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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3). The plane upon which a sectional view is taken should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line. No indication of the plane upon which each section view is taken is provided. Moreover, hatching must be used to indicate section portions of an object, and must be made by regularly spaced oblique parallel lines spaced sufficiently apart to enable the lines to be distinguished without difficulty. In the present Figs. 1 and 3, it is not clear which structure(s) are illustrated in section and which are not. As a result, Figs. 1 and 3 are difficult to discern the illustrated structure. The examiner provides an annotated portion of Fig. 1 of the present drawings below, where cross hatching indicates that the enclosed area is a single component. No new matter should be entered.
PNG
media_image1.png
540
669
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. No “at least one rod, cord, or further band” as recited in claim 9 is indicated with a reference character in the present drawings, such that it does not appear that the “at least rod, cord, or further band” is illustrated in the drawings. Therefore, the “at least one rod, cord, or further band” as recited in claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). If the at least one rod, cord, or further band is illustrated, the feature should be indicated with a reference character, and the reference character should be included in the specification. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. No “at least one clamping connection” as recited in claim 10 is indicated with a reference character in the present drawings, such that it does not appear that the “at least one clamping connection” is illustrated in the drawings. Therefore, the “at least one clamping connection” as recited in claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Merely adding a reference character to indicate a clamping connection may raise issues if the drawings do not actually illustrate a clamping connection.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. No “further guiding pulley” and no “S-shaped course” as recited in claim 12 is indicated with a reference character in the present drawings, such that it does not appear that either of these features is illustrated in the drawings. Therefore, the “further guiding pulley” and the “S-shaped course” as recited in claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. No cross-sectional shape of the groove is illustrated in the present drawings, and no ‘overall cross-section’ of the first and second portions of the pulley means is illustrated in the present drawings. Therefore, the cross-sections as recited in claim 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. No further intermediate tube as required by claim 15 is illustrated, and as such various features related to the further intermediate tube of claim 15 are also not illustrated. Therefore, the features of claim 15 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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes legal phraseology, including “means” multiple times. 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. 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).
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at line 4 recites, “the intermediate tube”. However, the claim previously introduces “at least one intermediate tube”. The claim should be amended to use consistent language when referring to the intermediate tube. In view of the claim’s preamble reading ‘comprising’, the examiner suggests amending line 3 to introduce – an intermediate tube – rather than “at least one intermediate tube”. Alternatively, the Applicant may elect to amend line 4 to refer to – the at least one intermediate tube –.
If the Applicant amends line 4 to read – the at least one intermediate tube –, Applicant should further review all claims and correct all instances of “the intermediate tube” beyond the recitation at line 4 (although amending line 3 to introduce “an intermediate tube” instead of “at least one intermediate tube” may be sufficient to resolve all issues related to later recitations of “the intermediate tube”).
Claim 1 at line 11 recites, “a number of deflection pulleys arranged at the back end of the outer tube”. This recitation should read -- a number of deflection pulleys respectively arranged at the back end of the outer tube – or otherwise make clear that only one deflection pulley is required at each location recited in lines 11-13. That is, the claim does not require a plurality of deflection pulleys at the back end of the outer tube, but instead requires that one deflection pulley is arranged at the back end of the outer tube.
Claim 1 at lines 11-13 should be amended as follows: -- a number of deflection pulleys arranged at the back end of the outer tube, a back end of the intermediate tube, [[and]] a back end of the inner tube, [[and]] at the front end of the outer tube, and a front end of the intermediate tube – in order to improve the grammar of the recitation (although note that these changes do not resolve the issue set forth at the prior paragraph).
Claim 1 introduces “a number of deflection pulleys” at line 11 then introduces various members of these deflection pulleys (see, e.g., “a first deflection pulley” at lines 17-18 and “a second deflection pulley” at line 20) without explicitly stating that the first and second deflection pulleys are members of the previously introduced ‘number of deflection pulleys’. Since the ‘number of deflection pulleys’ include the first and second deflection pulleys, the claim must be amended to specify this relationship.
Claim 1 at line 15 recites, “the tool head”. However, the claim previously introduces “at least one tool head”. The claim should be amended to use consistent language when referring to the tool head. In view of the claim’s preamble reading ‘comprising’, the examiner suggests amending line 5 to introduce – a tool head – rather than “at least one tool head”. Alternatively, the Applicant may elect to amend line 15 to refer to – the at least one tool head –.
If the Applicant amends line 15 to read – the at least one tool head --, Applicant should further review all claims and correct all instances of “the tool head” beyond the recitation at line 15 (although amending line 5 to introduce “a tool head” instead of “at least one tool head” may be sufficient to resolve all issues related to later recitations of “the tool head”).
Claim 1 at line 22 recites, “; and,”. The comma after ‘and’ in this recitation should be deleted.
Claim 1 at line 23 recites, “the outer side” of the outer tube. No outer side of the outer tube is previously introduced, such that this recitation should read – an outer side – of the outer tube.
Claim 2 recites “a first deflection pulley” and “a second deflection pulley”. Each of these pulleys should be referred to using the article “the” rather than the article “a”, since each of these pulleys is previously introduced in claim 1.
Claim 3 at line 2 recites, “at distance”. This recitation should read – at a distance –.
Claim 3 at lines 3-4 recites, “the first portion and second portion”. This recitation should read – the first portion and the second portion –.
Claim 6 must be amended to specify that the at least two telescopic interfaces include the first and second telescopic interfaces. As the claim is written, the first and second telescopic interfaces are introduced with “a”, suggesting that they are in addition to, rather than members of, the two telescopic interfaces.
Claim 10 recites, “a first portion” of the pulling means. This feature is previously introduced in claim 1, and therefore claim 10 should be amended to refer to – the first portion –.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/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 at line 1 recites, “in particular a telescopic pruner”. The phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). That is, it is unclear whether the hand tool must be a pruner, or whether “in particular a telescopic pruner” is merely an example of a type of hand tool encompassed by the claim. Examples should be set forth in the specification, not the claims. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets “in particular a telescopic pruner” as being a required, not optional, feature.
Claim 1 at line 7 recites, “particularly having a flat cross-section”. The phrase "particularly" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). That is, it is unclear whether the pulling means must have a flat cross-section, or whether “particularly having a flat cross-section” is merely an example of a pulling means shape encompassed by the claim. Examples should be set forth in the specification, not the claims. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets “particularly having a flat cross-section” as being a required, not optional, feature.
Claim 1 at lines 7-8 recites, “wherein the pulling means is arranged substantially inside the outer tube, the intermediate tube, and the inner tube”. This recitation is indefinite. First, claim 1 at lines 23-25 recites, “an elongated groove formed in the outer side of the outer tube and extending parallel to said outer tube, wherein the first portion and the second portion of the pulling means are arranged and guided above one another in the groove”. Since the groove is on the outer side of the outer tube, and since the pulling means includes two portions in the groove, claim 1 expressly requires that the pulling means is on the outer side of the outer tube. This interpretation appears consistent with the present specification. For example, Fig. 2 shows the outer groove ‘46’ on the outer side of the outer tube, with the pulling means ‘18’ exposed on the outer side of the tubes. Therefore, it is unclear what is required for the pulling means to be “arranged substantially inside” the tubes, when the claim also requires the pulling means to be on the outer side of the outer tube. Does claim 1 at lines 7-8 require that a majority of the length of the pulling means is inside the tubes? Does claim 1 at lines 7-8 require that nearly all of the length of the pulling means is inside the tubes? The intended meaning of the phrase at lines 7-8 is unclear in view of ‘substantially inside’ having the encompass some portion of the pulling means being exterior of the tubes. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets lines 7-8 as permitting only a short portion of the pulling means being exterior of the tubes.
Claim 1 at line 20 recites, “a second deflection pulley at or close to the back end of the outer tube”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the second deflection pulley is permitted to be “close to”, rather than “at”, the back end of the outer tube. The claim at line 11 already requires a number of deflection pulleys arranged “at the back end of the outer tube”. Thus, line 11 appears to require that the second deflection pulley is “at”, not “close to”, the back end of the outer tube. Does line 20 remove the prior requirement from line 11 that the deflection pulley is “at” the back end of the outer tube? Or, does line 11 supersede line 20 and prohibit the option for the second deflection pulley to be “close to” the back end of the outer tube? For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the second deflection pulley as having to be at the back end of the outer tube for consistency with line 11.
Clam 4 recites, “the guiding pulley”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 4 indefinite. For example, it is unclear whether claim 4 includes a dependency error – if claim 4 depended from claim 3 instead of claim 1, there would be an antecedent basis for “the guiding pulley”. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claim 4 as depending from claim 3.
Claim 4 at lines 3-4 recites, “wherein preferably the back handle is detachably mounted at the end sleeve”. The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). That is, it is unclear whether the back handle must be detachably mounted at the end sleeve, or whether this feature is optional. Examples should be set forth in the specification, not the claims. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets “the back handle is detachably mounted at the end sleeve” as being a required, not optional, feature.
Clam 5 recites, “the end sleeve”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 5 indefinite. For example, it is unclear whether claim 5 includes a dependency error – if claim 5 depended from claim 4 instead of claim 1, there would be an antecedent basis for “the end sleeve”. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claim 5 as depending from claim 4.
Claim 7 at line 2 recites, “preferably inside the first telescopic interface”. The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). That is, it is unclear whether the first deflection pulley must be inside the first telescopic interface, or whether this feature is optional. Examples should be set forth in the specification, not the claims. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets “preferably inside the first telescopic interface” as being a required, not optional, feature.
Clam 7 recites, “the first telescopic interface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 7 indefinite. For example, it is unclear whether claim 7 includes a dependency error – if claim 7 depended from claim 6 instead of claim 1, there would be an antecedent basis for “the first telescopic interface”. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claim 7 as depending from claim 6.
Claim 8 recites, “the first telescopic interface” and “the stop cam”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim, rendering claim 8 indefinite. For example, it is unclear whether claims 6 and 8 each include a dependency error. If claim 6 depended from claim 5, and if claim 8 depended from claim 7 (along with the dependency changes noted above), there would be an antecedent basis for each of “the first telescopic interface” and “the stop cam” in claim 8. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claim 6 as depending from claim 5, and interprets claim 8 depending from claim 7, such that claim 8 would have an antecedent basis for each of “the first telescopic interface” and “the stop cam”.
Claim 10 at line 1 recites, “in particular by at least one clamping connection”. The phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). That is, it is unclear whether the fixation must be at least clamping connection, or whether “in particular by at least one clamping connection” is merely an example of a type of hand tool encompassed by the claim. Examples should be set forth in the specification, not the claims. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets “in particular by at least one clamping connection” as being a required, not optional, feature.
Claim 12 recites, “at least one deflection pulley”. Claim 12 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim is introducing a new, additional deflection pulley, in addition to the ‘number of deflection pulleys’ already introduced in claim 1. Alternatively, claim 12 can be interpreted as further describing a member of the ‘number of deflection pulleys’ already introduced in claim 1. Since the intended relationship of the ‘at least one deflection pulley’ of claim 12 and the ‘number of deflection pulleys’ of claim 1 is unclear, claim 12 is indefinite.
Claim 13 twice recites, “in particular”. The phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention, or whether the features are optional. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the examiner interprets “in particular” as being required by the claim.
Claims 14 recites, “the overall cross-section of the first and second portions of the pulling means arranged to one another”. This recitation is indefinite for multiple reasons. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the overall cross-section” in the claim. It is unclear whether the first and second portions must each have a constant cross-section along their entire respective lengths, such that there is inherently some single cross-sectional shape of the first and second portions. If not, it is unclear which particular cross-section is being described. Second, the phrase “arranged to one another” appears to be missing a word. Does Applicant intend this phrase to read – arranged next to one another –? Does Applicant intend this phrase to read – arranged radially aligned to one another – ? Does Applicant intend some other word or phrase be inserted? Since the missing word makes the relationship between the first and second portions unclear, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 15 is indefinite for a host of reasons. For one, it is unclear whether the “at least one further intermediate tube” is required to be a member of the “at least one intermediate tube” of claim 1. The distinction is important because claim 1 makes requirements of the ‘at least one intermediate tube’ not made by claim 15 of the ‘at least one further intermediate tube’, and it is unclear whether the at least one further intermediate tube of claim 15 must satisfy these requirements. As another, it is unclear whether claim 15 is introducing additional deflection pulleys in addition to those already introduced in claim 1. As yet another, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the front end and back end”.
Claims Not Subject to Prior Art Rejection
Claims 1-15 are not subject to any prior art rejection under 35 USC 102 and/or 35 USC 103 because claim 1 recites a combination of features not taught or suggested by any known reference or combination of references. Claim 1 requires that the telescopic pruner comprises: “an outer tube; at least one intermediate tube slidable within the outer tube; an inner tube slidable within the intermediate tube; ... a number of deflection pulleys arranged at the back end of the outer tube, a back end of the intermediate tube, and a back end of the inner tube and at the front end of the outer tube and a front end of the intermediate tube, ... a first portion of the pulling means extending between the back handle and a first deflection pulley arranged at the front end of the outer tube, a second portion of the pulling means extending between the first deflection pulley and a second deflection pulley arranged at or close to the back end of the outer tube [the second pulley is required earlier in the claim to be arranged at the back end of the outer tube]; a pull sleeve slidable along the outer tube and connected to the first portion of the pulling means; and, an elongated groove formed in the outer side of the outer tube and extending parallel to said outer tube, wherein the first portion and the second portion of the pulling means are arranged and guided above one another within the groove.” No known reference or combination of references teaches or suggests these features, in conjunction with the remainder of features required by claim 1.
US Pub. No. 2022/0272905 A1 to Huang discloses a relevant telescopic pruner at Fig. 7. However, Huang at Fig. 7 fails to disclose several features required by claim 1. First, Huang discloses an outer tube 10 and an inner tube 20, but no intermediate tube. As such, Huang also fails to disclose a deflection pulley arranged at a back end of the intermediate tube and a deflection pulley arranged at a front end of the intermediate tube. Moreover, while Huang discloses that a portion of a pulling means 60 that extends on an outer side of the outer tube 10 (see Figs. 7 and 8), Huang fails to disclose an elongated groove formed in the outer side of the outer tube and extending parallel to said outer tube, where a first portion and a second portion of the pulling means are arranged and guided above one another within the groove as required by claim 1. At least for these reasons, claim 1 is distinguishable over Huang.
US Pub. No. 2009/0038162 A1 to Shan discloses a relevant telescopic pruner. However, Shan at fails to disclose several features required by claim 1. First, Shan discloses an outer tube 60 and an inner tube 60, but no intermediate tube. As such, Shan also fails to disclose a deflection pulley arranged at a back end of the intermediate tube and a deflection pulley arranged at a front end of the intermediate tube. Moreover, while Shan discloses that a portion of a pulling means 12 that is arranged in a groove 601 that extends on an outer side of the outer tube 60 (see Figs. 1, 12, and 16), Shan fails to disclose that both a first portion and a second portion of the pulling means are arranged and guided above one another within the groove, where the first portion extends between the back handle and a first deflection pulley arranged at a front of the outer tube and where the second portion extends between the first deflection pulley and a second deflection pulley arranged at the back end of the outer tube, as required by claim 1. At least for these reasons, claim 1 is distinguishable over Shan.
US Pat. No. 9,820,444 B2 to Held discloses a relevant telescopic pruner at Fig. 8. However, Held at Fig. 8 fails to disclose several features required by claim 1. First, Held discloses an outer tube 101 and an inner tube 102, but no intermediate tube. As such, Held also fails to disclose a deflection pulley arranged at a back end of the intermediate tube and a deflection pulley arranged at a front end of the intermediate tube. Moreover, claim 1 requires that “one end of the pulling means is connected to the back handle” and that the hoist pulley is provided for “redirecting the pulling means”. As disclosed by Held, however, a different pulling means 53 is connected to the back handle 112 than the pulling means 106 that is directed by the hoist pulley 104. Thus, held does not teach “a pulling means” (whose corresponding structure is a single cord or band) that is both connected at one end to the back handle and redirected by the hoist pulley. Further still, Held does not disclose an elongated groove formed in the outer side of the outer tube and extending parallel to said outer tube, where a first portion and a second portion of the pulling means are arranged and guided above one another within the groove as required by claim 1.
JP 3364448 B2 to Nakamura discloses a relevant telescopic pruner at Figs. 1-5. However, Nakamura discloses one tube 1 in which all of deflection pulleys 29a, 29b, 29c, 31a, and 31b are positioned (see Fig. 4). Thus, Nakamura fails to disclose pulleys are the various locations required by claim 1. Moreover, Nakamura fails to disclose an elongated groove formed in the outer side of the outer tube and extending parallel to said outer tube, where a first portion and a second portion of the pulling means are arranged and guided above one another within the groove as required by claim 1. At least for these reasons, claim 1 is distinguishable over Nakamura.
US Pat. No. 5,084,975 to Melter discloses a relevant telescopic pruner. However, Melter fails to disclose several features required by claim 1. First, Melter discloses an outer tube 14 and an inner tube 12, but no intermediate tube. As such, Melter also fails to disclose a deflection pulley arranged at a back end of the intermediate tube and a deflection pulley arranged at a front end of the intermediate tube. Scond, Melter does not disclose an elongated groove formed in the outer side of the outer tube and extending parallel to said outer tube, where a first portion and a second portion of the pulling means are arranged and guided above one another within the groove as required by claim 1.
US Pub. No. 2011/0113635 A1 to Lee et al. discloses a relevant telescopic pruner. However, the pruner of Lee only includes a single tube, such that Lee fails to disclose at least one intermediate tube and an inner tube as required by claim 1. While Lee discloses a number of deflection pulleys (see Fig. 7), the pulleys are not at the locations required by present claim 1 (i.e., present claim 1 requires that deflection pulleys to be arranged at a back end of the intermediate tube, a back end of the inner tube, and a front end of the inner tube). Also, while Lee discloses a portion of a pulling means 21 exiting the outer tube at aperture 23, Lee fails to disclose an elongated groove formed in the outer side of the tube and extending parallel to said outer tube, wherein first and second portions of the pulling means are arranged and guided above one another in the groove as required by claim 1. Finally, the embodiment of Figs. 11-15 of Lee fails to cure the deficiencies of the embodiment including Fig. 7 of Lee. For example, even the embodiment of Figs. 11-15 of Lee fails to disclose at least one intermediate tube and deflection pulleys arranged at the back and front ends of the intermediate tube, and even the embodiment of Figs. 11-15 of Lee fails to disclose first and second portions of the pulling means that are arranged and guided above one another within a groove formed in the outer side of the outer tube.
US Pub. No. 2005/0081387 A1 to Sun et al. at Fig. 11 illustrates an inner tube 61 and an outer tube 62 with a conveying element 7 for conveying compressed air within the tubes 61 and 62. Since the element 7 conveys compressed air, there is no motivation to provide the conveying element 7 with deflection pulleys at front and rear ends of the conveying element 7. Therefore, there is no motivation to modifying any reference cited herein with ‘an intermediate element’ having deflection pulleys at the front and rear ends thereof based on the teachings of Sun.
Additional relevant telescopic pruners that fails to disclose “an outer tube; at least one intermediate tube slidable within the outer tube; an inner tube slidable within the intermediate tube; ... a number of deflection pulleys arranged at the back end of the outer tube, a back end of the intermediate tube, and a back end of the inner tube and at the front end of the outer tube and a front end of the intermediate tube, ... a first portion of the pulling means extending between the back handle and a first deflection pulley arranged at the front end of the outer tube, a second portion of the pulling means extending between the first deflection pulley and a second deflection pulley arranged at or close to the back end of the outer tube [the second pulley is required earlier in the claim to be arranged at the back end of the outer tube]; a pull sleeve slidable along the outer tube and connected to the first portion of the pulling means; and, an elongated groove formed in the outer side of the outer tube and extending parallel to said outer tube, wherein the first portion and the second portion of the pulling means are arranged and guided above one another within the groove,” include:
CN 104885797 to Yang
US Pat. No. 2,744,322 to Gustafson
CN 201911086 U to Huang
WO 2009/040105 A1 to Pittau
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
