses the processing device according to claim 1. Rickard further teaches wherein the tool (12) is a non-electrical tool (Note that while tools shown in Figs. 2-6 each appear to be capable of using electrical power, "non-electrical" is a broad term not defined within the body of the claim, therefore a "non-electrical tool" has been interpreted under BRI to encompass any tool that has utility when operated non-electrically, e.g. the pruner/saw of Fig. 5 can be manually moved back and forth by a user).
Regarding claim 6, Rickard in view of Izatt discloses the processing device according to claim 1. Rickard further teaches wherein the extension tube (16) is detachable from the connecting portion (20) (see attachment screws 38 in Fig. 1) and the handle portion (18) (see handle attachment mechanism in Fig. 15-16, note the BRI of “detachable” is capable of being removed. Thus, the handle 18 of Rickard is inherently able to be removed at least during manufacturing, servicing, and/or disassembly of the device).
Regarding claim 9, Rickard in view of Izatt discloses the processing device according to claim 1. Rickard further teaches wherein the tool includes a plug-in pin (pin-shaped insertion member 48), and
wherein the socket (58) of the connecting portion of the handling device further includes a guide in a form of a sleeve (Fig. 1, see inner surfaces 40, 44 of socket 58) which guides the plug-in pin of the tool when the plug-in pin of the tool is inserted into the socket of the connecting portion (Fig. 1, col. 3 line 60–col. 4 line 11 pin-shaped member 48 of tool 12 is plugged into socket 58 and guided by inner walls 40, 44 thereof).
Regarding claim 11, Rickard discloses a handling device comprising:
a handle portion (18);
an extension tube (16) having a first end and a second end;
a connecting portion (20/74) and having one end attached to the second end of the extension tube (col. 3 lines 21-25), and another end to be removably attached to a tool (12) (Fig. 2); and
an electrical power supply comprising at least one rechargeable battery located within a housing (14) (col. 5 lines 5-10),
wherein the other end of the connecting portion is in a form of a socket (58) that comprises electrical contacts (104, 106, 110, 112 in Fig. 7) and a mechanical detent connector (56) for receiving a plug-in pin (i.e. receives locating pin 52 of plug-in pin 48) of the tool and locking the plug-in pin of the electrical tool inside the socket (col. 3 line 60 – col. 4 line 2 locating pin 52 of plug-in pin 48 is received in mechanical detent connector 56 of the socket to secure the tool 12 with respect to connecting portion 20).
Rickard fails to teach wherein the handle is attached at the first end of the extension tube and wherein the rechargeable battery is located within the extension tube.
Izatt discloses a similar battery powered tool (10) comprising an extension tube (24) connected to a handle portion (17) at a first end and a work tool (12) at a second end, wherein rechargeable batteries (15) are located within the extension tube for supplying power to the work tool (Fig. 2 or 8B, para. [0030] “batteries 15, affixed to housing 24 inside or otherwise…Batteries 15 may also be a rechargeable type”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery and handle arrangement of Rickard after that of Izatt, wherein the rechargeable batteries are disposed within the extension tube with the handle disposed at a first end thereof, as a mere simple substitution of one known power supply and gripping arrangement for another in a similar device to yield predictable results.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rickard in view of Izatt as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Owings et al. (US 3952239 A), provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 8/4/2026.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, Rickard in view of Izatt discloses the processing device according to claims 1 and 11.
Izatt further teaches wherein the handle portion includes a switching lever (16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the handle portion of Rickard after that of Izatt, wherein the handle portion includes a switching lever, in order to control powering on/off of the power tool.
Rickard and Izatt fail to disclose wherein the handle portion also comprises a safety button.
In the same area, Owings discloses a modular power handle (212) configured to be detachably secured to plurality of different tool heads, wherein the handle comprises a switching lever (216) and a safety button (266) (Fig. 17-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a similar safety button in the combination of Rickard and Izatt, as taught by Owings, in order to prevent accidental actuation of the switch by the operator and thus avoid injury caused by inadvertent activation of the work tool (Owings at col. 4 lines 18-36 and col. 8 lines 31-37).
Claims 7-8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combinations of Rickard as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Bak (KR 101965344 B1).
It is noted that all citations to Bak (KR 101965344 B1) are in reference to the corresponding English-translated document attached by the Examiner under NPL documents.
Regarding claim 7, Rickard in view of Izatt discloses the processing device according to claim 1, but fails to teach a control unit arranged within the extension tube for controlling the tool.
In the same area of electric garden tools, Bak discloses a similar processing device comprising a control unit (25) installed inside the body of extension tube (17) for controlling operation of a rotary cutting head (2) (Fig. 7, para. [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a similar controller in the elongated tube of Rickard, as taught by Bak, in order to allow the user to control speed and activation of the tool head as desired (Bak at para. [0022]).
Regarding claim 8, Rickard in view of Izatt and Bak discloses the processing device according to claim 7, wherein the control unit includes one end in contact with the at least one rechargeable battery and another end connected to a wire that is connected to the electrical contacts in the socket of the connecting portion (implicit from combination, Bak’s controller 25 comprises wires 26 at an upper end thereof such that controller is operatively in contact with the power supply, and Rickard discloses wires 32 extending downward for connection to the electrical contacts as seen in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 8. Therefore, claim 13 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 8.
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.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-13, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, these arguments are moot given the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Luo et al. (CN 112154800 A) disclose a chain saw having a telescoping extension tube and controller disposed within the extension tube.
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 JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Christopher Sebesta, can be reached on (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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
