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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on November 20, 2024 and April 1, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, line 2, it appears that “….connects first and second guard portions…” should be --….connects the first and second guard portions…--. 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 1-15 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.
In claim 1, lines 12-13, “the first edge portion” appears to lack proper antecedent basis.
In claim 2, line 2, applicant claims “…covers more than 30%, or more than 50%...”. The passage appears to set up “a range within a range” which is inherently unclear and therein rendering the claimed limitations indefinite.
In claim 5, line 2, “the angle” appears to lack proper antecedent basis.
In claim 8, line 2, applicant claims “a first edge portion”. There is a prior mention of “the first edge portion” (claim 1, lines 12-13) and therefore it is unclear as to exactly how many “first edge portion(s)” the applicant is attempting to claim in that under 35 USC 112 each distinct feature/limitation is required to have an exact nomenclature and subsequent references to the same feature/limitation should be preceded by and “said” or “the”. The lack of clarity renders the claimed subject matter indefinite.
Note: In claim 8, line 3, applicant claims “the first edge portion”. Due to the above lack of clarity as to exactly how many “first edge portion(s)” are attempting to be claimed, it is now further unclear as to which “first edge portion” is being referred and therein rendering the claimed subject matter indefinite.
In claim 10, lines 2-3, “the distance” appears to lack proper antecedent basis.
In claim 15, line 6, “the drive shaft” appears to lack proper antecedent basis.
Claims 3-4, 6-7, 9 and 11-14 are rejected based on their claim dependencies.
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 1-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elfner et al. (USPGPub 2007/0084062).
Regarding claim 1: Elfner discloses an edge trimming tool assembly configured to cut vegetation around edge formations (as seen in figures 1-8), the assembly comprising:
a drive shaft (as seen in figures 6 and 7, area of 22) and
a trimming tool (as seen in figures 6 and 7, at 6 and 7) connected to the drive shaft (as seen in figures 6 and 7) wherein the trimming tool is configured to be rotated around a rotation axis (as seen in figures 6 and 7, as defined be dotted line at 11) by the drive shaft such that a radially outer portion of the trimming tool orbits in a circular path in a rotation plane,
wherein the assembly comprises a guard comprising (as seen in figures 2 and 3, area of 8):
a first guard portion (as seen in figure 2, area of 12) covering a portion of an area formed inside the circular path as seen in a first direction parallel to the rotation axis and
a second guard portion (as seen in figure 3, area of 13) covering a portion of the area as seen in a second direction parallel to the rotation axis, wherein the second direction is opposite to the first direction,
wherein the guard comprises a second edge portion arranged opposite to a first edge portion, wherein the second edge portion is capable of forming a ground engaging portion for maintaining a predetermined distance between the rotation axis and a ground surface by an abutting contact against the ground surface (as seen in annotated figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
218
346
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 3: Elfner discloses the edge trimming tool assembly of claim 1. Further, Elfner discloses wherein each of the first and second guard portions covers more than 30 % of the area and superimposes at least 70% of each other as seen in the respective first and second directions (as seen in figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claims 4 and 5: Elfner discloses the edge trimming tool assembly of claim 1. Further, Elfner discloses wherein the trimming tool comprises a tubular elongate support column (as seen in figure 1, area of 5), wherein the drive shaft is arranged inside the tubular elongate support column (as seen in figures 6 and 7) and comprises a connection portion (as seen in figures 6 and 7, area of 24) for connecting an output shaft of a power unit (as seen in figure 1, at 2) to the drive shaft with an angle of 10-85 degrees therebetween (as seen in figure 2).
Regarding claim 6: Elfner discloses the edge trimming tool assembly of claim 4. Further, Elfner discloses wherein the drive shaft is flexible (as seen in figure 1, as defined along axis 11), and wherein the tubular elongate support column has a curved portion (as seen in figure 1, area of 30).
Regarding claim 7: Elfner discloses the edge trimming tool assembly of claim 4. Further, Elfner discloses wherein each of the connection portion and the first guard portion is arranged on a first side of the rotation plane (as seen in figure 2, at 24 and 12, respectively).
Regarding claims 8 and 9: Elfner discloses the edge trimming tool assembly of claim 1. Further, Elfner discloses wherein the cutting guard comprises the first edge portion arranged radially outside of the trimming tool, and wherein the first edge portion connects the first and second guard portions and wherein the second edge portion connects first and second guard portions (as seen in annotated figure 3 above).
Regarding claim 10: Elfner discloses the edge trimming tool assembly of claim 1. Further, Elfner discloses wherein the second edge portion is arc-shaped and inherently contains a portion with a radius of curvature being within a range of 80-130 % of a distance between the rotation axis and the second edge portion (as seen in figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 11: Elfner discloses the edge trimming tool assembly of claim 1. Further, Elfner discloses wherein the guard encloses the trimming tool in a plane parallel to the rotation axis (as seen in figure 2, as defined by dotted line at 21).
Regarding claims 12 and 13: Elfner discloses the edge trimming tool assembly of claim 1. Further, Elfner discloses wherein the guard comprises a first aperture at a first side of a plane comprising the rotation axis, and wherein the trimming tool has an effective radius being greater than a distance from the rotation axis to edges of the first aperture and wherein the guard comprises a second aperture at a second side of the plane, and wherein the trimming tool has an effective radius being greater than a distance from the rotation axis to edges of the second aperture (as seen in annotated figure 5 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
151
219
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15: Elfner discloses a power tool (as seen in figures 1-8)
comprising:
a power unit (as seen in figure 1, area of 2) comprising an output shaft and
a motor (as seen in figure 1, at 2; also, page 2, paragraph [0018]) configured to rotate the output shaft, and
an edge trimming tool assembly (as seen in figure 1, area of 30) wherein a drive shaft (as seen in figures 6 and 7, at 22) of the edge trimming tool assembly is connected, or connectable, to the output shaft of the power unit (pages 2-3, paragraph [0025]).
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elfner et al. (USPGPub 2007/0084062) in view of Zhang et al. (USPGPub 2017/0339837).
Regarding claim 14: Elfner discloses the edge trimming tool assembly configured to cut vegetation around edge formations substantially as discussed above but fails to disclose the use of a bevel gear assembly. However, Zhang teaches that it is well known to employ such an assembly in concert with a trimming tool (as seen in figures 1-18). Zhang discloses a trimming tool (as seen in figure 1, generally 100) wherein the trimming tool comprises a bevel gear assembly (as seen in figure 3, at 441 and 442), and wherein the trimming tool is connected to the drive shaft (as seen in figure 3, at 45) via the bevel gear assembly. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Elfner with the teachings of Zhang since it would be a simple matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable results of a trimming tool better capable of transferring power around a greater angle and to a point of use, absent any showing to the contrary.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hurley (USPGPub 2009/0038283) discloses a trimmer/edger device employing bevel gear assemblies.
Furnish (USP 6,751,871) discloses a trimmer device having a varied guard assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT ERIC PEZZUTO whose telephone number is (703)756-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/ROBERT E PEZZUTO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights