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 . 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 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities.
-Claims 2 and 5 recite the term “U-bold clamps are replaced by” and should read “U-bolt clamps are replaced by”. 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 2, 3 5 and 6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
-Regarding claims 2 and 5, the phrase “and wherein said clamping apparatus comprises a toggle clamp, seat post clamp, saddle clamp, telescoping tube clamp, split pipe clamp, or set screw clamps’ is unclear. Examiner notes claims 1 and 3 respectively provide the clamping apparatus as u-bolt clamps. As such, it is unclear if the clamps provided are in addition to or separate from the u-bolt clamps, as the specification (see specification paragraph 048) appears to only provide support for a single clamping element. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated having u bolt clamps, and capable of use with other types of clamps.
-Regarding claim 3, the language is unclear. Claim 1 already required the wheel to be made of plastic. Claim 3 further provides “where said plastic wheel is replaced with a wheel of rubber, metal, metal alloys, or foam”. It is unclear if the plastic wheel is part of a kit, or if the device is intended to use multiple different wheels. For the purpose of examination, the wheel will be treated as plastic, but capable of being used with wheels of other materials. Examiner notes claim 6 to have similar language, and will be treated the same,
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landry (U.S. Patent No. 11,147,210) in view of Fricke, Sr (U.S. Patent No. 5,626,006) hereinafter Fricke, in view of Keane (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0047329).
Regarding claim 1, Landry teaches a string trimmer support device (10)(Figure 1) comprising;
an angled support arm (36,38,40,42)(Figure 1),
a clamping apparatus (24,26,32) located at the proximal end of the angled support arm to the string trimmer, and
a wheel (56)(Figures 1 and 4) that is affixed to the distal end of the angled support arm, where said angled support arm is attached to the string trimmer by said clamping apparatus (Figure 4),
where said angled support arm has two sections (Figure 1), the proximal end (36,38,40) that holds the clamping apparatus has a length, the distal end (42) that holds the wheel has a length with there being an angle between the two sections of the angled support arm (Figures 1 and 4);
where said angled support arms comprises rectangular plate;
where said clamping apparatus comprises bolt clamps (32) (Figure 2);
where said wheel is constructed of a material and has a diameter and thickness; and where said device is attached to the string trimmer shaft to position said wheel parallel to the rotating string of the string trimmer (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 1, Landry discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above. Landry. further discloses the claimed structure, but is silent to the specifics of the dimensions. Landry does not expressly disclose the proximal end that holds the clamping apparatus is four to ten inches in length, the distal end that holds the wheel is ten to eighteen inches in length with the angle between the two sections of the angled support arm being 140 to 170 degrees, or where said wheel is four to six inches in diameter and one to two inches thick.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Landry to have the proximal end that holds the clamping apparatus is four to ten inches in length, the distal end that holds the wheel is ten to eighteen inches in length with the angle between the two sections of the angled support arm being 140 to 170 degrees; and where said wheel is four to six inches in diameter and one to two inches thick since it has been 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In the instant case, the device of Landry would not operate differently with the claimed dimensions since the support arm and wheels have dimensions and the support arm is angled, and the wheel has dimensions that would function appropriately having the claimed dimensions. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the claimed structure “may” be within the claimed ranges (Specification 047, 053).
Regarding claim 1, Landry provides a u-shaped clamp member (32) with bolts and wing nuts (Figure 2) but does not specifically provide where said clamping apparatus comprises u-bolt clamps.
Fricke teaches it is known in the art of string trimmer support devices to incorporate a string trimmer support (10) with a u-bolt clamp (39) and nuts (35,37) configured to clamp to a support arm (38) while also allowing for attachment of a trimming device handle (B) therebetween (Figures 1 and 5; Col. 2, Lines 59-64)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the device of Landry to incorporate the teachings of Fricke to provide the clamping apparatus as u-bolt clamps. Doing so provides a different clamping mechanism design as desired by the user.
Regarding claim 1, the modified device of Landry does not provide said support arm is constructed of plastic and also does not provide the wheel as plastic.
Keane teaches it is known in the art of string trimmer devices to incorporate components of the device from inexpensive and durable metal and plastic materials. (Paragraph 0078 and Figures 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the device of Landry to incorporate the teachings of Keane to provide the support arm as plastic. Doing so provides the support arm of a durable material as desired by the user.
Regarding claim 1, the modified device of Landry does not provide said support arm is aluminum, metal alloy, or plastic.
Fricke teaches it is known in the art of string trimmer support devices to incorporate the frame constructed from steel sheet metal, aluminum, fiberglass, graphite composites etc. (Col. 4, Lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the device of Landry to incorporate the teachings of Fricke to provide the support arm as aluminum or metal alloy. In doing so it allows for the support arm to be made of durable materials as desired by the user.
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Landry provides the string trimmer support device of claim 1, and wherein said clamping apparatus comprises saddle clamp as a clamping option, (Landry Figure 2; Col. 2, Lines 51-62; Examiner notes the clamp of Landry to be a saddle clamp as noted by portion 24 that allows for clamping via a hinge to the clamped portion 32).
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Landry provides the string trimmer support device of claim 1, but does not provide wherein said plastic wheel is replaced with a wheel constructed of rubber, metal, metal alloys, or foam.
Keane teaches it is known in the art of string trimmer devices to incorporate components of the device from inexpensive and durable metal and plastic materials. (Paragraph 0078 and Figures 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Landry to incorporate the teachings of Keane to provide the wheel as metal. Doing so provides the wheel of a durable material as desired by the user.
Regarding claim 4, Landry teaches a string trimmer support device comprising;
a clamping apparatus (24, 26, 32)(Figures 1 and 2);
a support arm (36,38,40,42)(Figure 1);
a wheel (56)(Figures 1 and 4);
where said clamping support arm is attached to the string trimmer shaft at an angle so as to position said wheel parallel to the rotating string of the string trimmer (Figure 4);
where said support arm comprises a rectangular plate (Figures 1 and 4)
where said wheel is affixed to the distal end of said support arm (Figures 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 4, Landry does not provide a support arm hinge, where said support arm hinge allows positioning of the support arm and wheel alongside the string trimmer shaft.
Keane teaches it is known in the art of string trimmer devices to incorporate a support arm hinge (52), wherein the support arm hinge allows positioning of the support arm (50,54) and a wheel (60) alongside the string trimmer shaft (Paragraph 0065 and Figures 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Landry to incorporate the teachings of Keane to provide a support arm hinge that allows for positioning of the support and the wheel alongside the trimmer shaft. In doing so, it allows for variable positioning of the device, while still providing wheel support during use.
Regarding claim 4, Landry provides a u-shaped clamp member (32) with bolts and wing nuts (Figure 2) but does not specifically provide where said clamping apparatus comprises u-bolt clamps.
Fricke teaches it is known in the art of string trimmer support devices to incorporate a string trimmer support (10) with a u-bolt clamp (39) and nuts (35,37) configured to clamp to a support arm (38) while also allowing for attachment of a trimming device handle (B) therebetween (Figures 1 and 5; Col. 2, Lines 59-64)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the device of Landry to incorporate the teachings of Fricke to provide the clamping apparatus as u-bolt clamps. Doing so provides a different clamping mechanism design as desired by the user.
Regarding claim 4, Landry does not provide said support arm is aluminum, metal alloy, or plastic;
Fricke teaches it is known in the art of string trimmer support devices to incorporate the frame constructed from steel sheet metal, aluminum, fiberglass, graphite composites etc. (Col. 4, Lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Landry to incorporate the teachings of Fricke to provide the support arm as aluminum or metal alloy. In doing so it allows for the support arm to be made of durable materials as desired by the user.
Regarding claim 4, Landry does not provide a support arm hinge, where said support arm hinge allows positioning of the support arm and wheel alongside the string trimmer shaft.
Keane teaches it is known in the art of string trimmer devices to incorporate a support arm hinge (52), wherein the support arm hinge allows positioning of the support arm (50,54) and a wheel (60) alongside the string trimmer shaft (Paragraph 0065 and Figures 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Landry to incorporate the teachings of Keane to provide a support arm hinge that allows for positioning of the support and the wheel alongside the trimmer shaft. In doing so, it allows for variable positioning of the device, while still providing wheel support during use.
Regarding claim 4, Landry does not provide said support arm is constructed of plastic.
Keane teaches it is known in the art of string trimmer devices to incorporate components of the device from inexpensive and durable metal and plastic materials. (Paragraph 0078 and Figures 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Landry to incorporate the teachings of Keane to provide the support arm as plastic. Doing so provides the support arm of a durable material as desired by the user.
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Landry provides the string trimmer support device of claim 4, and wherein said clamping apparatus comprises saddle clamp capable of replacing a U-bolt clamp (Landry Figure 2; Col. 2, Lines 51-62; Examiner notes the clamp of Landry to be a saddle clamp as noted by portion 24 that allows for clamping via a hinge to the clamped portion 32).
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Landry provides the string trimmer support device of claim 4, but does not provide wherein said plastic wheel is replaced with a wheel constructed of rubber, metal, metal alloys, or foam.
Keane teaches it is known in the art of string trimmer devices to incorporate components of the device from inexpensive and durable metal and plastic materials. (Paragraph 0078 and Figures 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Landry to incorporate the teachings of Keane to provide the wheel as metal. Doing so provides the wheel of a durable material as desired by the user.
Regarding claim 7, Landry teaches a string trimmer support device (10)(Figure 1) comprising;
an angled support arm (36,38,40,42)(Figure 1);
a clamping apparatus (24,26,32) located at the proximal end of the angled support arm to the string trimmer, and
a wheel (56)(Figures 1 and 4) that is affixed to the distal end of the angled support arm, where said angled support arm is attached to the string trimmer by said clamping apparatus (Figure 4),
where said angled support arm has two sections (Figure 1), the proximal end (36,38,40) that holds the clamping apparatus has a length
where said angled support arms comprises rectangular plate (Figure 1)
where said clamping apparatus comprises U-bolt clamp, toggle clamps, seat post clamps, saddle clamps, telescoping tube clamps, split pipe clamps, or set screw clamps (See Bolt clamps 32 in Figure 2);
where said wheel is constructed of a material and has a diameter and thickness
Regarding claim 7, Landry discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above. Landry. further discloses the claimed structure, but is silent to the specifics of the dimensions. Landry does not expressly disclose the proximal end that holds the clamping apparatus is four to ten inches in length, the distal end that holds the wheel is ten to eighteen inches in length with the angle between the two sections of the angled support arm being 140 to 170 degrees, or where said wheel is four to six inches in diameter and one to two inches thick.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Landry to have the proximal end that holds the clamping apparatus is four to ten inches in length, the distal end that holds the wheel is ten to eighteen inches in length with the angle between the two sections of the angled support arm being 140 to 170 degrees; and where said wheel is four to six inches in diameter and one to two inches thick since it has been 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In the instant case, the device of Landry would not operate differently with the claimed dimensions since the support arm and wheels have dimensions and the support arm is angled, and the wheel has dimensions that would function appropriately having the claimed dimensions. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the claimed structure “may” be within the claimed ranges (Specification 047, 053).
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Landry does not provide said support arm is constructed of plastic and also does not provide the wheel as plastic.
Keane teaches it is known in the art of string trimmer devices to incorporate components of the device from inexpensive and durable metal and plastic materials. (Paragraph 0078 and Figures 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the device of Landry to incorporate the teachings of Keane to provide the support arm as plastic. Doing so provides the support arm of a durable material as desired by the user.
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Landry does not provide said support arm is aluminum, metal alloy, or plastic.
Fricke teaches it is known in the art of string trimmer support devices to incorporate the frame constructed from steel sheet metal, aluminum, fiberglass, graphite composites etc. (Col. 4, Lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the device of Landry to incorporate the teachings of Fricke to provide the support arm as aluminum or metal alloy. In doing so it allows for the support arm to be made of durable materials as desired by the user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the prior art “places the wheels in proximity to the trimming line presenting a risk of entanglement”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD D CROSBY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at 571-270-3818. 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.
/RICHARD D CROSBY JR/ 12/22/2025Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724