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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 3 August 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are pending. Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 6 May 2026.
Moreover, the recitation of “a first connecting block” as recited in claim 2 is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) (unlike the prior recitation of “a first connecting member”) because a block is a structural term that is not a generic placeholder for ‘means’.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2009/0038162 A1 to Shan in view of US Pub. No. 2011/0113635 A1 to Lee et al.
Regarding claim 1, Shan disclose high branch scissors (see Fig. 1, where the scissors include an elongated rod structure 10 that allows for cutting high branches), comprising:
a first elongate rod shell 60 (see Fig. 1 showing the ‘elongate’ feature), wherein a first fixing sleeve 80 is arranged at a tail portion of the first elongate rod shell 60 (see Figs. 1 and 19, where the ‘tail portion’ is the bottom portion of the first rod shell 60), wherein a handle 70 is slidably arranged on the first elongate rod shell 60 (see Figs. 1, 20, and 21, with Figs. 20 and 21 showing two slidably distinct positions of the handle 70 on the first rod shell 60; see also paragraph 44), wherein a telescopic assembly (including a second rod shell 61 as shown in Fig. 1; see the discussion of claim 2 regarding additional structures of the telescopic assembly) is arranged in the first elongate rod shell 60 (see Figs. 1 and 13), and wherein a scissors assembly 20 is arranged at a top of the telescopic assembly (see Fig. 1);
wherein a third fixing block is arranged on a side of the handle 70 (see the annotated portion of Fig. 16 below; see also Fig. 17, showing the third fixing block being arranged on either of a right side and a bottom side of the handle 70; note that the term ‘third’ is not interpreted as also requiring first and second fixing blocks – instead, ‘third’ is interpreted merely as a name of the fixing block);
wherein a second rope 13 is arranged on an outer wall of the first elongated rod shell 60 (see Fig. 1), wherein a first end 131 of the second rope 13 is arranged on the third fixing block (see Figs. 16 and 17), and wherein a second end 132 of the second rope 13 is arranged at a bottom of the first fixing sleeve 80 (see Fig. 19 and paragraph 46).
Shan fails to disclose that the second rope is steel as required by claim 1.
Lee teaches making a rope of a high branch scissors from steel (see paragraph 38). Lee teaches that making the rope from steel is advantageous in order to provide a strong connection and in order to prevent damage to the rope over extended use (see paragraph 38 and Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the second rope of Shan as a steel rope in view of the teachings of Lee. This modification is advantageous to provide a strong connection and to prevent damage to the second rope over extended use.
Response to Arguments
Initially, Applicant’s arguments with respect to issues that have been overcome by Applicant’s amendments are moot, and Applicant’s arguments with respect to moot issues are not addressed.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Huang as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 6 May 2026, the examiner agrees with Applicant’s argument that Huang fails to disclose, “wherein a third fixing block (43) is arranged on a side of the handle (4); wherein a second steel rope (6) is arranged on an outer wall of the first elongated rod shell (1), wherein a first end of the second steel rope (6) is arranged on the third fixing block (43), and wherein a second end of the second steep rope (6) is arranged at a bottom of the first fixing sleeve (2)” as now required by claim 1. Thus, Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 have overcome the rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Huang. Still, a new grounds of rejection of claim 1 necessitated by Applicant’s amendments is set forth herein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-4 and 6-9 is/are 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: First, Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 have overcome the Huang reference as discussed in the Response to Arguments section above. Moreover, claim 2 requires that the telescopic assembly comprises “a fixing rod (33) is arranged inside the second fixing sleeve (31), wherein a first mounting block (38) is arranged at a top of the fixing rod (33), wherein a second moving pulley (39) is movably arranged in the first mounting block (38), wherein a first moving block (37) is movably arranged inside the second elongate rod shell (32), wherein a first moving pulley (313) and a third moving pulley (310) are movably arranged in the first moving block (37), and wherein a first connecting block (312) is arranged at the top of the first moving block (37).” Shan fails to teach or suggest this combination of features. For example, the block 64 of Shan does not include a moving pulley, as is required of each of the first mounting block and the first moving block in claim 2. As such, Shan does not disclose each of the first mounting block and the first moving block having the features required by claim 2. At least for this reasons, claim 2 distinguishes over Shan. Since claim 2 distinguishes over the best known prior art, including Huang and Shan, claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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 at (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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights