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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s 6-24-2026 Amendment was received. Claims 1-11 were amended. Claims 1-11 are pending and examined in this action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 6-24-2026 contains references directed to subject matter irrelevant to this application (a laptop). As such, these references were not considered.
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 “guide” of Claim 1 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 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 1-6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2006/0207235 to Izatt in view of US 5,802,724 to Rickard and US 3,952,239 to Owings.
In re Claim 1, Izatt teaches a handling device (see Figs. 1-2), comprising:
a handle portion (see Fig. 1-2, #17);
an extension tube (see Figs. 1-2, #24) containing at least one rechargeable battery within the extension tube (see Fig. 2, #15), wherein the extension tube includes a first end attached to the handle portion and a second end (see Figs. 1-2, showing the tube #24 between the handle and the cutting head).
Izatt does not teach:
a connecting portion attached to the second end of the extension tube, the connecting portion comprising a socket that comprises electrical contacts to be connected to one of a tool for operation of the tool or a charging coupling of a charger for charging the at least one rechargeable battery in the extension tube,
wherein the tool or the charging coupling of the charger comprises a plug-in pin having a detent recess, and
wherein the socket of the connecting portion further comprises a guide within the socket to receive the plug-in pin of the tool or the charging coupling and a detent projection to engage in the detent recess of the plug-in pin to cause the plug-in pin of the tool or the charging coupling to be locked inside the connecting portion.
However, Rickard teaches that it is known in the art of trimmers and hand tools to provide different attachment tools to a handle and a tube including:
a connecting portion attached to the second end of the extension tube (see Rickard, Figs. 2-8, #20/48), the connecting portion comprising a socket that comprises electrical contacts to be connected to one of a tool for operation of the tool (see Rickard, Fig. 7, #110/112 and 104/106),
wherein the tool comprises a plug-in pin having a detent recess (see Rickard, Fig. 1, outer surface of #60/50 is a pin shaped structure with a detent recess #54; see also Fig. 7), and
wherein the socket of the connecting portion further comprises a guide within the socket to receive the plug-in pin of the tool (see Rickard, Fig. 1, the inner surfaces of #20 which receive the pin shaped outer surfaces of #50/60; see also Fig. 7).
In the same field of invention, trimmers and hand held tools it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective fling date, to add the connection assembly of Fig. 8 of Rickard between the handle/ battery and the tool head of Izatt, as taught by Rickard Fig. 2. Doing so allows the user to utilize the different tools illustrated in Figs 4-6, whereby the user now has at least 4 tools as opposed to a single tool.
Modified Izatt does not teach charging the batteries through a tool connection. As such, modified Izatt does not teach a charging coupling of a charger for charging the at least one rechargeable battery in the extension tube or the charging coupling and a detent projection to engage in the detent recess of the plug-in pin to cause the plug-in pin of the tool or the charging coupling to be locked inside the connecting portion.
However, Owings teaches that it is known in the art of battery powered tools with detachable tool heads to charge the batteries through the tool head attachment structure (see Owings Fig. 6 in view of Fig. 1-4). In the same field of invention, battery powered tools with detachable heads, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to charge the batteries of Izatt through the detachable head connection on the handle assembly, as taught by Owings. Doing so allows the electrical components already on the tool to be used to charge the batteries. In other words, an additional electrical socket would not be needed, thereby saving cost and weight.
In re Claim 2, modified Izatt, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the handle portion comprises a switching lever for operating the tool when the tool is connected to the connecting portion (see Izatt, Figs. 1-2, #16).
In re Claim 3, modified Izatt, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the connecting portion further comprises a release button configured to be actuated to release the plug-in pin of the tool or the charging coupling from being locked inside the connecting portion (see Rickard, Fig. 1, #52).
In re Claim 4, modified Izatt, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the electrical contacts and the guide in the socket of the connecting portion are configured to be located inside the second end of the extension tube (see Izatt, Figs. 1-2, #24 in view of Fig. 7 of Rickard).
In re Claim 5, modified Izatt, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the electrical contacts in the socket of the connecting portion include electrical receptacles (see Rickard, Fig.7, #104/106), and wherein the tool or the charging coupling further comprises electrical plug-in contacts (see Rickard, Fig. 7, #110/112) to be inserted into the electrical receptacles in the socket of the connecting portion to establish an electrical connection with the connecting portion (see Rickard, Fig. 7, #104/106 and #110/112).
In re Claim 6, modified Izatt, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the electrical receptacles in the socket of the connecting portion are shorter than the guide in the socket of the connecting portion (see Rickard, Fig. 7, showing the length of #110/112 and #104/106 are shorter than the inner surfaces of #20).
In re Claim 10, modified Izatt, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the guide in the socket of the connecting portion is in a form of a sleeve (see Rickard, Fig. 7, showing the inner surface of #20 which is formed as a sleeve) that is configured to fittingly receive the plug-in pin of the tool or the charging coupling (see the outer surfaces of #50/60 in Rickard Fig. 1, in view of Rickard, Fig.7).
In re Claim 11, modified Izatt, in re Claim 1, wherein, when the tool is connected to the connecting portion, the at least one rechargeable battery in the extension tube is to provide a power supply to the tool (see Izatt, Figs. 1-2, #15 in view of Rickard, Figs. 2-8).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2006/0207235 to Izatt in view of US 5,802,724 to Rickard and US 3,952,239 to Owings, and further in view of 10,420,287 to Chou.
In re Claim 7, modified Izatt, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the extension tube is extendable to extend or shorten a distance between the handle portion and the connecting portion.
However, Chou teaches that it is known in the art of pole saws to provide an extension means in the form of a tube extension or shaft (see Figs. 1A-1B, #12/61). In the same field of invention, electrically powered saws on poles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add the pole extension structure between the trigger and the head of modified Izatt, as taught by Chou. Doing so would allow the user to use the tool and an extended position thus making the tool more usable.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2006/0207235 to Izatt in view of US 5,802,724 to Rickard and US 3,952,239 to Owings, and further in view of US 2008/0006015 to Itoh.
In re Claim 8, modified Izatt, in re Claim 1, does not teach the extension tube further contains a control unit within the extension tube for controlling the tool when the tool is connected to the connecting portion.
However, Itoh teaches that it is known in the art of trimmers to provide a controller in the extension tube for controlling the tool when the tool is connected to the connecting portion (see Itoh, Fig. 1, controller #41 is between tubes #11 and #10).
In the same field of invention, trimmers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to provide a controller in the extension tube of modified Izatt, as taught by Itoh. Doing so allows the device to have different motes (see Itoh, Para. 0061) as well as monitoring the voltage to ensure constant supply of power (see Itoh, Para. 0068-0069).
In re Claim 9, modified Izatt, in re Claim 8, teaches wherein the control unit is connected between the at least one rechargeable battery in the extension tube and the electrical contacts in the socket of the connecting portion (See Itoh, Fig. 2, showing #41 between # battery #7 and shaft #10).
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.
Claim 1-2, 4, and 7-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- of copending Application No. US 2024/0326228 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
In re Claim 1, as of 8/4/2026, US 2024/0326228, Ser. No. 18/737,109 claims
a handling device, comprising.
a handle portion (see US 2024/0326228, Clam 1, lines 1-3) ;
an extension tube (see Claim 1, “extension tube.”) containing at least one rechargeable battery within the extension tube (see Claim 1, “a least one rechargeable battery located within the extension tube”), wherein the extension tube includes a first end attached to the handle portion and a second end (see Claim 1, “extension tube connected between the handle and connecting portion”) and
a connecting portion attached to the second end of the extension tube (see Claim 1, “connecting portion”), the connecting portion comprising a socket that comprises electrical contacts to be connected to one of a tool for operation of the tool or a charging coupling of a charger for charging the at least one rechargeable battery in the extension tube (see Claim 1, “socket”),
wherein the tool or the charging coupling of the charger comprises a plug-in pin having a detent recess (see Claim 1 detent connector), and
wherein the socket of the connecting portion further comprises a guide within the socket to receive the plug-in pin of the tool or the charging coupling and a detent projection to engage in the detent recess of the plug-in pin to cause the plug-in pin of the tool or the charging coupling to be locked inside the connecting portion (the applicant is claiming the structure of a socket capable of receiving two separate but identical insertion structures – the claim of US 2024/0326228, Clam 1 reads on this).
Claim 2 of the instant application claims a switch. US 2024/0326228, Clam 1, as of 8/4/2026, claims this subject matter.
Claim 4 of the instant application claims the sockets inside the extension tube. US 2024/0326228, Clam 2, as of 8/4/2026, claims this subject matter.
Claim 7, claims an extendable tube that extends or shortens. US 2024/0326228, Clam 3, as of 8/4/2026, claims this subject matter.
Claim 8, claims a control unit in the extension tube. US 2024/0326228, Clam 7, as of 8/4/2026, claims this subject matter.
Claim 9, claims the electrical connection of the controller. US 2024/0326228, Clam 8, as of 8/4/2026, claims this subject matter.
Claim 10 claims the guide int eh form of a sleeve. US 2024/0326228, Clam 9, as of 8/4/2026, claims this subject matter.
Claim 11, claims the battery provided to power a power supply to the tool. This subject matter is found in Claim 1 of US 2024/0326228, as of 8/4/2026.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, Boyer Ashley 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights