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 . 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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/07/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “selectively lock the second handle in any orientation relative to the first handle” of claims 5, 14 and 19; “the handle brace comprises an adjustable strap” of claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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:
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the legal phraseology comprises. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not 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 not 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 function without reciting 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: locking mechanism in claims 3, 11, 12, and 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4, 5, 10, 13, 14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
-Claims 4, 13, and 18 lack written description for the phrase “freely rotate 360 degrees about the first handle”. Examiner notes support for the language is provided in paragraph 0011, however, the provided paragraph, specification and drawings to not detail the extent of what can and cannot be considered “freely rotate 360 degrees about the first handle”. As currently claimed, this includes a handle, detached from the device and capable of any rotation and manipulation by the user, separated from the device, which does not appear to be supported. The drawings appear to require the second handle to be fixed at a certain point on the device, however it is also unclear about the second handles rotation. Is the rotation about the longitudinal axis or a rotational axis that is different? For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as rotated about a fixed point along any reasonable axis.
-Claims 5, 14 and 19 lack written description for the phrase “configured to selectively lock the second handle in any orientation relative to the first handle”. Examiner notes support for the language is provided in paragraph 0011, however, the provided paragraph, specification and drawings to not detail the extent of what can and cannot be considered “any orientation”. The specification does not provide details how the second handle is capable of being locked into any orientation, and the drawings appear to only show a specific orientation of the second handle being fixed to the first handle in the same position. As currently claimed, the second handle could also be fixed to any component of the trimmer” and be “relative” to the first handle, which does not appear to be supported. For the purposes of examination, the second handle will be treated as fixed to the device in at least one position.
-Regarding claim 10, the phrase “wherein the brace comprises an adjustable strap” lacks written description. As currently claimed, a handle brace and an adjustable strap appear to be required. Examiner notes paragraph 0081 seems to note the handle brace is an adjustable strap, a rigid and/or semi rigid cuff, and/or any other suitable securing means or combination thereof. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as a single structural component.
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 and 18-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the positional orientations of the second handle relative to the shaft are unclear. For example, see Figure 6 noting that while some portions of the second handle may be “substantially parallel” to the shaft, other portions appear to have planes that would intersect the shaft at multiple points. It is unclear from the drawings and the specification how the first, second and third positions are to be “orthogonal, parallel and orthogonal” when the overall shape of the second handle does not appear to be oriented in its entirety for the claimed subject matter.
-Regarding claims 1, 6, 9 , 11,, 15, 16 17 and 20, the language regarding a user’s hand is noted but unclear, specifically, the required positioning of the user within claims 6 and 15. For the purposes of examination, all limitations referencing the user, the users hand, or any other portion of the user will be treated as intended use, and the user is capable of orienting their hands as needed.
-Claim 5 recites the limitation " the locking mechanism" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 10 recites the limitation " the handle brace" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Regarding claim 12, “the second handle comprises a locking mechanism” is unclear. Claim 11 has already provided a locking mechanism configured to selectively secure the second handle, and this appears to be a second locking mechanism, which does not appear to be supported. For the purposes of examination, the limitations will be treated as only a single locking mechanism.
Claims 2-10 and 12-16 dependent from claims 1 and 11 respectively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are rejected as being dependent from a rejected parent claim.
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 1-8,11-15,17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duller (US 2012/0180445) in view of Rizzo (US 11,027,408).
Regarding claim 1, Duller teaches a weed trimmer apparatus (10)(Figures 1-2; Paragraph 0020) comprising:
a trimmer shaft (20, 26, 28) a trimmer head (50,52) coupled to a first end of the trimmer shaft (Figure 1)(Paragraph 0020-0021); a first handle (90,95) extending from the trimmer shaft (Figures 1-2) the first handle comprising: a grip portion (90) configured to be grasped by a user's hand, and an actuation mechanism (95) disposed on the grip portion and configured to actuate a motor (70) of the trimmer (Figures 1-2, 5 noting the users hand positioned to grip the handle; Paragraphs 0020-0021; and
a second handle (110) rotatably coupled to the trimmer shaft (Paragraphs 0037-0038 noting a second handle may be attached to a plurality of different section of the device and rotatable about multiple axes)
Duller does not provide the second handle rotatably coupled to the first handle, the second handle configured to rotate around an axis of the first handle between at least: a first position substantially orthogonal to the trimmer shaft, a second position substantially parallel to the trimmer shaft and extending toward one of the first end of the trimmer shaft or the second end of the trimmer shaft, and a third position substantially orthogonal to the trimmer shaft and opposite the first position.
Rizzo teaches it is known in the art of weed trimmers to provide a trimmer (100) including a trimmer shaft (27,22) and a motor (24);
a first handle (15,13,19,21,23,17) and a second handle (14, 12,18,20,23) (Figure 1) the second handle rotatably coupled to the first handle (Figure 1 and Columns 5-6, Lines 36-67 and Lines 1-50; Col. 7, Lines 24-65 noting actuating mechanisms 23) the second handle configured to rotate around an axis of the first handle (noting the axis to be the longitudinal axis through the first and second handles as shown in Figure 1 through extensions 12 and 13 via hinge member 14) between at least:
a first position substantially orthogonal to the trimmer shaft, a second position substantially parallel to the trimmer shaft and extending toward one of the first end of the trimmer shaft or the second end of the trimmer shaft, and a third position substantially orthogonal to the trimmer shaft and opposite the first position (Figures 1 and 2 noting the second handle 14,12,18,20,23) pivots and rotates relative to the trimmer shaft through a plurality of different positions including portions where the majority of the handle is parallel and orthogonal; Col. 6, lines 39-50 also note the movable coupling may be configured to lock and unlock the bar extensions thereby allowing further pivoting and rotation not specified in the drawings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Duller to incorporate the teachings of Rizzo to provide the second handle rotatably coupled to the first handle. In doing so, it allows for dual handles with multiple control inputs that may be rotatably changed to a more ergonomic position for the user during use.
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Duller teaches the weed trimmer apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second handle is further configured to rotate to a fourth position substantially parallel to the trimmer shaft and opposite the second position (Duller Figure 1 and Rizzo Figures 1-2 noting multiple orientation changes throughout hinge element 14).
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Duller teaches the weed trimmer apparatus of claim 2, wherein the second handle comprises a locking mechanism configured to selectively lock the second handle in at least the first position, the second position, the third position, or the fourth position (Rizzo Figures 1-2 and Col. 6, lines 39-50 the movable coupling may be configured to lock and unlock the bar extensions thereby allowing further pivoting and rotation not specified in the drawings).
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Duller teaches the weed trimmer apparatus of claim 2, wherein the second handle is configured to rotate about the first handle (Duller Paragraphs 0037-0038 noting a second handle may be attached to a plurality of different section of the device and rotatable about multiple axes and Rizzo Figures 102 noting the hinge elements and multiple rotational points).
The modified device of Duller does not specifically provide free rotation of 360 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Duller. to have free 360 degree rotation since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In the instant case, the device of Smith et al. would not operate differently with the claimed rotation and since the second handle is intended to rotate relative to the first handle the device would function appropriately having the claimed rotation. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the second handle may be configured to freely rotate 360 degrees about the first handle (specification pp. [0011]).
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Duller teaches the weed trimmer apparatus of claim 4, wherein the locking mechanism is configured to selectively lock the second handle in any orientation relative to the first handle (Rizzo Figures 1-2 and Col. 6, lines 39-50 the movable coupling may be configured to lock and unlock the bar extensions thereby allowing further pivoting and rotation not specified in the drawings).
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Duller teaches the weed trimmer apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is configured such that: when the second handle is in the first position, the user may grasp the first handle with the user's right hand, and grasp the second handle with the user's left hand; and when the second handle is in the third position, the user may grasp the first handle with the user's left hand, and grasp the second handle with the user's right hand (Duller Figures 1-2 and Rizzo Figures 1-2 noting the user may grasp the handles as desired during use and the prior art reads upon all structural limitations as claimed).
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Duller teaches the weed trimmer apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second handle is rotatably coupled to the first handle at a location between the grip portion and a junction of the first handle and the trimmer shaft (Duller Figure 2 and Rizzo Figures 1-2 noting the middle junction (11) between the two handles).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Duller teaches the weed trimmer apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first handle further comprises a handle protrusion (98) extending orthogonally from the grip portion (Duller Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 11, Duller teaches a trimmer apparatus (10)(Figues 1-2 and Paragraph 0020) comprising: a trimmer base comprising a motor (70)(Figures 1-2 and 5); a shaft (20,26) extending from the trimmer base (Figures 1-2);
a trimmer head (50,52) secured to an end of the shaft opposite the trimmer base (Figure 2);
a first handle (90,95) extending from the shaft, the first handle comprising: a grip portion (90) configured to be grasped by a user's hand, and an actuation mechanism (95) disposed on the grip portion and operatively connected to the motor (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 0020-0021);
a second handle (110) rotatably coupled to the shaft (Paragraphs 0037-0038 noting a second handle may be attached to a plurality of different section of the device and rotatable about multiple axes).
Duller does not provide the second handle rotatably coupled to the first handle, the second handle configured to rotate around an axis of the first handle between at least: a first position substantially parallel to the shaft and extending toward the trimmer head, a second position substantially parallel to the shaft and extending toward the trimmer base, a third position substantially orthogonal to the shaft, and a fourth position substantially orthogonal to the shaft and opposite the third position; and a locking mechanism configured to selectively secure the second handle in the first position, the second position, or the third position.
Rizzo teaches it is known in the art of weed trimmers to provide a trimmer (100) including a trimmer shaft (27,22) and a motor (24);
a first handle (15,13,19,21,23,17) and a second handle (14, 12,18,20,23) (Figure 1) the second handle rotatably coupled to the first handle (Figure 1 and Columns 5-6, Lines 36-67 and Lines 1-50; Col. 7, Lines 24-65 noting actuating mechanisms 23) the second handle configured to rotate around an axis of the first handle (noting the axis to be the longitudinal axis through the first and second handles as shown in Figure 1 through extensions 12 and 13 via hinge member 14) between at least:
a first position substantially parallel to the shaft and extending toward the trimmer head, a second position substantially parallel to the shaft and extending toward the trimmer base, a third position substantially orthogonal to the shaft, and a fourth position substantially orthogonal to the shaft and opposite the third position; and a locking mechanism configured to selectively secure the second handle in the first position, the second position, or the third position (Figures 1 and 2 noting the second handle 14,12,18,20,23) pivots and rotates relative to the trimmer shaft through a plurality of different positions including portions where the majority of the handle is parallel and orthogonal; Col. 6, lines 39-50 also note the movable coupling may be configured to lock and unlock the bar extensions thereby allowing further pivoting and rotation not specified in the drawings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Duller to incorporate the teachings of Rizzo to provide the second handle rotatably coupled to the first handle. In doing so, it allows for dual handles with multiple control inputs that may be rotatably changed to a more ergonomic position for the user during use.
Regarding claim 12, the modified device of Duller teaches trimmer apparatus of claim 11, wherein the second handle comprises a locking mechanism configured to selectively lock the second handle in at least the first position, the second position, the third position, or the fourth position (Rizzo Figures 1-2 and Col. 6, lines 39-50 the movable coupling may be configured to lock and unlock the bar extensions thereby allowing further pivoting and rotation not specified in the drawings).
Regarding claim 13, the trimmer apparatus of claim 11, wherein the second handle is configured to rotate about the first handle (Duller Paragraphs 0037-0038 noting a second handle may be attached to a plurality of different section of the device and rotatable about multiple axes and Rizzo Figures 102 noting the hinge elements and multiple rotational points).
The modified device of Duller does not specifically provide free rotation of 360 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Duller. to have free 360 degree rotation since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In the instant case, the device of Smith et al. would not operate differently with the claimed rotation and since the second handle is intended to rotate relative to the first handle the device would function appropriately having the claimed rotation. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the second handle may be configured to freely rotate 360 degrees about the first handle (specification pp. [0011]).
Regarding claim 14, the trimmer apparatus of claim 13, wherein the locking mechanism is configured to selectively lock the second handle in any orientation relative to the first handle (Rizzo Figures 1-2 and Col. 6, lines 39-50 the movable coupling may be configured to lock and unlock the bar extensions thereby allowing further pivoting and rotation not specified in the drawings).
Regarding claim 15, the trimmer apparatus of claim 11, wherein the apparatus is configured such that: when the second handle is in the third position, the user may grasp the first handle with the user's right hand, and grasp the second handle with the user's left hand; and when the second handle is in the fourth position, the user may grasp the first handle with the user's left hand, and grasp the second handle with the user's right hand (Duller Figures 1-2 and Rizzo Figures 1-2 noting the user may grasp the handles as desired during use and the prior art reads upon all structural limitations as claimed).
Regarding claim 17, Duller teaches a power tool (10)(Figures 1-2) comprising:
an elongate shaft (20,26,28) and an operative head (50,52) coupled to a first end of the shaft (Figures 1-2);
a first handle (90,95) extending from the shaft, the first handle comprising: a grip portion (90) configured to be grasped by a user's hand, and an actuation mechanism (95) disposed on the grip portion and configured to actuate a motor (70) of the power tool (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 0020-0021); and a second handle (110) rotatably coupled to the shaft, the second handle configured to rotate around an axis of the shaft (Paragraphs 0037-0038 noting a second handle may be attached to a plurality of different section of the device and rotatable about multiple axes).
Duller does not provide the second handle (110) rotatably coupled to the first handle, the second handle configured to rotate around an axis of the first handle.
Rizzo teaches it is known in the art of weed trimmers to provide a trimmer (100) including a trimmer shaft (27,22) and a motor (24);
a first handle (15,13,19,21,23,17) and a second handle (14, 12,18,20,23) (Figure 1) the second handle rotatably coupled to the first handle (Figure 1 and Columns 5-6, Lines 36-67 and Lines 1-50; Col. 7, Lines 24-65 noting actuating mechanisms 23) the second handle configured to rotate around an axis of the first handle (noting the axis to be the longitudinal axis through the first and second handles as shown in Figure 1 through extensions 12 and 13 via hinge member 14; Figures 1 and 2 noting the second handle 14,12,18,20,23 pivots and rotates relative to the trimmer shaft through a plurality of different positions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Duller to incorporate the teachings of Rizzo to provide the second handle rotatably coupled to the first handle. In doing so, it allows for dual handles with multiple control inputs that may be rotatably changed to a more ergonomic position for the user during use.
Regarding claim 18, the power tool of claim 17, wherein the second handle is configured to rotate about the first handle (Duller Paragraphs 0037-0038 noting a second handle may be attached to a plurality of different section of the device and rotatable about multiple axes and Rizzo Figures 1 and 2 noting the hinge elements and multiple rotational points).
The modified device of Duller does not specifically provide free rotation of 360 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Duller. to have free 360 degree rotation since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In the instant case, the device of Smith et al. would not operate differently with the claimed rotation and since the second handle is intended to rotate relative to the first handle the device would function appropriately having the claimed rotation. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the second handle may be configured to freely rotate 360 degrees about the first handle (specification pp. [0011]).
Regarding claim 19, the power tool of claim 18, further comprising a locking mechanism configured to selectively lock the second handle in any orientation relative to the first handle (Rizzo Figures 1-2 and Col. 6, lines 39-50 the movable coupling may be configured to lock and unlock the bar extensions thereby allowing further pivoting and rotation not specified in the drawings).
Claims 9, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duller (US 2012/0180445) in view of Rizzo (US 11,027,408) as applied to claims 1, 11 and 17 respectively above, and further in view of Kennemer (US 11,805,730).
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Duller teaches the weed trimmer apparatus of claim 1, but does not provide wherein the second handle comprises a handle brace configured to secure a user's forearm to the second handle when the second handle is in the second position.
Regarding claim 16, the modified device of Duller teaches the trimmer apparatus of claim 11, but does not provide wherein the trimmer further comprises a handle brace configured to secure a user's forearm to the second handle when the second handle is in at least one of the first position or the second position.
Regarding claim 20, the modified device of Duller teaches the power tool of claim 17, but does not provide wherein the second handle comprises a handle brace configured to secure a user's forearm to the second handle.
Kennemer teaches it is known in the art of weed trimmers (Figure 3) to provide a removable (Via clamp 215) handle brace (201) configured to secure a user’s forearm to a handle when the handle is in a position (Figures 2-3 and Col. 2, Lines 49-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Duller to incorporate the teachings of Kennemer to provide a removable handle brace attachable to the handle. Doing so provides increased support for the user during use to decrease pain and fatigue.
Thus, the modified device of Duller, in view of Kennemer teaches the second handle (Duller Figure 1, Rizzo Figures 1-2) comprises a handle brace configured to secure a user's forearm to the second handle when the second handle is in the second position (Rizzo Figures 1-2 and Kennemer Figures 2-3 noting the clamping element 15 can be used to clamp the handle brace to second handle).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duller (US 2012/0180445) in view of Rizzo (US 11,027,408), as applied to claim 1, 5 above, and further in view of Gambert (US 2003/0226262). Examiner notes claim 10 has no antecedent basis for the claimed handle brace, and the limitation is treated as claimed.
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Duller teaches the weed trimmer apparatus of claim 5, wherein a handle brace with a cuff (Duller Figure 2 noting the device as a whole includes handle brace, but is silent as to an adjustable strap.
As such, the modified device of Duller does not appear to comprise the handle brace comprises an adjustable strap.
Gambert teaches it is known in the art of weed trimmers to incorporate multiple types of cuffs including straps, to ensure a users arm is positioned as desired (Figure 2; Paragraphs 0017-0018 noting a first cuff 40 including adjustable straps 41,42 and a second adjustable cuff (50) including straps 56 attachable to elements 52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the device of Duller to incorporate the teachings of Gambert to provide the handle brace with adjustable straps. In doing so, it allows for the handle brace to be adjusted to the user as desired.
Related Prior Art
Below is an analysis of the relevance of references cited but not used
- "892 cited references A-B and D-J on page 1 establish the state of the art with a variety of weed trimming devices incorporating various trimmer handles and attachment devices for handles as well as different handle devices that may be attached to various support components (backpacks/vests/cuffs).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD D CROSBY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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.
/RICHARD D CROSBY JR/ 09/28/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3724
