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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi et al. (2023/0219247 A1), hereinafter Taniguchi, in view of Murakami (DE 102012103663 A1), provided with the IDS submitted on 06/27/2025. Regarding claim 11, Taniguchi discloses a handheld working apparatus including a housing 14, an electric motor 4 arranged in the housing 14, and an output shaft 85 driven by the electric motor 4. Taniguchi further discloses a rotary blade 12 attached to the output shaft 85 and configured to rotate about an axis of rotation of the output shaft 85 (see paragraphs [0040]-[0041], [0053]-[0058], and [0097]). Taniguchi further discloses a protective blade cover 16 at least partially covering the rotary blade 12. The blade cover 16 is pivotably attached relative to the housing 14 about a pivot axis A substantially coincident with the rotation axis of the output shaft 85 (see paragraphs [0053]-[0058], [0097]). The blade cover 16 includes a first sidewall 162 covering at least part of a side surface of the rotary blade 12, and the housing 14 includes a facing portion 142 positioned opposite the first sidewall 162 (see paragraphs [0060], [0065]).Taniguchi further teaches that the blade cover 16 includes a first stopper 110 and a second stopper 120, and the housing 14 includes corresponding stopper receivers 210 and 220. The first stopper 110 and first stopper receiver 210, as well as the second stopper 120 and second stopper receiver 220, restrict rotational movement of the blade cover 16 relative to the housing 14 (see paragraphs [0061], [0065], [0070]-[0072], and [0097]). Thus, Taniguchi teaches a housing, drive motor, rotating tool, protective hood, and stop arrangement for restricting movement of the protective hood. See Figs. 1-9 in Taniguchi.
However, Taniguchi does not expressly disclose that the operating stop is an energy absorption element configured to move away from the counter-body upon excess loading to absorb kinetic energy and protect components of the counter-body. Murakami teaches such an impact absorbing stop arrangement. Murakami discloses a portable working machine having a wheel guard 30 partially covering a rotary blade 7 attached to a shaft 16 supported by a boom 6. Murakami discloses stoppers 50 and 55 positioned on the wheel guard 30 that engage the boom 6 when the wheel guard 30 pivots beyond a predetermined angle. The stoppers include elastic stopper rings 52 and 57 formed from an energy absorbing material, such as rubber, which first contact the boom 6 and absorb collision impact before the stopper bodies 51 and 56 contact the boom 6 (see Murakami description). See also Figs. 1-8 in Murakami.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Taniguchi’s stopper and stopper receiver arrangement by incorporating Murakami’s energy absorbing stopper structure, including elastic impact absorbing members 52, 57 associated with stoppers 50, 55, to reduce impact loads generated when the blade cover 16 reaches an end position. Such a modification would have predictably improved durability of the blade cover and stopper components by absorbing kinetic energy during excessive pivoting movement. Accordingly, the combination of Taniguchi and Murakami renders obvious a handheld working apparatus having an operating stop that functions as an energy absorption element and absorbs kinetic energy caused by movement of the protective hood.
Regarding claim 12, the claim further requires a further counter-body corresponding to the end stop and integrally formed on the protective hood
Taniguchi discloses multiple stopper structures formed on the blade cover 16, including first stopper 110 and second stopper 120, which are formed on the blade cover 16 and correspond with stopper receivers 210 and 220 formed on the housing 14. Thus, Taniguchi teaches a plurality of counter-body structures associated with the protective cover. To the extent Taniguchi does not expressly disclose integral formation of the further counter-body, Murakami teaches stopper structures 50, 55 attached to the wheel guard 30 for restricting guard rotation. It would have been obvious to form the stopper/counter-body integrally with or as part of the protective hood to simplify manufacturing and improve structural rigidity.
Regarding claim 13, the claim further requires an arm having proximal and distal ends, with the tool arranged at the distal end and the end stop formed integrally on the arm. Murakami discloses a boom 6 supporting the shaft 16 and rotary blade 7 at a distal end thereof. The boom 6 includes structures against which the stoppers 50, 55 of the wheel guard 30 contact to restrict pivoting movement. It would have been obvious to modify Taniguchi’s housing-facing stopper receiver arrangement by locating the corresponding stop structure on an arm/boom supporting the rotary tool, as taught by Murakami, because such positioning provides a robust stop location adjacent the rotary tool.
Regarding claim 14, the claim requires a protective hood having first outer side, second outer side, and peripheral side, with the counter-body arranged on the peripheral side. Taniguchi discloses blade cover 16 having sidewall 162 covering a side surface of rotary blade 12. Murakami discloses wheel guard 30 having a right-side plate 31, left-side plate 32, and outer peripheral coupling member 33 connecting the side plates. Murakami further discloses stop structures 50, 55 associated with the guard structure. It would have been obvious to position the counter-body on the peripheral side of the protective hood to provide direct engagement with the corresponding stop structure.
Regarding claim 15, the claim requires the further counter-body corresponding to the end stop to be secured to the first or second outer side. Murakami teaches stoppers 50 and 55 secured to the side plate 31 of wheel guard 30. Taniguchi teaches stopper structures 110 and 120 provided on blade cover 16. Thus, arranging a further counter-body on one of the outer sides of the protective hood would have been an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 16, the claim requires the end stop to be positioned at a distance from the rotation axis of no more than 60% of the protective hood radius.
Taniguchi and Murakami both teach positioning stopper structures near the rotational pivot axis of the protective cover/guard to limit angular movement. Selecting the relative radial position of the stopper to optimize stopping force and package size would have been an obvious matter of design optimization.
Regarding claim 17, the claim requires the end stop and further counter-body to have a contact surface extending radially at least 10% of the hood radius. Murakami teaches a stopper ring 52, 57 and stopper bodies 51, 56 having contact surfaces with the boom 6 for restricting movement of the wheel guard 30. Increasing the contact surface area to distribute impact forces would have been an obvious modification to improve durability.
Regarding claim 17, the claim requires a motor support unit supporting the drive motor and housing, with the operating stop arranged on the motor support unit. Murakami discloses a boom 6 and supporting structure carrying the shaft 16 and tool wheel 7, with stopper engagement occurring relative to the support structure. Taniguchi discloses housing 14 supporting motor 4 and output shaft 85. It would have been obvious to locate the operating stop on the support structure carrying the motor and tool assembly.
Regarding claim 18, the claim requires the operating stop, end stop, counter-body, and/or further counter-body to be formed from a metal alloy. Murakami teaches metal components including flange 34, side plates 31, 32, and stopper structures 50, 55. Murakami further teaches that metal materials provide strength for resisting impact loads. Selecting metal alloy construction for the stop components would have been an obvious material selection for improving strength and durability.
Regarding claim 20, the claim requires first and second stop surfaces forming a common contact surface, with a contact plane intersecting the tool circumference at a defined angle relative to a tangent plane. Taniguchi teaches contacting stopper surfaces between first stopper 110 and first stopper receiver 210 and between second stopper 120 and second stopper receiver 220 at contact positions p1 and p2. Murakami teaches opposing stop surfaces between stopper rings 52, 57/stoppers 50, 55 and boom 6 when the wheel guard 30 pivots. It would have been obvious to configure the contacting stop surfaces with an angular relationship optimized for load transfer and reliable stopping action.
Conclusion
3. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Hanussek et al. (2019/0070746 A1), Du et al. (2023/0037512 A1), Chen (2007/0117499 A1), Shibata (2007/0056416 A1), Schmidbeger (2008/0153404 A1), Hercheck et al. (2017/0320192 A1), and 2023/0381875 A1 teach a handheld work apparatus.
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm EST.
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 on (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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
July 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights