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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “at last one switch” appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “high frequency voltage transformer converts the voltage of the battery in high frequency AC voltage” and the phrase/limitation is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the method of Fig. 4 is not legible. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 106. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
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 1-21 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "other terminal" in line 8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-21 fail to remedy such deficiency.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the back of the user" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the safety functions of the system" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the voltage of the battery" in lines 3-4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 fails to remedy such deficiency.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the high voltage for the applicator" in in lines 3-4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the distance between the electrode and the ground electrode" in lines 3-4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the weight applicator" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the ground" in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the insoles of the insulating boots" in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the "on" position" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the at least one switch of the applicator" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 19-21 fail to remedy such deficiency.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re claim 7, For the safety relay for executing safety functions of the system:
The claim limitation uses the words “safety relay” as a generic place holder for the term means/step for performing the claimed function of executing safety functions of the system
The generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “for”
The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for preforming the claimed function of executing safety functions of the system
As such, the claim limitation “a safety relay for executing the safety functions of the system” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paragraph 19 of the specification details that the safety relay acts to reduce risk to an acceptable level however, fails to provide any structure for how the relay engages with the system to perform such an act. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 13, 15-18, & 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guynn et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0243848 A1; herein Guy in view of Zwahlen et al., International Publication No. WO 2018/229198 A1; herein Zwa and Larsén et al., International Publication No. WO 2021/215992 A1; herein Lars.
Re claim 1, as best understood, Guy discloses a user operated electric system comprising:
a user operated applicator (100; the safety saw, fig. 1-2 & 10) comprising an electrode (para 46, the gloves) for applying electrical energy (para 133-134, the gloves being worn properly allows the startup to occur) into a saw (110; the saw blade, fig. 1 & 11), wherein the applicator comprises at least one switch for activating the system when triggered by the user (para 116 & 129, the start and stop buttons acting as power switches to the safety saw);
a source of electrical energy (para 49, within the saw) having a terminal electrically connected to the electrode (fig. 10 & 13-15 and para 101, 108-109, & 111, the tether/specialized cables/additional connections which supply a volage to the gloves) and another, second terminal electrically connected to a ground electrode (para 13 & 108, the hand within the glove); and
a control system (400/413; the saw safety system/control system, fig. 16) for controlling the operation of the user operated applicator (para 115 & 120-121, wherein the saw safety system is employed for controlling the operations of the safety saw);
wherein further comprising:
a pair of insulating (para 107, wherein the gloves are insulated) gloves (330; the gloves, fig 10 & 13-15), wherein at least one of the insulating gloves comprise at least one sensor for detecting the presence of a user's hand inside the insulating glove (para 13 & 108, within the sensing fibers therefore reading the body/hand’s resistance), wherein the sensor is configured to communicate with the control system (fig. 16 and para 116 & 119-121, the control system operates the motor based on inputs from the glove system and sensors), wherein the control system is configured to prevent the activation of the applicator if the presence of the user's hand is not detected (para 120-121, wherein the inputs of the glove system start or stop the operations of the safety saw).
Guy fails to disclose wherein the user operated electric system is a weeding system comprising: a user operated applicator for applying electrical energy into a plant and wherein the gloves are boots. However, Zwa discloses a user operated electric weeding system comprising:
a user operated applicator (10; the applicator, fig. 4a-15c) comprising an electrode (22; the electrode, fig. 6c-15c) for applying electrical energy into a plant (para 9-10, the applicator supplies a high voltage electrical charge to the unwanted ground vegetation), wherein the applicator comprises at least one switch for activating the system when triggered by the user (para 48, 57, 85-86, & 95, the manual switch for the device/applicator);
a source of electrical energy (41/20; the voltage supply, fig. 1, 4a, & 5a-c) having a terminal electrically connected to the electrode (22/27; the electrode, fig. 6c-15c) and other terminal (23; the electrode, fig. 6c-15c) electrically connected to a ground electrode (para 15, 67, & 97, wherein a ground electrode is formed to create a spark gap); and
a control system (4/9; the operating unit/element, fig. 4a-5c and para 95, 97, & 100) for controlling the operation of the user operated applicator (para 79, 84, 95, 97, & 100, the operating element allows the user to activate the applicator).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose a user operated electric weeding system comprising: a user operated applicator for applying electrical energy into a plant and boots however, Zwa discloses a user operated electric weeding system for applying electrical energy into a plant. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the safety system as taught by Guy to improve the similar device disclosed by Zwa in the same way by requiring the user to be wearing protective equipment/operating such equipment. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
The combination of Guy and Zwa fails to disclose wherein the gloves are boots. However, Lars discloses a user operated electric system comprising:
a user operated applicator (100; the chainsaw, fig. 1); and
a control system (140; the controller, fig. 1-2) for controlling the operation of the user operated applicator (para 6 & 54, the controller is configured to initiate a protective action of the power tool based on the sensors of the sensor);
wherein further comprising:
a pair of boots (116; the boots, fig. 1), wherein at least one of the boots comprises at least one sensor (120/130; the first or second wearable sensors, fig. 1) for detecting the presence of a user inside the boot (fig. 1 and para 20-21, the wearable sensors are used to track the special positioning of the user), and wherein the sensor is configured to communicate with the control system (para 6, 24, & 54, the controller communicates with each sensor in order to protect the user).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the gloves are boots however, Lars discloses such protective PPE. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user operated electric weeding system by utilizing a simple substitution of the known safety gloves taught by the prior art for the protective foot article from Lars in order to obtain the predictable result of protecting the limb in closest proximity to the weed destroying device’s spark/electrocution. See MPEP 2143 I. (B).
Re claim 2, as best understood, the combination of Guy, Zwa, and Lars discloses the invention of claim 1, Zwa as applied above further discloses wherein the source is a battery (para 9, 18, 47-48, 64, 78, 84-86, & 94, wherein there is a battery powering the applicator).
Re claim 3, as best understood, the combination of Guy, Zwa, and Lars discloses the invention of claim 2, Zwa as applied above further discloses wherein the applicator is a handheld user operated applicator (10a-10j; the applicator, fig. 4a-15c) and the system further comprises a backpack structure for supporting the battery and the control system on a back of the user (fig. 6a-6b, 7a-15c and para 80 & 94, the strap/straps allow the apparatus/base device to be mobile and supported by a back of the user).
Re claim 4, as best understood, the combination of Guy, Zwa, and Lars discloses the invention of claim 2, Zwa as applied above further discloses wherein the applicator is a hand-pushed weeding device (10d, 10g, & 10k-10m; the applicator, fig. 7b, 9a-9b, & 13a-15c) comprising wheels (fig. 7b, 9a-9b, & 13a-15c) and a housing for housing the battery and the control system (for 10d or g: 2; the housing, fig. 5a-c, 7b, & 9a-b or for 10k-10m: para 79 & 105-104, wherein the energy supply is from a battery located within the base device).
Re claim 6, as best understood, the combination of Guy, Zwa, and Lars discloses the invention of claim 1, Lars as applied to Guy and Zwa further discloses wherein the sensor is wirelessly connected to the control system via a radiofrequency identification (RFID) module (para 47 & claim 11, wherein the tag is an RFID tag).
Re claim 7, as best understood, the combination of Guy, Zwa, and Lars discloses the invention of claim 1, Guy further discloses wherein the control system comprises a safety relay for executing safety functions of the system by controlling the electrical energy (para 100-101 & 118, wherein a relay is utilized to affect the stop with power from the system).
Re claim 8, as best understood, the combination of Guy, Zwa, and Lars discloses the invention of claim 2, Zwa as applied above further discloses a power module (para 47, the high voltage generating system) comprising a high frequency voltage transformer (para 47, the tesla transformer) converts a voltage of a battery (para 47, wherein voltage supply is a battery) into high frequency AC voltage (para 47, the step-up circuit including the tesla transformer allows the low voltage from the battery to produce a high voltage AC output).
Re claim 10, as best understood, the combination of Guy, Zwa, and Lars discloses the invention of claim 1, Zwa as applied above further discloses wherein the ground electrode is built in the applicator (fig. 6c-15c).
Re claim 13, as best understood, the combination of Guy, Zwa, and Lars discloses the invention of claim 1, Lars as applied to Guy and Zwa further discloses wherein the sensor is positioned on the insulating boots (para 20, wherein the IMU-based sensors are disposed within the boots worn by an operator).
The combination of Guy, Zwa, and Lars discloses the claimed invention except for the sensor being explicitly positioned within the insoles of the insulating boots however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to position the sensor within the insole to prevent displacement or damage to the sensor within the boot, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of essential working parts is generally held as an obvious modification, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C, and Lars sets forth the general condition of installing the IMU-based sensors to PPE worn by the operator in desirable locations (Lars; para 20).
Re claim 15, as best understood, the combination of Guy, Zwa, and Lars discloses the invention of claim 1, Zwa as applied to Guy and Lars further discloses wherein the switch is a manual switch (para 48, 57, 85-86, & 95, the manual switch for the device/applicator) and the applicator comprises a second manual switch for activating the system and the control system is configured to keep the system off in case both manual switches are not triggered (para 86, wherein the flap has a second/secondary electrical switch that allows power to flow when the flap is closed/triggered).
Re claim 16, as best understood, the combination of Guy, Zwa, and Lars discloses the invention of claim 1, the applicator and sensors of Lars as applied to Guy and Zwa further discloses wherein the applicator comprises a tilt sensor (122; the tool position sensor, fig. 1) for monitoring the position of the applicator (para 24, the tool position sensor preforms motion tracking utilizing the IMU-based sensors), and the control system is configured to keep the system off in case the applicator is not tilted below a predetermined angle (fig. 5 and para 31, 34, 36-40, & 55, wherein the controller/processor has a calibration module for properly identifying the proper positioning of the tool, a protective action would be activated if the threshold distance is exceeded).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the calibration module and tool positioning sensors as taught by Lars to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by similarly protecting the user by properly calibrating the electric weeding system’s position. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 17, as best understood, the combination of Guy, Zwa, and Lars discloses the invention of claim 1, the applicator and sensors of Lars as applied to Guy and Zwa further discloses an accelerometer (para 17 & 36-39, wherein the accelerometer is built into the system of sensors for tracking position and movement) to identify when the applicator is raised over the ground (fig. 5 and para 31, 34, 36-40, & 55, wherein the controller/processor has a calibration module for properly identifying the proper positioning of the tool, a protective action would be activated if the threshold distance is exceeded), and wherein the control system is configured to prevent the activation of the applicator when the accelerometer detects an elevation of the applicator over the ground (para 17, 25, 34, 36-40, & 55, the controller/processor properly identifies the proper positioning of the tool and prevents improper use of the tool based on calibration measurements).
Re claim 18, as best understood, the combination of Guy, Zwa, and Lars discloses the user operated electric weeding system as defined in claim l, Guy as modified by Zwa and Lars further discloses a m checking if the at least one switch of the applicator was triggered by the user (fig. 17A and para 116 & 123-125, the first step is ensuring the tool is powered on which is done via the switch);
checking, via a sensor (fig. 17B and para 127, see step 527 via the conductive reading of from the body of the user to sense the presence of PPE) provided in at least one insulating boot (see Lars as applied to claim 1), if a user's foot is inside the insulating boot (para 13 & 108, within the sensing fibers therefore reading the body/hand’s resistance);
provided that the user's foot is inside the insulating boot (fig. 17B and para 127, such that the sensor reading is proper to continue past the first decision matrix/loop), activating the user operated electric weeding system (fig. 17A and para 123-129, the tool is activated when all safeties are determined to be working, see Zwa as applied to claim 1 for where the tool is an electric weeding system); otherwise, preventing the activation of the applicator if the presence of the user's foot is not detected (fig. 17B and para 127, when the sensor reading within the PPE is not proper the condition activate the tool is not met and not powered on).
Re claim 20, as best understood, the combination of Guy, Zwa, and Lars discloses the invention of claim 18, Zwa as applied to Guy and Lars further discloses wherein the applicator comprises two manual switches for activating the system (para 48, 57, 85-86, & 95, the manual switch within the housing of the device/applicator and the switch within the flap) and the method further comprising activating the system in case both manual switches are triggered by the user (para 86, wherein the switch within the housing and the flap switch allow power to flow when the housing switch is powered on and flap is closed).
Re claim 21, as best understood, the combination of Guy, Zwa, and Lars discloses the invention of claim 1, Lars as applied to Guy and Zwa further discloses wherein the applicator comprises a tilt sensor (122; the tool position sensor, fig. 1) for monitoring the position of the applicator (para 24, the tool position sensor preforms motion tracking utilizing the IMU-based sensors), and the method further comprises checking if the applicator is within a predetermined angle and preventing the activation of the system in case the applicator is not tilted below the predetermined angle (fig. 5 and para 31, 34, 36-40, & 55, wherein the controller/processor has a calibration module for properly identifying the proper positioning of the tool, a protective action would be activated if the threshold distance is exceeded).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the calibration module and tool positioning sensors as taught by Lars to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by similarly protecting the user by properly calibrating the electric weeding system’s position. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guy in view of Zwa and Lars as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Alsayyed Ahmad et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0150333 A1; herein Al.
Re claim 5, as best understood, the combination of Guy, Zwa, and Lars discloses the invention of claim 1, Guy further discloses wherein the sensor is a body reading sensor (para 13, the resistance within the body is registered when the gloves are on).
The combination fails to disclose wherein the sensor is one among the group including: a pressure sensing sensor, a heart monitoring sensor, temperature reading capacitive or a body current reading sensor. However, Al discloses a pressure sensing sensor (para 34, wherein the detection device utilizes a pressure sensor to indicate the operator is in the seat)
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the sensor is one among the group including: a pressure sensing sensor, a heart monitoring sensor, temperature reading capacitive or a body current reading sensor however, Al discloses utilizing a pressure sensor to identify an operator. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the pressure sensors as taught by Al to the insulating boots of the prior art to yield the predictable result of ensuring the operator is in a proper position for use. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guy in view of Zwa and Lars as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Rona et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0320641 A1; herein Rona.
Re claim 9, as best understood, the combination of Guy, Zwa, and Lars discloses the invention of claim 8, Zwa as applied above further discloses a transformer for generating high voltage for the applicator (para 47, the step-up circuit including the tesla transformer allows the low voltage from the battery to produce a high voltage AC output).
The combination of Guy, Zwa, and Lars fails to disclose a multiplier for converting the high frequency AC voltage. However, Rona discloses a transformer and a multiplier for converting high frequency AC voltage and generating high voltage for an applicator (para 7, the power travels through a high frequency transformer then a voltage multiplier for outputting to weeds).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose a multiplier for converting the high frequency AC voltage however, Rona discloses such a technique. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the circuit comprising both a transformer and multiplier as taught by Rona to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing for a power control within the circuit, see Rona paragraph 34. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guy in view of Zwa and Lars as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Gilmore, U.S. Patent No. 4,338,744 A; herein Gil.
Re claim 14, as best understood, the combination of Guy, Zwa, and Lars discloses the invention of claim 1, Guy as applied to Zwa and Lars further discloses a control system configured to keep the system off in case the switch is not in an "on" position (para 128-129, the system is only powered on when an input is received from the manual controls).
The combination fails to disclose wherein the applicator comprises a key switch for activating the system and keeping the system off in case the key switch is not in an "on" position. However, Gil discloses an applicator (abstract and fig. 1c) comprising a key switch (fig. 1c, Key SW) for activating a system (col 3; 48-57, when the Key SW is closed) and keeping the system off in case the key switch is not in an "on" position (col 3; 48-57, when the Key SW is open and the generator is off).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the applicator comprises a key switch for activating the system and keeping the system off in case the key switch is not in an "on" position however, Gil discloses such a key switch. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the simple power switch by utilizing a simple substitution of the known switch taught by the prior art for the key switch from Gil in order to obtain the predictable result of a secure mechanism such that the tool is not used by an improper operator. See MPEP 2143 I. (B).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guy in view of Zwa and Lars as applied to claim 10 above, in further view of Bettiol et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0295684 A1; herein Bet.
Re claim 11, as best understood, the combination of Guy, Zwa, and Lars discloses the invention of claim 10, Zwa as applied to further discloses wherein the ground electrode is attached to a rotary arm (fig. 7b & 9b), wherein the rotary arm supports the weight of the applicator whilst maintaining a constant contact with the ground (fig. 7b & 9b).
The combination of Guy, Zwa, and Lars fails to disclose wherein the ground electrode is attached to the rotary arm for adjusting the distance between the electrode and the ground electrode, wherein the rotary arm is spring loaded. However, Bet discloses a ground electrode (15; the first electrode, fig. 1-2) attached to a rotary arm (12; the pivoting arm, fig. 1-2) for adjusting the distance between an electrode and the ground electrode (fig. 1-2 and para 48-49, the rotation of the rotary arm adjusts the distance between the first and second electrode), wherein the rotary arm is spring loaded (14; the first elastic means, fig. 1-2) to support the weight applicator whilst maintaining a constant contact with the ground (para 48, the spring will work to maintain the pivoting arm in contact with the ground).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the ground electrode is attached to the rotary arm for adjusting the distance between the electrode and the ground electrode, wherein the rotary arm is spring loaded however, Bet discloses such a rotary arm. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the spring-loaded rotary arm as taught by Bet to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by utilizing the constant force of the spring to maintain connection with the ground. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guy in view of Zwa and Lars as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of the NPL from Honeywell, titled “Honeywell Dielectric Boots Pair Comfort With Protection From Electric Shock Risk,” https://www.honeywell.com/us/en/press/2021/06/honeywell-dielectric-boots-pair-comfort-with-protection-from-electric-shock-risk; herein Honey.
Re claim 12, as best understood, the combination of Guy, Zwa, and Lars discloses the invention of claim 1, the combination fails to disclose wherein the insulating boots are dielectric boots for blocking high voltages up to 20 kV. However, Honey discloses insulating boots that are dielectric boots for blocking high voltages up to 20 kV (the first paragraph).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the insulating boots are dielectric boots for blocking high voltages up to 20 kV however, Honey discloses such a boot. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of a dielectric boot for blocking high voltages up to 20 kV as taught by Honey to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by protecting the user from electrical hazards from the weeding device. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guy in view of Zwa and Lars as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Gil.
Re claim 19, as best understood, the combination of Guy, Zwa, and Lars discloses the invention of claim 18, the combination fails to disclose wherein the applicator comprises a key switch for activating the system and the method further comprising activating the system in case the key switch switched to the "on" position. However, Gil discloses wherein an applicator (abstract and fig. 1c) comprises a key switch (fig. 1c, Key SW) for activating a system (col 3; 48-57, when the Key SW is closed) and the method further comprising activating the system in case the key switch switched to the "on" position (col 3; 48-57, when the Key SW is closed).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the applicator comprises a key switch for activating the system and the method further comprising activating the system in case the key switch switched to the "on" position however, Gil discloses such a key switch. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the simple power switch by utilizing a simple substitution of the known switch taught by the prior art for the key switch from Gil in order to obtain the predictable result of a secure mechanism such that the tool is not used by an improper operator. See MPEP 2143 I. (B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE P MACCRATE whose telephone number is (571)272-5215. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9am-5pm 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, Joshua J Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/NICOLE PAIGE MACCRATE/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642