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 statements (IDS) submitted on 02/13/2025 and 08/11/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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 2-4 and 12-15 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.
-Claim 2 recites the limitation "the hole other than the specific hole" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Regarding claim 4, the language concerning the holes is unclear. Examiner notes claim 3 requires the plurality of holes to include a first hole and a second, different hole. Claim 4 further requires the plurality of holes to include two first holed and one second hole between the two first holes. However, it is unclear if these are the same holes or different holes than those required in claim 3. As currently claimed, these are all different holes, thus requiring three first holes, and two second holes, which does not appear to be supported. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as only two first holes and a single second hole.
-Claim 4 recites the limitation "the plurality of first holes" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Regarding claim 12, the language concerning the elongated hole is unclear. The claim provides “wherein the plurality of holes includes an elongated hole, and in the elongated hole, an opening area on a side closer to the working machine body is larger than an opening area on a side farther from the working machine body, with an orthogonal line as a boundary, that passes through a midpoint of a longest line segment having a maximum length among line segments each connecting two points on a peripheral edge that defines an opening of the elongated hole, and that is orthogonal to the longest line segment”. Examiner notes it is unclear how a single hole has multiple “opening areas” within the opening itself. There does not appear to be any bounds to what can and cannot be considered an “opening area” as currently claimed, as the claim appears to be further defining “space” within an open space. It is also unclear as to the bounds of the line segnments, as they do not appear to be contained within the elongated hole itself. The claim merely required “an orthogonal line” that must pass through “a midpoint” of any longest line drawn compared to any other line segment drawn. Examiner notes Claim 15 has similar issues. It is unclear how the opening areas are to be defined, and how the arbitrary lines are to be provided as currently claimed. For the purposes of examination, any elongated hole appears to read upon the current limitations as any elongated hole is capable of having a plurality of lines drawn, at a variety of angles and distances.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wenckel (US 2009/0277021) in view of Weshe (US 5,689,884).
Regarding claim 1, Wenckel teaches a working machine, comprising:
a working machine body (100)(Abstract; Figure 1A);
a hanging plate (30) attached to the working machine body and used to hang the working machine body by hooking a hook (Figure 1B; Paragraph 0044), the hanging plate including a plurality of holes (32A-32D) that penetrates the hanging plate in a thickness direction thereof and allows the insertion of an end portion of the hook (Figures 1A-1B).
Wenckel provides it is known to use the different holes to allow for variations in a user’s height (Paragraph 0044) but does not provide a marker having a function of indicating a position of a specific hole among the plurality of holes.
Weshe teaches it is known in the art of handheld cutting tools to provide a guide in a plate with a notch, colored line, etched surface or other suitable indicia to appropriately mark a preferred position (Col. 3, Lines 7-15).
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 Wenckel to incorporate the teachings of Weshe to provide appropriate markings anywhere on the device. Doing so allows the user to mark the provided portions of the device as desired.
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Wenckel teaches the working machine according to claim 1, wherein a minimum distance between the marker and the specific hole is shorter than a minimum distance between the marker and the hole other than the specific hole (Wenckel Figure 1B).
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Wenckel teaches the working machine according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of holes includes a first hole as the specific hole and a second hole that differs from the first hole in at least one of size and shape (Wenckel Figure 1B).
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Wenckel teaches the working machine according to claim 3, wherein the plurality of holes includes two first holes and one second hole located between the two first holes (Wenckel Figure 1B). The modified device of Wenckel does not specifically provide the marker is provided corresponding to each of the plurality of first holes.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the marker in various positions because rearranging parts with specific locations would have been a mere design consideration based on the desired indicia marking location. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement(s) as Weshe has set forth it is known to use notches, colored lines, etched surfaces or other suitable indicia to appropriately mark a preferred position. Also, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Wenckel teaches the working machine according to claim 1, wherein the marker is provided on the hanging plate (Wenckel Figure 1B and Weshe Col. 3, Lines 7-15).
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Wenckel teaches the working machine according to claim 5, wherein the marker is provided on a side opposite to the working machine body in the hanging plate (Wenckel Figure 1B and Weshe Col. 3, Lines 7-15).
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Wenckel teaches the working machine according to claim 6, wherein the marker includes a notch (Weshe Col. 3, Lines 7-15).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Wenckel teaches the working machine according to claim 1, wherein: the hanging plate includes a main body portion having the plurality of holes (Wenckel Figure 1B), and a fixing portion (34) that is connected to the main body portion and is fixed to the working machine body, and a thickness direction of the main body portion and a thickness direction of the fixing portion intersect with each other (Wenckel Figures 1A-1B Col. 5, Lines 9-26).
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Wenckel teaches the working machine according to claim 1, but does not provide wherein the marker is provided on the working machine body.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the marker in various positions because rearranging parts with specific locations would have been a mere design consideration based on the desired indicia marking location. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement(s) as Weshe has set forth it is known to use notches, colored lines, etched surfaces or other suitable indicia to appropriately mark a preferred position. Also, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Wenckel teaches the working machine according to claim 9, wherein the marker includes at least one of a depression and a projection (Weshe Col. 3, Lines 7-15).
Regarding claim 11, the modified device of Wenckel teaches the working machine according to claim 9, wherein the working machine body includes a main body (50), an operation portion (20), and a connecting portion (10,12) that connects the main body and the operation portion, and the hanging plate and the marker are provided at the connecting portion (Figure 1A).
Regarding claim 12, the modified device of Wenckel the working machine according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of holes includes an elongated hole, and in the elongated hole, an opening area on a side closer to the working machine body is larger than an opening area on a side farther from the working machine body, with an orthogonal line as a boundary, that passes through a midpoint of a longest line segment having a maximum length among line segments each connecting two points on a peripheral edge that defines an opening of the elongated hole, and that is orthogonal to the longest line segment (Wenckel See annotated Figure 1B Below).
PNG
media_image1.png
680
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Wenckel teaches the working machine according to claim 12, wherein the longest line segment of the elongated hole is inclined relative to an arrangement direction of the plurality of holes (See annotated Figure 1b above; Examiner notes the holes to be arranged left to right and are “inclined”).
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Wenckel teaches the working machine according to claim 13, wherein an angle between the longest line segment of the elongated hole and a direction orthogonal to the arrangement direction and the thickness direction (See annotated Figure 1b above) but does not provide a specific angle of 10 degrees or more and 40 degrees or less.
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 Wenckel to have a an angle between the longest line segment of the elongated hole and a direction orthogonal to the arrangement direction and the thickness direction of 10 degrees or more and 40 degrees or less 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 Wenckel would not operate differently with the claimed angle ranges with respect to the elongated holes since the hole is intended to be used with a hook, the device would function appropriately having the claimed angles. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the angles “may” be within the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 15, the modified device of Wenckel teaches the working machine according to claim 1, wherein: the plurality of holes includes an elongated hole, and in the elongated hole, an opening area on a side closer to the working machine body is larger than an opening area on a side farther from the working machine body, with an orthogonal line as a boundary, that passes through a midpoint of a longest line segment having a maximum length in a standing direction of the hanging plate among line segments each connecting two points on a peripheral edge that defines an opening of the elongated hole, and that is orthogonal to the standing direction (See annotated Figure 1b Above).
Regarding claim 16, the modified device of Wenckel teaches the working machine according to claim 1, wherein the working machine is a brush cutter configured to mow an object (Wenckel Figure 1A).
Regarding claim 17, Wenckel teaches a hanging plate (30) adapted to be attached to a working machine body (100) and used to hang the working machine body by hooking a hook (Col. 5, Lines 49-59) the hanging plate comprising: a plurality of holes (32a-32d) configured to penetrate the hanging plate in a thickness direction thereof and allow the insertion of an end portion of the hook (Figures 1A and 1B)
Wenckel does not provide a marker having a function of indicating a position of a specific hole among the plurality of holes.
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 Wenckel to incorporate the teachings of Weshe to provide appropriate markings anywhere on the device. Doing so allows the user to mark the provided portions of the device as desired to note specific preferences.
Related Prior Art
Below is an analysis of the relevance of references cited but not used
- "892 cited references B-M on page 1 and A-K on Page 2 establish the state of the art with a variety of different cutting elements/blades using a variety of holding mechanisms and attachment means.
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/ 06/05/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights