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 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 of this title, 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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20210368678, Franklin in view of the teachings of USPGPUB 20040231166, Wilkinson.
Regarding Claims 1-2, Franklin discloses a handheld working machine (abstract, and par. 0029) comprising:
an operating rod (40 and curved parts 61 and 62, fig. 6) held with a hand to perform work (par 0034); and
a working machine unit (34 and 35) provided on a head end of the operating rod (fig 3 and fig 6) wherein:
the operating rod includes a straight part (see annotated fig. 6 below) extending in a direction of extension of a working device (see annotated fig. 6 below) of the working machine unit and a curved part (combination of first and second curved parts shown in annotated fig. 6 below) connecting the straight part to the working machine unit (see annotated fig. 6 below), the straight part having a central axis (see annotated fig. 3 below).
Franklin lacks a central axis of the straight part passes through or near a center of gravity of the handheld working machine, and a distance between the center of gravity and the central axis in a cross-section perpendicular to the central axis is equal to or less than a diameter of the operating rod (Claim 1), and the curved part is provided so as to bring the central axis of the straight part close to the center of gravity (Claim 2).
Wilkinson teaches that in a handheld working machine (see abstract), analogous to the handheld working machine of the present invention, that the positioning of the center of gravity of the tool relative to portions of a straight and curved handle portion 14 (straight section 200 curved 202), is a result effective variable for affecting a better balance of the working machine see par 0007.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Franklin by making/selecting positioning of the center of gravity of the tool relative to portions of a straight and curved handle portion, wherein such positioning may include a central axis of the straight part passes through or near a center of gravity of the handheld working machine, and a distance between the center of gravity and the central axis in a cross-section perpendicular to the central axis is equal to or less than a diameter of the operating rod (Claim 1), and the curved part is provided so as to bring the central axis of the straight part close to the center of gravity (Claim 2), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and since Brown discloses that blade opening width to be a result effective variable for providing lateral support to a blade. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 3, in Franklin discloses the curved part is provided so as to bring the central axis of the straight part close to a position of the working device of the working machine unit (see annotated fig. 6 below).
Regarding Claim 4, in Franklin the curved part includes a first curved part and a second curved part, the first curved part curving in a direction away from the central axis of the straight part, and the second curved part curving in a direction toward the central axis of the straight part (see annotated fig. 6 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
796
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, in Franklin the working device includes a cutting blade configured to continuously move (par 0007).
Regarding Claim 9, in Franklin a grip is provided on the straight part of the operating rod (see annotated fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
694
476
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 4976031, Miller in view of Wilkinson.
Regarding Claims 1-2, Miller discloses a handheld working machine (“trimming apparatus”: 10; abstract, and col 2, lines 10-15) comprising:
an operating rod (11 and 12) held with a hand to perform work (col 2, 10-20); and
a working machine unit (25) provided on a head end of the operating rod (fig 1 and fig 4) wherein:
the operating rod includes a straight part (11) extending in a direction of extension of a working device (29, fig. 1) of the working machine unit, the straight part having a central axis (long axis of rod 11).
Miller lacks the operating rod having a curved part connecting the straight part to the working machine unit, and a central axis of the straight part passes through or near a center of gravity of the handheld working machine, and a distance between the center of gravity and the central axis in a cross-section perpendicular to the central axis is equal to or less than a diameter of the operating rod (Claim 1), and the curved part is provided so as to bring the central axis of the straight part close to the center of gravity (Claim 2).
Wilkinson teaches that in a handheld working machine (see abstract), analogous to the handheld working machine of the present invention, an elongated handle of the machine includes a straight part (210) and a curved part (220, 212, 226), in order to place the vegetation trimmer's center of gravity relatively closer to the user's hands to thereby better balance the vegetation trimmer by skewing different parts of the elongated handle relative to other parts (via the straight and curved design) to mitigate any unbalanced feel of elongated handles of the type employed in the art of elongated handle for trimmers (see par 0003, and 0007-0008).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller by making the elongated handle thereof be partly curved and partly straight, in order to place the vegetation trimmer's center of gravity relatively closer to the user's hands to thereby better balance the vegetation trimmer by skewing different parts of the elongated handle relative to other parts (via the straight and curved design) to mitigate any unbalanced feel of elongated handles of the type employed in the art of elongated handle for trimmers, as taught by Franklin.
Wilkinson also discloses that the positioning of the center of gravity of the tool relative to portions of the straight and curved handle portions 14 (straight section 200 curved 202), is a result effective variable for affecting a better balance of the working machine see (par 0003 and 0007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller by making/selecting positioning of the center of gravity of the tool relative to portions of a straight and curved handle portion, wherein such positioning may include a central axis of the straight part passes through or near a center of gravity of the handheld working machine, and a distance between the center of gravity and the central axis in a cross-section perpendicular to the central axis is equal to or less than a diameter of the operating rod (Claim 1), and the curved part be provided so as to bring the central axis of the straight part close to the center of gravity (Claim 2), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and since Brown discloses that blade opening width to be a result effective variable for providing lateral support to a blade. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 5/28/26, with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims (as the claims have now been amended) have been fully considered and persuasive. Ito lacks, a central axis of the straight part passes through or near a center of gravity of the handheld working machine, and a distance between the center of gravity and the central axis in a cross-section perpendicular to the central axis is equal to or less than a diameter of the operating rod. Upon an updated search, a new rejection is made in view of Franklin.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs/USPGPUB 20040244545 8511209 3545755 3296732 4651461 20120138615 20090096232 20170007085 20160143814 20230144821 20140273012 5695231 20170064852 20080227373 20120096723 11844309 8117756 20210368678 7134208 7134208 12490727 3346955 12490727 D476200 20040231166 4611946 and 1838186 each disclose state of the art cutter tools curved handle portions and, thus, each of these references disclose elements relevant to the present invention/application.
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 FERNANDO A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-5336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern standard.
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.
/FERNANDO A AYALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights