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 .
Priority
Examiner acknowledges claims to priority under 35 U.S.C. 120 or 121 for U.S. application 18800441 is a CIP of 17/227,716 04/12/2021 ABN, which is a CIP of 16/131,496 09/14/2018 ABN, which has PRO 62/606,249 09/15/2017
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/12/2024 was filed after the filing date of the application on 8/12/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, lines 6-7, “and and a slider” should be “and a slider” to correct a typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 6-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straus (US 3659343) in view of Overholt (US 6574868 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Straus teaches a plant pruner comprising:
a U-shaped housing (see Figure 2) comprising:
a first U-shaped end (right end in Figure 2);
a first arm (12) extending from the first U-shaped end (see Figure 2), the first arm comprising:
a blade mounting block (assembly of 21 and 17);
a second arm (13) extending from the first U-shaped end, the second arm comprising a terminal end (left end in Figure 2) and a cutting block (23) at the terminal end (See Figure 2).
Straus fails to teach a blade mounting block having a blade groove, and a slider groove; and a blade removable disposed within the blade mounting block, wherein a cutting edge of the blade extends outwardly from blade mounting block; and a blade slide lock disposed within the slider groove of the first arm of the U-shaped housing, the blade slide lock slides within the slider groove into the blade mounting block to secure the blade.
Overholt teaches a blade mounting block (assembly of 22a and 66, see Figure 7) having a blade groove (groove for 26a), and a slider groove (62); and a blade removable disposed within the blade mounting block (26a), wherein a cutting edge of the blade extends outwardly from blade mounting block (24, see Figure 7); and a blade slide lock (66) disposed within the slider groove (see Figure 7), the blade slide lock slides within the slider groove into the blade mounting block to secure the blade (See Figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Straus to change the mounting block arrangement, as taught by Overholt, in order create a secure replacement blade mounting block (col. 3 lines 1-33 and abstract of Overholt).
Regarding claim 2, modified Straus further teaches the second arm further comprises a recess (recess between 15 and 16, see Figure 5) wherein the blade mounting block contacts a surface of the recess when the plant pruner is in a closed configuration (portion of 17, see Figure 6 of Straus).
Regarding claim 3, modified Straus further teaches a length of the recess is approximately equal to a length of the blade mounting block (at least the over lapping portion of 15/16 with 17 of a length of the recess is approximately equal to a length of the blade mounting block, see Figure 3 of Straus).
Regarding claim 6, modified Straus further teaches an angle between the first arm and the second arm is approximately unknown degrees when the plant pruner is in an open configuration (see Figure 2 of Straus).
Modified Straus fails to teach approximately 10 degrees.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific angle of approximately 10 degrees, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Straus to have the specific angle set forth in the claim to get the desired angle wanted by the end user.
Regarding claim 7, modified Straus further teaches the first arm and the second arm are approximately parallel when the plant pruner is in a closed configuration (see Figure 2 of Straus).
Regarding claim 8, modified Straus further teaches the blade comprises a ledge (as modified by Overholt, 27a, see Figure 7 of Overholt), and wherein the mounting block comprises a ledge (27b) corresponding to the ledge of the blade (as modified by Overholt, see Figure 7 of Overholt), wherein the ledge of the blade abuts the ledge the mounting block when the blade is disposed within the blade mounting block (as modified by Overholt, see Figure 7 of Overholt).
Regarding claim 9, modified Straus further teaches the blade slide lock comprises a nub (as modified by Overholt, top of 66, see Figure 7 of Overholt), and wherein the nub protrudes from a top surface of the first arm when the blade slide lock is disposed within the slider groove (as modified by Overholt, see Figure 7-8 of Overholt).
Regarding claim 11, modified Straus further teaches the blade slide lock comprises two bottom protrusions (63 and 64) and a blade groove (space between 63 and 64) formed therebetween (as modified by Overholt, see Figure 7-8 of Overholt).
Regarding claim 12, modified Straus further teaches a top edge of the blade is disposed within the blade groove of the blade slide lock when the blade slide lock is positioned above the blade (as modified by Overholt, see Figure 7-8 of Overholt).
Regarding claim 13, modified Straus further teaches the cutting edge of the blade is approximately equal to a length of the cutting block (see Figure 2 of Straus).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straus (US 3659343) in view of Overholt (US 6574868 B1) and in further view of May (US 4034473).
Regarding claims 4-5, modified Straus further teaches a thickness of the first U-shaped end of the U-shaped housing is greater than a thickness of the first arm at a portion of the first arm proximal to the first U-shaped end (see Figure 2), and the thickness of the first U-shaped end of the U-shaped housing is greater than a thickness of the second arm at a portion of the second arm proximal to the first U-shaped end (see Figure 2).
Modified Straus fails to teach a thickness of the first U-shaped end of the U-shaped housing is less than a thickness of the first arm at a portion of the first arm proximal to the first U-shaped end, and the thickness of the first U-shaped end of the U-shaped housing is less than a thickness of the second arm at a portion of the second arm proximal to the first U-shaped end (as require by claim 4), the thickness of the first U-shaped end of the U-shaped housing is approximately half of the thickness of the second arm at the portion of the second arm proximal to the first U-shaped end (as require by claim 4).
May teaches a cutter with a thickness of the first U-shaped end of the U-shaped housing is less than a thickness of the first arm at a portion of the first arm proximal to the first U-shaped end (see Figure 1), and the thickness of the first U-shaped end of the U-shaped housing is less than a thickness of the second arm at a portion of the second arm proximal to the first U-shaped end (see Figure 1).
As disclose by Straus and May, the U-shape housing and arm can come with many different thickness, with respect to the specific thickness of the thickness of the first U-shaped end of the U-shaped housing is approximately half of the thickness of the second arm at the portion of the second arm proximal to the first U-shaped end, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify the device of modified Straus to have the specific thicknesses wanted by the end user in order to create the desired shaped for the tool wanted by the end user.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straus (US 3659343) in view of Overholt (US 6574868 B1) and in further view of Sullivan (US 20080086894 A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Straus teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 9 above.
Modified Straus fails to teach the nub comprises ridges.
Sullivan teaches a nub (214) with ridges (see Figure 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Straus to add the ridges, as taught by Sullivan. As one of ordinary skill in the art understand that ridge can improve grip of the nub for better movability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 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, Ashley Boyer 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.
/LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 1/07/2026