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 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: “a working member configured to work” in claims 1 and 7.
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 § 102
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 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, 2, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patrick et al. (US 2020/0232177).
As concerns claim 1, Patrick shows a working machine (10), comprising: an operation rod (20) extending in a front-rear direction (Fig. 1); a rear unit (30) disposed at a rear end (24) of the operation rod (Fig. 1) and comprising a prime mover (36); and a front unit (50) disposed at a front end (26) of the operation rod (Fig. 1), wherein the front unit comprises: a front housing (72); a first member (plate member between pulley 94 & pulley 96) disposed within the front housing and fixed to the front housing (Fig. 4 & 5); a first shaft (86) that is rotatable and supported by the first member via a first bearing (Fig. 4 & 5); a working member (80) configured to work by rotation of the first shaft (Fig. 3-5); and a transmission unit (92) configured to rotate the first shaft when the prime mover (90) operates (Fig. 4 & 5), wherein the transmission unit comprises: a second shaft (paragraph 0035: pulley 94 connected to motor 90 (e.g. a rotational shaft thereof)) supported by the first member via a second bearing (Fig. 4 & 5); a first pulley (96) fixed to the first shaft and configured to rotate about a first pulley rotation axis (Fig. 4 & 5); a second pulley (94) fixed to the second shaft and configured to rotate about a second pulley rotation axis substantially parallel to the first pulley rotation axis (Fig. 4 & 5); and a belt (98) connecting the first pulley and the second pulley (Fig. 4 & 5).
As concerns claim 2, Patrick shows wherein the first shaft is substantially parallel to the second shaft (Fig. 4 & 5).
As concerns claim 5, Patrick shows wherein one end of the first shaft (86) is supported by the front housing (84).
As concerns claim 7, Patrick shows an attachment (10 [lower portion]) attached to a base unit (10 [upper portion]) including a rear operation rod (upper portion of shaft assembly 20) extending in a front-rear direction (Fig. 1) and a rear unit (30) disposed at a rear end (24) of the rear operation rod (Fig. 1) and including a prime mover (36), the attachment comprising: a front operation rod (lower portion of shaft assembly 20) extending in the front-rear direction and attached (integrally formed) to the rear operation rod (Fig. 1); and a front unit (50) disposed at a front end (26) of the front operation rod (Fig. 1), wherein the front unit comprises: a front housing (72); a first member (plate member between pulley 94 & pulley 96) disposed within the front housing and fixed to the front housing (Fig. 4 & 5); a first shaft (86) that is rotatable and supported by the first member via a first bearing (Fig. 4 & 5); a working member (80) configured to work by rotation of the first shaft (Fig. 3-5); and a transmission unit (92) configured to rotate the first shaft when the prime mover (90) operates (Fig. 4 & 5), wherein the transmission unit comprises: a second shaft (paragraph 0035: pulley 94 connected to motor 90 (e.g. a rotational shaft thereof)) supported by the first member via a second bearing (Fig. 4 & 5); a first pulley (96) fixed to the first shaft and configured to rotate about a first pulley rotation axis (Fig. 4 & 5); a second pulley (94) fixed to the second shaft and configured to rotate about a second pulley rotation axis substantially parallel to the first pulley rotation axis (Fig. 4 & 5); and a belt (98) connecting the first pulley and the second pulley (Fig. 4 & 5).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick et al. alone.
As concerns claim 6, Patrick discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first member is constituted of metal. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have utilized metal to form the first member, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose other than being an alternative to utilizing another commonly used material for forming the first member. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the invention to perform equally well with another commonly used material because the first member would still have been capable of maintaining the distance between the first shaft and the second shaft. Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized metal to form the first member for the expected benefit of providing a strong base structure to support the first shaft and the second shaft in order to maintain proper tension in the belt. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using metal to form the first member would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Patrick to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not appear to anticipate and/or render obvious a working machine, comprising: an operation rod extending in a front-rear direction; a rear unit disposed at a rear end of the operation rod and comprising a prime mover; and a front unit disposed at a front end of the operation rod, wherein the front unit comprises: a front housing; a first member disposed within the front housing and fixed to the front housing; a first shaft that is rotatable and supported by the first member via a first bearing; a working member configured to work by rotation of the first shaft; and a transmission unit configured to rotate the first shaft when the prime mover operates, wherein the transmission unit comprises: a second shaft supported by the first member via a second bearing; a first pulley fixed to the first shaft and configured to rotate about a first pulley rotation axis; a second pulley fixed to the second shaft and configured to rotate about a second pulley rotation axis substantially parallel to the first pulley rotation axis; a belt connecting the first pulley and the second pulley; and a third shaft substantially perpendicular to the second shaft and extending in the front-rear direction, wherein the third shaft is configured to rotate the second shaft when the prime mover operates.
The prior art of record does not show a third shaft substantially perpendicular to the second shaft and extending in the front-rear direction, wherein the third shaft is configured to rotate the second shaft when the prime mover operates, wherein the second shaft is configured to rotate the second pulley, wherein the second pulley is configured to rotate the first pulley via the belt, wherein the first pulley is configured to rotate the first shaft, and wherein the first shaft is configured to rotate the working member.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chan (US 11,345,010) and Brazell (US 5,603,173) each show a working machine having a belt with two pulleys.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-5.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/MATTHEW R BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights