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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (figs. 1-6, claims 1-9, 15-16, and 21-25) in the reply filed on 10/22/2025 is acknowledged. However, elected claims 7-9 are not directed to the embodiments of Species I. Thus, claims 7-9 (directed to Species IV, figs. 11-16) have been withdrawn from consideration as well. Claims 1-6, 15-16, and 21-25 will be fully examined.
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.
Claims 1-6, 15-16, and 21-25 are 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: at least an additional lower handle portion and an additional upper handle portion, incorporating with vibration isolating joints and a handlebar, to define a complete, operable “handle for a construction tool”. As best understood from the disclosure, the handle for a construction tool has two mirrored portions symmetrically located on the left and right sides of the handle (e.g., fig. 3, a horizontal bisecting line as a mirroring center). However, the invention as claimed merely depicts one of the mirrored portions. Without the presence of a complete handle, claim 1 renders the scope of the claim confusing and raises uncertainty of operability. Note similar issues in claim 21.
In claim 4, lines 1-3, “a vibration damping mechanism disposed between the upper handle portion…or the handlebar” is confusing in light of claim 1. First, claim 2 contradicts with claim 1 where “a vibration isolating joint” is positioned between the handlebar and the upper handle portion. It is not clear, in claim 2, exactly how a vibration damping mechanism also can be disposed between the upper handle portion and the handlebar. Second, it is not clear exactly what is defined as “the handlebar”, structurally and geometrically, such that both the vibrating damping mechanism and the vibration isolating joint can be disposed between the upper handle portion and the handlebar.
In claim 6, line 3, it is not clear exactly that “a vibration transmission pathway” is referring to had how this pathway is related to any element in the handle.
In claim 16, line 1, “the first handlebar” lacks antecedent basis. Note that the “first handlebar” is first mentioned in claim 10. Apparently, claim 16 should depend from any one of claims 10-14, not claim 1. In the present condition, claim 16 will not be further treated on the merits.
Note that other claims, depending from the rejected claims, are also considered vague and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 2, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Togami et al. ‘130 (US 2006/0272130 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Togami et al. shows a handle for a construction tool, including a lower handle (fig. 2, the lower portion connected to compactor 3) configured to be coupled to the construction tool; an upper portion (the upper portion connected to handle 2) coupled to the lower handle portion; a handlebar (2) coupled to the upper handle portion, the handlebar configured to be grasped by a user during operation of the construction tool; and a vibration isolating joint (5) positioned between the handlebar and the upper handle portion, wherein the vibration isolating joint isolates the handlebar from vibration transmitted to the upper handle portion from the construction tool, and wherein the vibration isolating joint provides a first degree of freedom (rotation B and C about axis A, figs. 1 and 3) to the handlebar relative to the upper handle portion and a different, second degree of freedom (movement of handlebar in direction of axis A causing compression of stopper rubber 10) to the handlebar relative to the upper handle portion.
As to claim 2, the first degree of freedom is rotation, and the second degree of freedom is translation (along axis A, fig. 1).
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Togami et al. ‘130 in view of Holl ‘064 (5,735,064).
Togami et al. discloses the invention as claimed but for the upper handle portion being pivotable relative to the lower handle portion. Holl teaches a similar handle having a hinge (42) between the upper portion (32) and the lower portion (34) for folding the handle in a storage position. 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 of Togami et al. with a hinge between the upper portion and the lower portion, as taught by Holl, so that the handle can be folded against the machine for storage purpose.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 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.
Claims 21-25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Related prior art:
4,071,922 (Davies, III et al.) shows a folding handle having a hinge between and upper portion and a lower portion, and the handle can be adjusted into a position to interrupt the control connection of the clutch of the machine.
US 2008/0121065 A1 (Yanai et al.) shows a work machine, including a handle assembly having a primary handle pivotally mounted on an upper portion of the handle and a secondary handle pivotally mounted on the primary handle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUCK MAH whose telephone number is (571)272-7059. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00.
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, Jason San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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.
/CHUCK Y MAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677 CM
January 7, 2026