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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an applications filed in China on 8/31/23. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202311120477.9 and CN202322370263.9 applications as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3,13,14,16,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Iida et al. 20030037525.
Referring to claim 1, Iida discloses a walk-behind power tool, comprising: a working assembly comprising a working member (23) and a motor (22) configured to drive the working member to rotate; a body (25) configured to accommodate at least part of the working assembly; a handle device (14) connected to the body; and an energy device (49a) configured to provide energy for the motor; wherein the body comprises a coupling portion (see fig. 5, section where battery 49a is located) configured to accommodate the energy device and a storage portion (see fig. 5, sections where batteries 49b and 49c are located) configured to store an article, the body has a foremost end of the body, at least part of the coupling portion is disposed between the foremost end of the body and the storage portion, a projection of the storage portion on the ground is defined as a first projection, a projection of the working member in rotation on the ground is defined as a second projection, and at least part of the first projection overlaps the second projection (see fig 5, the projection of the storage portion where batteries 49b and 49C are located overlaps the projection of element 23).
Referring to claim 2, Iida discloses an overlapping portion between the first projection and the second projection is defined as a third projection, and an area ratio of the third projection to the first projection is greater than or equal to 0.5 and less than or equal to 1 ( all of the projection of the storage portion where batteries 49b and 49C are located is within the projection of the working member 23, therefore the overlap portion is equal to 1).
Referring to claim 3, Iida discloses a projection of the coupling portion ( section where battery 49a is located) on the ground is defined as a fourth projection, and an area ratio of the fourth projection to the first projection is greater than or equal to 0.3 and less than or equal to 2 (see figure 5) .
Referring to claim 13, Iida disclose at least a part of the storage portion is movable ( since the body 25 is movable the storage portion is movable).
Referring to claim 14, Iida discloses the storage portion ( where batteries 49b and 49C are located) comprises at least two storage regions, and adjacent storage regions are separated by a barrier portion.
Referring to claim 16, Iida discloses an upper cover (27) is disposed over the storage portion, and the upper cover enables an accommodation space of the storage portion to be opened or closed.
Referring to claim 18, Iida discloses a walk-behind power tool, comprising: a working assembly comprising a working member (23) and a motor (22)configured to drive the working member to rotate; a body (25) configured to accommodate at least part of the working assembly; a handle device (14) connected to the body; and an energy device (46) configured to provide energy for the motor; wherein the body comprises a coupling portion ( section were batteries 49a is located) configured to accommodate the energy device and a storage portion ( section were batteries 49b and 49c are located) configured to store an article, the body has a foremost end of the body, and in a front and rear direction, the foremost end of the body, the coupling portion, and the storage portion are arranged in sequence, and projections of the storage portion and the motor on the ground at least partially overlap (see fig 5, the projection of the storage portion where batteries 49b and 49C are located overlaps the projection of element 23).
Claim(s) 1,6-8,13,15,17,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Poole et al. 20220408650.
Referring to claim 1, Poole discloses a walk-behind power tool, comprising: a working assembly comprising a working member ((see paragraph 0046 cutting blade) and a motor (34) configured to drive the working member to rotate; a body (14/12) configured to accommodate at least part of the working assembly; a handle device (18) connected to the body; and an energy device (42) configured to provide energy for the motor; wherein the body comprises a coupling portion ( see fig. 3, section at 40) configured to accommodate the energy device and a storage portion (see fig 3 area at 44) configured to store an article, the body has a foremost end of the body, at least part of the coupling portion is disposed between the foremost end of the body and the storage portion, a projection of the storage portion on the ground is defined as a first projection, a projection of the working member in rotation on the ground is defined as a second projection, and at least part of the first projection overlaps the second projection (see fig 6, the projection of the storage portion at 44 overlaps the projection of a cutting blade that would be attached to the motor 34).
Referring to claim 6, Poole discloses the body comprises a deck (12) and a machine cover (14) disposed at least partially over the deck.
Referring to claim 7, Poole discloses the machine cover (14) is formed with the storage portion ( at 44).
Referring to claim 8, Poole discloses the machine cover (14) is formed with the coupling portion ( at 40).
Referring to claim 13, Poole disclose at least a part of the storage portion is movable ( since the body 14 is movable the storage portion is movable).
Referring to claim 15, Poole discloses the storage portion ( at 44) has a rearmost end of the storage portion, and a projection of the rearmost end of the storage portion on the ground is located behind the second projection ( see fig. 6 and 14, rearmost section of at 44 would be located behind a second projection of a working element located within deck 12).
Referring to claim 17, Poole discloses at least part of the storage portion comprises a drain channel (see fig. 17 at 71)configured to guide water in the storage portion to flow out (see paragraph 0055).
Referring to claim 18, Iida discloses a walk-behind power tool, comprising: a working assembly comprising a working member (see paragraph 0046 cutting blade) and a motor (34)configured to drive the working member to rotate; a body (14) configured to accommodate at least part of the working assembly; a handle device (18) connected to the body; and an energy device (42) configured to provide energy for the motor; wherein the body comprises a coupling portion ( at 40) configured to accommodate the energy device and a storage portion ( at 44) configured to store an article, the body has a foremost end of the body, and in a front and rear direction, the foremost end of the body, the coupling portion, and the storage portion are arranged in sequence, and projections of the storage portion and the motor on the ground at least partially overlap (see fig 6, the projection of the storage portion at 44 overlaps the projection of a cutting blade that would be attached to the motor 34).
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(s) 4,5,11-12 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida et al. 20030037525.
Referring to claim 5, Iida discloses an overlapping portion between the fourth projection ( of section at 49a) and the second projection ( of section at 23) is defined as a fifth projection. Iida does not disclose an area ratio of the fifth projection to the second projection is greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 0.2. However, a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would be obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tool disclosed by Iida to have an area ratio of the fifth projection to the second projection is greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 0.2 with a reasonable expectation of success if a different smaller blade is used which would decrease the overlap or increasing the size of the section to accommodate the batteries which would also decrease the overlap.
Referring to claim 5, Iida discloses at least part of the storage portion ( see fig. 4, edge et 25e and 25d) has a continuous and smooth bottom surface, a projection of the bottom surface on the ground is defined as a sixth projection. Iida does not specifically disclose area ratio of the sixth projection to the second projection is greater than or equal to 0.3 and less than or equal to 0.9. However, a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would be obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tool disclosed by Iida to have area ratio of the sixth projection to the second projection is greater than or equal to 0.3 and less than or equal to 0.9 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to insure proper spacing for venting and to hold batteries as a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Referring to claim 11, Iida discloses wherein the energy device (49a) has a foremost end of the energy device. Iida does not disclose a distance between the foremost end of the energy device and the foremost end of the body is greater than or equal to 50 mm and less than or equal to 250 mm. However, In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tool disclosed by Iida to have a distance between the foremost end of the energy device and the foremost end of the body is greater than or equal to 50 mm and less than or equal to 250 mm with a reasonable expectation of success as the function properly position the battery and changing the dimensions does not affect the function of the battery.
Referring to claim 12, Iida discloses the motor (22) is configured to rotate around a motor axis, the energy device (49a) has a rearmost end of the energy device, the rearmost end of the energy device is located before the motor axis (see fig. 5). Iida does not disclose a distance between the rearmost end of the energy device and the motor axis is greater than or equal to 5 mm and less than or equal to 200 mm. However, In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tool disclosed by Iida a distance between the rearmost end of the energy device and the motor axis is greater than or equal to 5 mm and less than or equal to 200 mm with a reasonable expectation of success to properly position the battery and changing the dimensions does not affect the function of the battery or the motor.
Referring to claim 19, Iida does not specifically disclose a length of the storage portion in the front and rear direction is greater than or equal to 200 mm and less than or equal to 500 mm. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tool disclosed by Iida to have a length of the storage portion in the front and rear direction is greater than or equal to 200 mm and less than or equal to 500 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure sufficient room for batteries 49b and 49c) .
Referring to claim 20, Iida does not specifically disclose a length of the storage portion in a left and right direction is greater than or equal to 150 mm and less than or equal to 400 mm. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tool disclosed by Iida to have a length of the storage portion in a left and right direction is greater than or equal to 150 mm and less than or equal to 400 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure sufficient room for batteries 49b and 49c.
Claim(s) 9-10, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole et al. 20220408650.
Referring to claim 9, Poole discloses wherein the storage portion (44) is formed with an accommodation space ( bottom portion of slope where drains 70 are located) Poole does not specifically disclose the accommodation space has a maximum water storage depth and a ratio of the maximum water storage depth to a length of a longest part of the first projection is greater than or equal to 0.1 and less than or equal to 0.3. Poole discloses the area is sloped to allow drainage (see paragraph 0055). Having a maximum water storage depth helps to ensure the area is properly drained. Moreover, a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tool disclosed by Poole to a maximum water storage depth and to have a ratio of the maximum water storage depth to a length of a longest part of the first projection is greater than or equal to 0.1 and less than or equal to 0.3 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure proper drainage of the area so that water does not flow over to the batteries.
Referring to claim 10, Poole discloses the storage portion ( at 44) is formed with an accommodation space ( bottom portion of slope). Poole does not disclose the accommodation space has a maximum water storage depth, and the maximum water storage depth is greater than or equal to 30 mm and less than or equal to 200 mm. Poole discloses the area is sloped to allow drainage (see paragraph 0055). Having a maximum water storage depth helps to ensure the area is properly drained. Moreover, a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tool disclosed by Poole to a maximum water storage depth and the maximum water storage depth is greater than or equal to 30 mm and less than or equal to 200 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure proper drainage of the area so that water does not flow over to the batteries.
Referring to claim 19, Poole does not specifically disclose a length of the storage portion in the front and rear direction is greater than or equal to 200 mm and less than or equal to 500 mm. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tool disclosed by Poole to have a length of the storage portion in the front and rear direction is greater than or equal to 200 mm and less than or equal to 500 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure sufficient room to install the batteries .
Referring to claim 20, Poole does not specifically disclose a length of the storage portion in a left and right direction is greater than or equal to 150 mm and less than or equal to 400 mm. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tool disclosed by Poole to have a length of the storage portion in a left and right direction is greater than or equal to 150 mm and less than or equal to 400 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure sufficient room in install the batteries.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamaoka 20210329832 discloses a mower with a body having a coupling portion and storage portion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIOVANNA WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)272-7027. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am- 5 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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/Giovanna Wright/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights