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 group I, corresponding claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 7/17/2026 is acknowledged. Examiner notes that the non-elected group II, claims 9-18 have been amended to depend on Claim 1 and Claims 19-20 have been cancelled.
Since claims (1) 9-18 including the limitations have two-way distinction and a search burden compared to the elected Claims (1) 2-8 (for an example, Claim 2 requires “a flange” and Claim 9 requires “a counterweight” and see the restriction mailed on 05/26/2026), Claims 9-18 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03. If the independent claim is later determined to be allowable, claims properly dependent therefrom will be reconsidered and rejoined per MPEP 821.04).
Thus, Claims 1-8 are examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/22/2025, 01/01/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract, line 1 “String trimmers are provided” should be deleted since it is not necessary information to readers and the abstract should be 50 to 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification (28 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 7, line 1 “housing” should read –the housing--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 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 preamble of claim 1 “a string trimmer” is unclear because the claim body is written “a housing, a control board, an Isolator…” without a string trimmer head. A string trimmer is required to have at least a string trimmer head or a string cutter, which has not been claimed. Thus, it is unclear what scope to give this preamble.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muller et al (US 9004191 B2) hereinafter Muller.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Muller shows a “string trimmer” (see the issue above, a power tool, Figures 1-2, 8a-8d) comprising:
a housing (a housing of the tool);
a control board (13) including control circuitry (this is inherent limitation);
a frame (10) coupled to the control board; and
an isolator (13, Figure 2) disposed between the housing and the frame, wherein the frame is supported relative to the housing by the isolator, and
wherein the isolator comprises a shock absorbing material (Col. 2, lines 40-41 “a rubber or another elastic material”).
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, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 12653099) in in view of Thorson (US 2019/0193223) and Lienau (US 2023/0284374).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, this is a second interpretation, Zhu shows a string trimmer (Figure 1) comprising:
a working head (a cutting head 5) and an elongated element (6) extending between the working head and a housing (see two housing halves, Figure 3 ) that retains a control board (3) including control circuitry (this is inherent limitation);
a frame (see parts 31 and 33) coupled to the control board, however, Zhu fails to discuss an isolator disposed between the housing and the frame, wherein the frame is supported relative to the housing by the isolator, and wherein the isolator comprises a shock absorbing material.
Thorson shows an isolator (78, Figure 5) disposed between a housing (two housing halves 34A, 34B) and a frame (110A, 110B).
Lienau shows an isolator (555, Figure 5B) on a frame (550) that retains a control board (605), wherein the isolator is between a housing (104) and the frame (Para. 63 “ a separate assembly enclosure 550 that may be located in the housing of the power tool 104 in the same general location(s) as shown and described above with respect to the compartment 405”).
Based on the teachings above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the frame of Zhu to have an isolator, as taught by Lienau and Thorson, in order to provide a damping fashion to absorb vibrations (between the frame and the housing of the trimmer) and the control board can be protected and limited vibration during operation (Para. 64 of Lienau).
Regarding claims 2-3, the modified trimmer of Zhu shows that the frame comprises: a flange (see part where the reference “31” around the board, Zhu’s Figure 3) configured to be disposed around a perimeter of the control board; and a mounting portion (33) extending from the flange, the mounting portion defining a mounting surface for supporting the control board (as this is written, it is unclear what its “supporting” means in this case; “a plurality of heat-dissipation pillars 33 extending from the reference surface 31” as discussed in Col. 6, lines 27-29 of Zhu that supports the board), wherein the frame extends continuously around an entire perimeter of the control board (see Zhu’s Figure 3).
Regarding claim 4, the modified trimmer of Zhu shows that the housing defines a channel (where the reference “15”, Zhu’s Figure 3), wherein the isolator is disposed at least partially within the channel (see the modification above for the isolator in the housing), wherein the isolator comprises a frame receiving area (see Lienau’s and Thorson’s isolators that are rollers; there is a frame receiving area or bores for connecting axles 98 of the case or the frame as seen in Thorson’s Figure 5), and wherein the frame is receivable in the frame receiving area (Thorson’s Figure 5).
Regarding claim 6, the modified trimmer of Zhu shows that the isolator comprises an elastomeric material (see Lienau’s and Thorson’s isolators, rubber material) , and wherein the frame comprises a metal (see Zhu’s Figure 3 “a plurality of heat-dissipation pillars 33” that are made of metal).
Regarding claim 7, the modified trimmer of Zhu shows that the housing comprises a first portion and a second portion (see Zhu’s Figure 3), wherein the frame is insertable into the isolator (see the modification in claim 1 above) when the first and second portions are detached from one another, and wherein the frame is retained by the isolator when the first and second portions are coupled together (see Zhu’s Figure 3). Please note that the invention is directed to a device (product), the step of inserting the frame into the isolator when the first and second portions are detached from one another has been considered and given weight inasmuch as it infers structure in the device. It is a product by process claim. See MPEP 2113.
Claims 1, 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller in in view of Tyer (WO 2022261302 A1).
Regarding claims 4-5, as claims 4-5 written, Muller shows all of the limitations as stated in Claim 1 above including a channel of the housing (15, Figure 3), however, Zhu fails to discuss a frame of the control board and the isolator is disposed at least partially within the channel, wherein the isolator comprises a frame receiving area, and wherein the frame is receivable in the frame receiving area and the isolator is overmolded in the channel.
Tyler shows a power tool (Figure 6) having a housing (16a, 16b), a terminate board (20, Figures 6-7) having a frame (32a-b) and an isolator (42, Figure 6) that is disposed at least partially within a channel of the housing (Figures 4-6), wherein the isolator comprises a frame receiving area (the area for receiving the board or the housing 20 or 100, Figure 17), and wherein the frame is receivable in the frame receiving area (Figure 17) and the isolator is overmolded in the channel (Para. 58 “the isolation element 42 may, for example, be made of a thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) or rubber”).
Based on the teaching above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the frame of Muller to have a frame of a terminal board and an isolator in the channel, as taught by Tyer, since this is known alternative way for the same purpose and in order to allow the control board can be protected and limited vibration during operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kondo (EP 2000267 A2) shows an isolator for a terminal board 52 for a power tool.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM 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, 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 8/21/2026
Prosecution Insights