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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7-10-26.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In Figure 8B, the lower occurrence of the label “140” is not correct. The upper occurrence of “140” in Figure 8B correctly labels the spine while the lower occurrence appears to be pointing at a rib like label 141. The lower occurrence of “140” should be deleted or replaced with “141”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
All occurrences of the phrase “first spine opening 142” and “second spine opening 144” should be respectively replaced with “first spine opening portion 142” and “second spine opening portion 144”. Items 142 and 144 are not separate openings as written. Items 142 and 144 are different portions of the same opening and the specification needs to be clear with this regard. 142 and 144 are introduced in the same manner as opening 132 which is a separate opening in relation to 142/144.
Paragraph [0054] needs to explain plenum 149 with regards to hole portions 142 and 144. As written in paragraph [0054], plenum is unrelated to 142 and 144. Plenum 149 appears to be the space of 142 and 144 between the faces 145 and 147.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 2 of both claims, the phrase “of second spine opening” needs to be replaced with “of the second spine opening”.
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 1-16 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.
With regards to claims 1 and 9, the phrase “through which a fastener is extendable” is unclear. It is unclear if the fastener is positively claimed or not. As written and since the fastener is “extendable” through the opening, it seems like the limitation is introducing an intended use for the opening and not positively claiming the fastener. It is believed that the intent was to positively claim the fastener as it is further defined in dependent claims. It is recommended to replace the phrase with “through which a fastener is extends”. All occurrences of the phrase should be amended.
With regards to claims 1 and 9, the phrase “a first spine opening and a second spine opening” is unclear. Openings 142 and 144 are not different opening and are different portions of the same opening. The first and second spine openings are introduced in the same manner as the retainer opening which is a separate opening in relation to the spine opening portions. The claim needs to be amended to disclose “a spine forming a spine opening defining a first spine opening portion and a second spine opening portion”.
With regards to claims 3 and 11, the phrase “and corresponding to the second spine opening” is unclear. It is unclear what structure does and does not “correspond” with another structure. It is unclear what is meant by the term “correspond”.
With regards to claims 6 and 14, the phrase “the blade opening and the retainer opening extend co-directional to an extension of the second spine opening” is unclear. All of the openings extend in all directions as they are defined by 3-dimensional objects. The limitation is unclear as each opening “extension” is not defined and do not all extend co-directionally. It is recommended that all of the openings define a longitudinal axis and then disclose all of the longitudinal axes are parallel.
With regards to claim 7 and 15, the phrase “the first face and the second face form a plenum therebetween” is unclear. As written, the plenum is not part of the spine opening or the portions which is not supported. Plenum 149 appears to be the space of spine opening portions 142 and 144 between the faces 145 and 147.
With regards to claims 8 and 16, the phrase “openings at the spine, the retainer, the blade component, and a blunt body member” is unclear in that the term “at” does not require engagement with another structure. It is unclear what structures define these openings as they can be next to and, therefore, “at” the spine, the retainer, the blade component, and a blunt body member. The word “at” needs to be replaced with “in”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4, 6, 9-12, and 14 are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 0968645 A2. It is noted that a machine translation has been included with the copy of EP 0968645 A2 provided. All page/line number come from this translation.
With regards to claims 1 and 9, EP 0968645 A2 discloses the same invention including a hedge trimmer (10) having a housing (12) having a motor (24), a blade assembly (19) extending from the housing (Figs. 1 and 2), the blade assembly having a blade component (22) forming a blade opening (65, Fig. 2) through which a fastener is extendable (45), a retainer (20 is a necessary component to assembly 19 that helps retain all of the other components in place) forming a retainer opening (65, Fig. 2) through which the fastener is extendable (45), a spine (40) forming a first spine opening (48) and a second spine opening (50), the second spine opening extends from the first spine opening (Fig. 6), the second spine opening forms a narrower cross section relative to the first spine opening (Fig. 6), the fastener is extendable into the second spine opening from the first spine opening (second-to-last page, under the heading “Claims”, starting at the fourth-to-last line (Hedge trimmer according to claim 7) and ending on the last page line 6), and the retainer is positioned between the spine and the blade component (Fig. 2).
With regards to claims 2-4, 6, 10-12, and 14, EP 0968645 A2 discloses the fastener is friction-fit into the second spine opening (second-to-last page, under the heading “Claims”, starting at the fourth-to-last line (Hedge trimmer according to claim 7) and ending on the last page line 6), the fastener has a base wall (42), a tab (44, Fig. 8), the tab has a base portion connected to the base wall (45’, Fig. 8), the tab has a neck extending from the base portion (Fig. 8), the neck forming a narrower cross section relative to the base portion and corresponding to the second spine opening (Fig. 8, second-to-last page, under the heading “Claims”, starting at the fourth-to-last line (Hedge trimmer according to claim 7) and ending on the last page line 6), a wing extending from the neck (45, Fig. 8), the wing forming a cross section greater than the neck (Fig. 8), and the blade opening and the retainer opening extend co-directional to an extension of the second spine opening (65, 50, Fig. 2).
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 8 and 16 are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0968645 A2 in view of Hanada (11,839,185).
With regards to claims 8 and 16, EP 0968645 A2 fails to disclose a second fastener extendable through respective openings at the spine, the retainer, the blade component, and a blunt body member.
Hanada teaches it is known in the art of hedge trimmers to incorporate a second fastener (right B, Fig. 3) extendable through respective openings (Fig. 3) at the spine (30), the retainer (50), the blade component (60), and a blunt body member (70A). Such a modification adds a safety element to the cutting tool. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have provided EP 0968645 A2 with the second fastener and blunt body member, as taught by Hanada, because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 13, and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: EP 0968645 A2 does not incorporate structures that can represent all of the limitations of these claims. There appears to be no justification to modify the above-mentioned reference, in any combination to meet the requirements of the claimed invention as set forth in claims 5, 7, 13, and 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 pm.
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 D 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
26 August 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights