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 .
Claim Interpretation
1. 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.
2. 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 mechanical brake assembly” recited in claim 1.
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 § 102
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Breitfeld et al. (DE 10353921 A1), hereinafter Breitfeld. Regarding claim 1, Breitfeld teaches a garden tool (Fig. 1) comprising a machine body 2, wherein a power portion (6,7,8) on a prime mover is arranged in the machine body 2, and a mechanical brake assembly for braking the power portion is arranged in the machine body; the mechanical brake assembly comprises a brake control member (15, 36; which includes brake element 41 that contacts the brake teeth 42) and a position limiting member 40; the brake control member includes a handle 15 and a first mechanical brake sheet 36, the handle 15 and the first mechanical brake sheet 36 are linked together via the locking lever 37 and spring 40); when the first mechanical brake sheet 36 is away from the power portion, a first position of the brake control member is formed (Fig. 14), and when the first mechanical brake sheet 36 is in pressing contact with the power portion, a second position of the brake control member is formed (Fig. 13); the position limiting member 40 includes an elastic member, which is constructed to maintain the brake control member in the first position (shown in Fig. 14) or the second position. It should be noted that the torsion spring 40 biases and maintains brake lever 36 in the braking position when released, thereby maintaining the brake control member in one of the defined positions of operation. See Figs. 1 and 11-15 in Breitfeld.
Regarding claim 2, Breitfled teaches everything noted above including that the machine body 2 is provided with a limiting section 38 on the side away from the power portion relative to the brake control member (15, 36); when the brake control member is in the first position, the mechanical brake assembly (via the brake sheet 36) abuts on the limiting section 38 (Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 3, Breitfled teaches everything noted above including that the power portion on the prime mover (6,7,8) is an external rotor of an external rotor motor 3.
Regarding claim 4, Breitfled teaches everything noted above including that the garden tool further comprises an electronic braking system (12, 21-23; Fig. 14) and a control switch 26; the control switch is constructed to be triggered by the brake control member (12, 21-23); the electronic braking system is constructed to apply electronic braking to the prime mover upon triggering of the control switch. See Figs. 13-14 in Breiftled.
Regarding claim 14, Breitfled teaches everything noted above including that the mechanical brake assembly further includes a second mechanical brake sheet (defined as the sheet that includes groove 39, where the first brake sheet is alternatively defined by the brake element 41; Fig. 13); the second mechanical brake sheet is constructed to be provided on the brake control member or the position limiting member.
5. Claims 1-3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by JP H0219215 Y2, name not available, hereinafter JP ‘215. Regarding claim 1, JP ‘215 teaches a garden tool (Fig. 1) comprising a machine body 1, wherein a power portion 14 (which is connected to a motor) on a prime mover is arranged in the machine body 1, and a mechanical brake assembly for braking the power portion is arranged in the machine body; the mechanical brake assembly comprises a brake control member (3, 12) and a position limiting member (5, 9, 13); the brake control member includes a handle 3 and a first mechanical brake sheet 12, the handle 3 and the first mechanical brake sheet 12 are linked together; when the first mechanical brake sheet 12 is away from the power portion 14, a first position of the brake control member is formed (Fig. 1), and when the first mechanical brake sheet 12 is in pressing contact with the power portion 14 (Fig. 2), a second position of the brake control member is formed (Fig. 2); the position limiting member includes an elastic member (9, 13), which is constructed to maintain the brake control member in the first position or the second position. See Figs. 1-10 in JP ‘215.
Regarding claim 2, JP ‘215 teaches everything noted above including that the machine body 1 is provided with a limiting section (defined by the rail, not numbered, along which the sheet metal sides in a position which abuts the lower section of the rail which limits the movement of the sheet metal 10 in the first position; Fig. 1) on the side away from the power portion relative to the brake control member (3, 12); when the brake control member is in the first position, the mechanical brake assembly abuts on the limiting section (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, JP ‘215 teaches everything noted above including that the power portion on the prime mover is an external rotor of inherently an external rotor motor.
Regarding claim 14, JP ‘215 teaches everything noted above including that the mechanical brake assembly further includes a second mechanical brake sheet (10c; Fig. 1); the second mechanical brake sheet is constructed to be provided on the brake control member or the position limiting member.
6. Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Fushiya et al. (4,625,406), hereinafter Fushiya. Regarding claim 1,
Fushiya teaches a garden tool (H) comprising a machine body 1, wherein a power portion (9, 14; which is connected to a motor 6) on a prime mover 6 is arranged in the machine body 1, and a mechanical brake assembly for braking the power portion is arranged in the machine body 1; the mechanical brake assembly comprises a brake control member (18, 26) and a position limiting member 19; the brake control member includes a handle (18a) and a first mechanical brake sheet 26, the handle (18a) and the first mechanical brake sheet 26 are linked together; when the first mechanical brake sheet 26 is away from the power portion (9, 14), a first position of the brake control member is formed (Fig. 1), and when the first mechanical brake sheet 26 is in pressing contact with the power portion (9, 14), a second position of the brake control member is formed; the position limiting member 19 includes an elastic member (as the spring19), which is constructed to maintain the brake control member in the first position or the second position. See Figs. 1-6 in Fushiya.
Regarding claim 2, Fushiya teaches everything noted above including that the machine body 1 is provided with a limiting section 24 on the side away from the power portion relative to the brake control member (18, 26); when the brake control member is in the first position, the mechanical brake assembly abuts on the limiting section 24 (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Fushiya teaches everything noted above including that the power portion on the prime mover is an external rotor of inherently an external rotor motor 6.
Regarding claim 5, Fushiya teaches everything noted above including that the machine body 1 has a first connecting shaft 28, and the brake control member is connected to the machine body through the first connecting shaft 28, and the handle 18a and the first mechanical brake sheet 26 are located on both sides of the first connecting shaft (as they are located on the upper side and the lower side of the shaft 28; Fig. 2) respectively; the first end of the elastic member 19 is connected to the machine body 1 through a first connection structure 29, and the second end of the elastic member 19 is connected to the brake control member (18, 26) through a second connection structure (not numbered, shown in Fig. 2 and also as a pin shown in Fig. 6); wherein a distance between the first connection structure 29 and the second connection structure changes when the brake control member moves between the first position and the second position.
Regarding claim 6, Fushiya teaches everything noted above including that the second connection structure gets (as the pin) closer to the power portion (9, 14) during the movement of the brake control member from the first position to the second position.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 7 and 9-13 are allowed. Regarding claim 7, Fushiya does not explicitly teach that the second connection structure is constructed to be positioned between the first connecting shaft and the first connection structure; the first connecting shaft, the first connection structure, and the second connection structure are collinear when the brake control member is in a third position; and the elastic member is not in a stretched state when the brake control member is in the third position.
8. Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 8, Fushiya does not explicitly teach that the first connecting shaft is constructed to be located between the first connection structure and the second connection structure; the first connecting shaft, the first connection structure, and the second connection structure are collinear when the brake control member is in the third position; and the elastic member is not in a compressed state when the brake control member is in the member is in the third position.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argument that Breitfeld does not teach all the limitations of claim 1 is not persuasive. Claim 1 recites “a position limiting member includes an elastic member, which is constructed to maintain the brake control member in the first position or the second position.” The claim does not require that the elastic member be the sole structure responsible for holding the control member in both positions simultaneously, nor does it exclude cooperation with other mechanical features that define stable end positions. Breitfeld expressly teaches a torsion spring (40) acting on brake lever (36) to bias the brake control member toward a defined position. (Breitfeld, Figs. 11-15). The locking lever (37) and detent recess (39) do not replace the spring’s function; rather, they cooperate with the spring-biased system to establish and retain stable positional states of the brake control member during operation. In other words, the spring provides the continuous biasing force that urges the brake control member toward a position, while the detent/locking structure provides positional support against unintended movement once that position is reached. Thus, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Breitfeld does not divide the claimed “position limiting function” into unrelated structures, but instead discloses an integrated mechanical system in which the elastic member (spring 40) contributes to maintaining the brake control member in a defined operative position in combination with the cooperating mechanical stop/engagement features. Applicant’s reliance on Net MoneyIN is misplaced because anticipation does not require that a single component perform all aspects of a functional limitation in isolation; rather, the reference must disclose the limitation as arranged, including functional cooperation of components within a single disclosed system. Here, Breitfeld discloses a unitary brake mechanism in which the spring-biased lever system is configured to reside in stable positions corresponding to the claimed “first” and “second” positions. Furthermore, to the extent Applicant argues that spring 40 alone must independently “hold” both positions without assistance, such a reading improperly imports a limitation not present in the claim language. The claim broadly requires an elastic member constructed to maintain the control member in a position, which is satisfied where the elastic member provides biasing force contributing to positional stability within the disclosed mechanism.
Applicant argues that JP ’215 fails to disclose the claimed “position limiting member including an elastic member” because the Office Action relies on multiple springs (hand-guard spring 5, first torsion coil spring 9, and second torsion coil spring 13), which Applicant characterizes as “separate, independently disclosed components” that cannot be combined for purposes of anticipation. First, claim 1 recites “a position limiting member includes an elastic member” without requiring that the elastic member be a single monolithic spring element or a unitary structure. The claim language is open-ended and permits a position limiting function implemented by one or more elastic biasing structures so long as they collectively perform the recited function of maintaining the brake control member in at least one of the claimed positions. Second, JP ’215 expressly discloses a coordinated biasing and restoring system in which multiple elastic elements cooperate within the same braking and reset mechanism to control and maintain positional states of the brake control member. Specifically, hand-guard spring 5 biases the hand guard toward a default position, torsion coil spring 9 biases the clutch engagement linkage, and torsion coil spring 13 biases the rotation stop member. These components are not independent in operation; rather, they are kinematically linked through the hand guard, engaging-of-clutch metal fittings, and rotation stop member, forming a single operative safety mechanism governing the brake control state. Under anticipation analysis, the reference must be considered for what it would reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art, not limited to whether all components are physically labeled as a single “member.” See In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009). JP ’215 clearly teaches a system in which elastic biasing forces collectively maintain and restore the operative positions of the brake/clutch control elements, thereby satisfying the “position limiting member includes an elastic member” limitation when properly construed. Third, Applicant’s reliance on Net MoneyIN v. VeriSign is misplaced. That case prohibits combining separate disclosures only where the reference does not itself teach the combination or arrangement. Here, JP ’215 discloses a single integrated safety control architecture for a chain saw, where the multiple springs operate in concert within a unified mechanism that controls engagement, disengagement, and return-to-position behavior. The Office Action does not improperly reconstruct the invention from unrelated embodiments, but rather identifies the functional elastic biasing structure inherent in the disclosed mechanism as a whole. Finally, even if the springs perform different localized biasing functions, anticipation does not require that a single element perform only a single function, nor does it require that all components be co-located. What matters is whether the reference discloses the claimed functional limitation. JP ’215 discloses elastic members that maintain the brake control system in defined stable positions (normal operation and kickback/braking positions), thereby meeting the claim limitation.
Applicant argues that Fushiya fails to disclose the claimed “position limiting member includes an elastic member” because the rejection relies on spring 19, while other components such as spring 21 and spherical locking member 22 allegedly provide a separate retaining function. Applicant further contends that these elements are “separately located and independently associated” and therefore cannot collectively satisfy the claimed limitation. First, claim 1 does not require that the “elastic member” alone perform all positional retention functions, nor does it require that the elastic member directly engage the brake control member without intermediate structure. The claim broadly recites that the position limiting member “includes an elastic member,” which is satisfied so long as the claimed limiting function is implemented through one or more elastic biasing elements within the position-controlling mechanism. Fushiya expressly discloses a coordinated positional control system for the brake lever in which multiple resilient elements operate together within a single safety mechanism. Specifically, spring 19 biases the brake lever toward its return position, while spring 21 biases the spherical locking member 22 into engagement with concave engaging edge 23a of the brake lever, thereby maintaining the brake lever in a defined stable position. These elements do not operate as unrelated subsystems, but rather as an integrated positional retention mechanism that cooperatively maintains the brake control member in its operative positions. Under anticipation law, a reference is not required to disclose a single “unitary” component corresponding to the claim language where the claim itself does not impose such structural restriction. See In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Instead, the proper inquiry is whether the reference discloses the claimed functional limitation. Here, Fushiya clearly teaches elastic biasing and retaining forces that maintain the brake control member in both its first and second positions as required. Applicant’s reliance on Net MoneyIN v. VeriSign is misplaced because the rejection does not combine unrelated embodiments. Rather, Fushiya discloses a single integrated brake safety mechanism in which springs and a detent mechanism operate together to achieve positional stability and return functionality. The fact that different elastic elements contribute to different aspects of the same positional control system does not remove them from consideration as part of the claimed “position limiting member.”
Regarding claim 14, applicant argues that neither Breitfeld nor JP ’215 discloses the claimed “second mechanical brake sheet,” asserting that the cited structures (detent recess 39 in Breitfeld and clutch operating section 10c in JP ’215) do not constitute a brake sheet because they allegedly do not directly perform frictional braking of the power portion. First, claim 14 does not require that the “second mechanical brake sheet” itself be a direct frictional braking pad in continuous contact with the power portion, nor does it require that it exclusively perform friction braking. Rather, the claim broadly recites a structural element “provided on the brake control member or the position limiting member,” and functionally associated with braking operation. The term “brake sheet” is not limited to a single mode of action and must be interpreted in light of the specification and the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the claim language.
With respect to Breitfeld, the Office Action properly maps the claimed limitation to the structure associated with detent recess 39 and locking lever 37. Although Applicant characterizes recess 39 as merely a “latching feature,” this characterization improperly ignores its functional role within the brake actuation system. In Breitfeld, the locking/detent interaction directly governs the positional state of the brake lever and thereby controls engagement and disengagement of the braking mechanism. This positional control is an integral part of the brake actuation sequence, and thus the identified structure is properly considered part of the brake-operating elements of the control system. Anticipation does not require that each claimed component perform an isolated function divorced from the overall brake operation. With respect to JP ’215, Applicant’s argument that element 10c is merely a “clutch operating section” is likewise unpersuasive. JP ’215 explicitly discloses that element 10c acts upon the engagement clutch 18 to disengage the drive and thereby interrupt power transmission to the sprocket. This power interruption is part of the braking function of the chain saw system, as JP ’215 teaches coordinated disengagement of the drive and application of braking force (via brake shoe 12) to stop chain movement. The claimed “second mechanical brake sheet” is not limited to a sole friction element but encompasses structural components that participate in the braking sequence, including those that initiate or effectuate cessation of power transmission. Applicant’s attempt to isolate brake shoe 12 as the only “true braking element” is legally insufficient, because anticipation does not require that a single reference element correspond one-to-one with a claimed label, nor does it exclude multi-component braking architectures where different elements contribute to stopping the power portion.
It should be noted all the references below which were cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 03/20/2026 also discloses at least the claimed limitations set forth in claim 1.
Okouchi (WO 2010/134395 A1), Turczyn et al. (5,040,644), Roller (4,979,596), McGourthy. Sr. et al. (6,095,294), Edwards (3,213,975), and Dooley (3,839,795) teach a garden tool including a brake system.
Conclusion
10. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm 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 on (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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
July 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights