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.
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: “force applying element” in claim 1, and “fastening element” in claim 3.
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.
Examiner notes that applicant claims a broader term than what is disclosed; applicant discloses only one article that can perform the function of the “force applying element” and only one article that can perform the function of the “fastening element”. Therefore, the record does not seem to indicate any difference in scope between the first citation of the 112f term (claims 1), and the claims which claim the specific article that can perform the function (claim 2 for “force applying element”). Examiner notes that applicant does not positively claim a structure of the “fastening element”.
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 1-11 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.
Regarding claim 1, applicant claims “force applying element configured for applying a force directed from the at least one main handle body in a direction of the at least one main fastening body to the at least one main handle body”. First: Examiner notes that the term “force applying element configured for” is a 112f term, but applicant only discloses the use of a compression spring; applicant does not disclose other variants of the term. Therefore, the record is not clear if “force applying element” is identical in scope to “compression spring” in claim 2. Second, the record is not clear if the “configured for” requires a location of the “force applying element”. Does the “configured to” language require the spring to abut the main handle body or to abut the main fastening body? The configured to language does not require the location of the force applying element, however the record is not clear if that is required. Examiner assumes the location of the spring is not required, since it is positively claimed in claim 5.
Regarding claim 2, the record is not clear if the scope of “compression spring” is identical in scope to the term “force applying element”. If the scope is identical, then claim 2 is not further limiting.
Regarding claim 3, applicant claims “fastening element”, but does not ever apply structural requirements to this term.
Dependent claims inherit the same issues from parent claims and do not resolve any indefinite issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by 2003/0051303 Hung.
Regarding claim 1, Hung discloses an auxiliary handle device (figure 14) for a hand-held power tool (11 figure 14), comprising:
at least one main fastening body 113 configured for direct arrangement on the hand-held power tool (“of the casing 11 of the car waxing machine 1” [0041]), the at least one main fastening body 113 having at least one locking contour 119;
at least one main handle body 2 mounted rotatably (“pivotal handle 2” [0041]) relative to the at least one main fastening body 113 in at least one operating state, the at least one main handle body 2 having at least one handle surface 21 and at least one locking contour 213 configured to correspond to the at least one locking contour of the at least one main fastening body (as shown in figures 15-16);
at least one locking unit (figures 14-16) having at least one locking element 25 configured for releasable rotational fixing of the at least one main handle body relative to the at least one main fastening body (by including eccentric shaft 24); and
at least one force-applying element 237 configured for applying a force directed from the at least one main handle body in a direction of the at least one main fastening body to the at least one main handle body (237 compresses the contours 119 and 213 together based on the rotational location of the contour shaft 24).
Regarding claim 2, Hung discloses the auxiliary handle device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one force-applying element includes a compression spring 237 (figure 14).
Regarding claim 3, Hung discloses the auxiliary handle device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one locking unit (figure 14) has at least one fastening element (23) connected to the at least one main fastening body 113, and at least one axle bolt 24 directly connected to the at least one fastening element (directly connected to 23) and configured for a rotatable mounting of the at least one locking element (as shown in figures 15-16).
Regarding claim 4, Hung discloses the auxiliary handle device according to claim 1, wherein: the at least one locking element 25 is mounted rotatably about an axis of rotation (aligned with through holes 251), and the at least one locking element 25 has an eccentric contour 24 about the axis of rotation (figure 14).
Regarding claim 6, Hung discloses the auxiliary handle device according to claim 3, wherein the at least one force-applying element 237 extends coaxially to the at least one fastening element (combination of 23 and 236) around the at least one fastening element (as shown in figures 15-16).
Regarding claim 7, Hung discloses the auxiliary handle device according to claim 3, further comprising: a fastening bolt 236 configured to connect the at least one main fastening body 113 to the hand- held power tool (as shown in figures 15-16), the hand-held power tool 1 having at least one internal thread (along the axis of 236 within the seat 114) for a direct connection to the at least one fastening element of the at least one locking unit.
Regarding claim 8, Hung discloses the auxiliary handle device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one main handle body 2 includes a bow handle (as shown in figure 14).
Regarding claim 9, Hung discloses the auxiliary handle device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one locking contour 213 of the at least one main handle body 2 and the at least one locking contour 119 of the at least one main fastening body 114 are each formed by a serration coupling (as shown in figure 14).
Regarding claim 10, Hung discloses the auxiliary handle device according to claim 1, wherein: the at least one locking element 25 is configured to be released for an adjustment of a rotational position of the at least one main handle body (releasing the eccentric 24), and the at least one main handle body 2 is configured to be moved axially away from the at least one main fastening body and rotated for an adjustment of a rotational position counter to the force of the at least one force-applying element (as shown and discussed in [0041]).
Regarding claim 11, Hung discloses a hand-held power tool system (figure 14), comprising: a hand-held power tool 1, and the auxiliary handle device according to claim 1 (as shown in figure 14), the auxiliary handle device connected to the handheld power tool (figure 14).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 2010/0064480 Martin.
Regarding claim 5, Hung discloses the auxiliary handle device according to claim 3, wherein the at least one force-applying element 237 is supported at a first end on the (fastening bolt 236) and at a second end on the at least one main handle body 13; the spring is on the opposite side of the main fastening body 113 to the from the handle 2. Hung does not disclose the spring is between the handle and the axle bolt 24.
Martin discloses an auxiliary handle using a fastening element 47 with a spring 66 and a pivoting locking element 51 with an eccentric 48 which compresses the spring 66. The spring 66 is between the eccentric 48 and the handle body 41.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to relocate the spring of Hung to a different location, such as that taught by Martin, in order to achieve the same function of Hung. This may be done for the purpose of ease of assembly, it could be done for the purpose of ease of access for spring replacement, since the location of the spring of Hung has multiple options of locations to perform the same function. The rearrangement of known parts into a known arrangement is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (c).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY M MORGAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8-5 MST.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571)272-6531. 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.
/EMILY M MORGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights