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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to the claims filed 03/06/2026.
Cancellation of claims 1-18 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-23 are currently pending and being examined.
Continuing Data Should Be Updated
Applicant is respectfully requested to carefully review all continuing data for accuracy and completeness, and the status of each parent application appearing in paragraph [0001] of the specification should be updated where appropriate.
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 19-22 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase “said molding integrally forming the post receiver cover and the first handle cover with one another” renders claim 19 to be non-complying with the written description requirement because the feature appears to be new matter. On paragraph [0029] of the Pg Pub of the present Specification, the process of describes “The first grip 48 is molded onto the portion of the cover 72 (e.g., the first handle cover 46) covering the first handle body 42. Similarly, the second grip 62 is molded onto the portion of the cover 72 (e.g., the second handle cover 62) covering the second handle body 56. The first and second grips 48, 62 can be molded at the same time or one after another”. The Specification does not specifically describe the molding process as described in the claim. Therefore, the feature is considered new matter.
Regarding claim 21, the phrase “said molding integrally forming the post receiver cover and the first handle cover, and the second handle cover with one another” renders claim 19 to be non-complying with the written description requirement because the feature appears to be new matter. On paragraph [0029] of the Pg Pub of the present Specification, the process of describes “The first grip 48 is molded onto the portion of the cover 72 (e.g., the first handle cover 46) covering the first handle body 42. Similarly, the second grip 62 is molded onto the portion of the cover 72 (e.g., the second handle cover 62) covering the second handle body 56. The first and second grips 48, 62 can be molded at the same time or one after another”. The Specification does not specifically describe the molding process as described in the claim. Therefore, the feature is considered new matter.
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 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 claim 19, the phrase “said molding integrally forming the post receiver cover and the first handle cover with one another” renders claim 19 vague and indefinite because it is unclear what the term “integrally forming” conveys. Does this mean post receiver cover and the first handle cover are formed at the same time, or they are formed separately then joined together, or they are formed as to where they overlap. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 21, the phrase “said molding integrally forming the post receiver cover and the first handle cover, and the second handle cover with one another” renders claim 21 vague and indefinite because it is unclear what the term “integrally forming” conveys. Does this mean post receiver cover and the first handle cover are formed at the same time, or they are formed separately then joined together, or they are formed as to where they overlap. Clarification is required.
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 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.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McNeill (US 9181726 B2).
Regarding claim 1, McNeill discloses a post driver (1) for driving a post into the ground, the post driver comprising:
a rigid framework (27) having a post receiver body (7), a first handle body (body of 3) connected to the post receiver body (7), and a second handle body (body of 3) connected to the post receiver body (7), the first handle body (body of 3) having a first handle body length (Fig. 1) and the second handle body (body of 3) having a second handle body length (Fig. 2),
the post receiver body (7) defining a post receiving space (8) having an open end (36) and an opposite driving end (proximate 5/6), the post receiving space (8) sized and shaped to receive an upper end portion of the post (15);
a first molded handle cover (19) on the first handle body (body of 3) of the rigid framework (27), the first molded handle cover (19) and the framework (27) arranged relative to one another such that the framework (27) inhibits the first molded handle cover (19) from moving relative to the rigid framework in opposite directions parallel to the first handle body length (The framework of the handle has an angled surface that inhibits movement of the cover, 19);
a second molded handle cover (19) on the second handle body (body of 3) of the rigid framework (27), the second molded handle cover (19) and the framework (27) arranged relative to one another such that the framework (27) inhibits the second molded handle cover (19) from moving relative to the rigid framework in opposite directions parallel to the second handle body length (The framework of the handle has an angled surface that inhibits movement of the cover, 19).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNeill (US 9181726 B2) in view of Dishman (US 20180202188 A1).
Regarding claim 19, McNeill discloses a method of making a post driver (1) that drives a post into the ground (Col 3 lines 22-30 and Col 6 lines 24-32), the method comprising:
forming a rigid framework (27) having a post receiver body (body of 27; Fig. 1),
a first handle body (3) and a second handle body (3; Fig. 1), the post receiver body (body of 27) defining a post receiving space having an open end (36) and an opposite driving end (proximate 5/6),
the post receiving space (8) sized and shaped to receive an upper end portion of the post (15); and
molding a cover (7) onto the rigid framework (27), the cover (7) including a post receiver cover (7) covering at least a portion of the post receiver body (body of 27; “The central portion 7 is formed by moulding, a preferably plastics based material with low electrical conductivity, around an elongate skeleton assembly 27”) and a first handle cover (19) covering at least a portion of the first handle body (3; Fig. 2).
McNeill does not disclose said molding integrally forming the post receiver cover and the first handle cover with one another.
Whalen in a related invention teaches molding integrally forming the post receiver cover (38 of the head tube, 20) and the first handle cover (38 of the handle 12) with one another (Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover of McNeill by incorporating molding integrally forming the post receiver cover and the first handle cover with one another as taught by Whalen in order to ensure uniform protection for the handle and body.
Wherein an argument is made that Whalen is not a post driver. Dishman further teaches it is old and well known to have said molding integrally forming the post receiver cover (15) and the first handle cover (15) with one another.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover of McNeill by incorporating said molding integrally forming the post receiver cover and the first handle cover with one another as taught by Dishman in order to improve reliability ([0018] of Dishman).
Regarding claim 20 further comprising: molding a first grip (19 McNeill and/or 15 Dishman) onto the first handle body (3 McNeill).
Regarding claim 21, said molding integrally forming the post receiver cover (7 McNeill) and the first handle cover (15 Dishman), and the second handle cover (38 of Whalen and/or 15 of Dishman) with one another
Regarding claim 22 further comprising: molding a second grip (19 McNeill and/or 15 Dishman) onto the second handle body (3 McNeill).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 19 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection that is due to the newly added claim amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-1124. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. 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.
/NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ANDREW M TECCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights