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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “a mechanism (Para 0031)” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 1 (line 3), the phrase should recite “a base end” to properly introduce the term into the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 1 (line 5), the phrase should recite “a head end” to properly introduce the term into the claim limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a switch operating mechanism configured to operate the detection switch
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2-3 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.
The limitation of claim 2 to “the switch operating mechanism configured to operate the detection switch” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure sets forth the operating member (4F) and a mechanism to rotate the operating member (4F) together with the movable gearcase constitute the switch operating mechanism (Pg. 10, Para 0031). While the specification sets forth the structures which perform the function, it appears that the claimed structure does not perform the entire function of the claim. There is no structure assisted with the phrase “operating member” and there are no details to “a mechanism” to rotate the operating member. Pg. 10, Para 0032, then proceeds to state “The combination of the detection switch and the switch operating mechanism is not limited to the example described above (in Para 0031)” which is further indefinite. It is unclear if the 112, sixth paragraph limitation is limited by the structure in Para 0031 or includes a broader interpretation as set forth in Para 0032. The claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “wherein the switch operation of the switching operating mechanism is performed by a member configured to rotate together with the working device or a part of the working device” is indefinite. The phrases “switch operation” and “is performed” impart steps and the preamble is directed to an apparatus.
It is suggested Applicant amend the claim to recite “the detection device is configured to operate when a member rotates with the working device or a part of the working device” or similar language.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 11,732,314 to Ito et al. in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20220161411 to Sugiura et al., and in further view of US Patent No. 9,955,627 to Nakano et al.
In re claim 1, Ito teaches an electric working machine with an operating rod comprising:
an electric motor (36) provided on the base end of the operating rod (10);
a working device (30) provided on the head end of the operating rod (10); and
a power transmission shaft passing through the inside of the operating rod and configured to transmit power from the electric motor to the working device (Col. 7, lines 54-59), wherein:
the working device (30) includes a blade member (32) and is pivotally supported on the head end of the operating rod (10) to be able to take a storage posture in which the blade member folds along the operating rod (as shown in at least Figure 11);
a detection switch (see Annotated Figure 1, below; as shown in at least Figure 12, 104a works in conjunction with a switch of the position sensor and third portion 68 to aid in detecting a store posture) is provided on the head end of the operating rod to detect the storage posture (Col. 12, lines 53-67, Col. 13, lines 1-15);
a controller (128) is provided on the base end of the operating rod (as shown in at least Figure 17) to control the operation of the electric motor;
a lead wire (136) is provided in the operating rod to transmit a detection signal from the detection switch to the controller (Col. 13, lines 2-15, Col. 14, lines 57-66).
Note, the working device merely has to be capable of being pivotally supported on the head of the operating rod and capable of being able to take a storage posture. The device of Ito is capable of performing these functions. Also, the detection switch merely has to be capable of detecting a storage posture. The device of Ito is capable of performing this function.
In re claim 2, as best understood, wherein the working device includes a switch operating mechanism (58) configured to operate the detection switch when the working device is rotated around a shaft (70) and folded within a preset angle range.
Note, while the limitation invokes 112, sixth paragraph, the specification states, the combination of the detection switch and switch operating mechanism is not limited to what is described in the specification and various switches or sensors may be used as the detection switch. It has been interpreted, Ito teaches a combination of detection switch and switch operating mechanism, which is permitted under other combinations can be used.
In re claim 3, as best understood, wherein the switch operation of the switch operating mechanism (is capable of being) performed by a member configured to rotate together with the working device (30).
In re claim 4, wherein the detection switch (104a) is a proximity sensor (Col. 12, lines 53-54), and switch operation for the switch operating mechanism (is capable of being) performed when the member rotating together with the working device (30) approaches the detection switch.
In claim 5, Ito the detection switch (see Annotated Figure 1, above) is (capable of being) attached to an outside of a fixed gearcase provided on the head end of the operating rod (10), and a connecting terminal (via battery 4) of the lead wire (136) is (capable of being) pulled out from the operating rod (10) to the detection switch (104a).
Note, Ito teaches the detection switch outputs a signal to the control circuit which allows actuation of the motor. This permits a communication from the sensor to power the motor (during rotation of the working head) or turn the motor off (when the rotating head has reached a fully bent position, as shown in Figure 11) based on the position of detection switch. Ito teaches power is disconnected from the operating rod (which stops movement of the blades) and connected to the detection switch (to recognize the orientation of the working head).
In re claim 6, wherein a cover member (14) as shown in at is provided on an outside of the head end of the operating rod to cover the detection switch (104a).
PNG
media_image1.png
401
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the event one may argue the configuration of the known power transmission mechanisms in hedge trimmers, Sugiura teaches a drive shaft passing along the inside of the operating rod connecting a power conversion mechanism (20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Ito with a drive shaft passing along the inside of the operating rods taught by Sugiura which is advantageous for maintaining a tool with increased versatility and safety by keeping the user away from the cutting action while maintaining control of the device.
Regarding claim 1, Ito teaches the device includes a controller, but does not teach the controller includes a processor configured to prevent the electric motor from being driven when the detection switch detects the storage posture of the working device.
Nakano teaches a device having a controller (201) including switches, circuitry, and a processor (211). The processor (211) controls the rotation of the motor based on the position of the rod in a retracted position (Col. 14, lines 60-67, Col. 15, lines 1-17).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the control unit of Ito with a processor as taught by Nakano which is advantageous for digital diagnostics leading to cleaner cuts while also maintaining enhanced safety.
In re claim 7, modified Ito teaches wherein: a plurality of detection switches are provided in addition to the detection switch (Col. 14, lines 57-60); and
the processor (211, Nakano, is capable of) permits the electric motor to drive when all detection switches detect safety.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent No. 11284568 teaches a rotating an electric working machine with a rotating working device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724