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
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made to the amendments received October 1, 2025 following Patent Board Decision, amending Claims 1, 14, 16, and 19. No claims were cancelled by the amendment. New Claims 21 and 22 were added by the amendment.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “central portion” defining an area of the device that exists when the left and right track portions are immediately adjacent to each other (as argued in the Applicant’s arguments) 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a third track portion located between the first and second helical track portions, the third track portion having a plurality of non-helical tracks arranged along the surface of the rotor” 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a scenario where the first and second regions are adjacent at the central portion (from Claim 1) AND they concurrently overlap (Claim 22) 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.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means”, “step”, or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “apparatus” in Claims 1, 2, 5-10, and 13-22.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim 22 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 22 is dependent upon Claim 1 which limits the first helical track portion and second helical track portion are immediately adjacent at the central portion therefore with a central portion between. Claim 22 concurrently limits the first helical track portion and second helical track portion overlap which violates the previously claimed adjacent a central portion, since an overlap requires the track portions to extend beyond its defined boundary. Additionally, neither the drawings nor the specification does disclose the claimed overlap, leaving no evidence that the Applicant had possession of the Claim 22 invention at time of filing.
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 22 is 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. As previously discussed, Claim 22 includes limitations that include new matter and create a situation where the portions are both adjacent a central portion and concurrently overlap which requires the track portions to extend beyond its defined boundaries into each other’s boundaries. This claim is indefinite since it is unclear how the to interpret the scope of the claim.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
As necessitated by amendment, Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16-19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dougherty US 10,882,051 (hereafter Dougherty).
Regarding Amended Claim 1, Dougherty anticipates:
1. (Currently Amended) A turf treatment apparatus (mulcher 100), comprising:
a cylindrical rotor (assembly shown in Figure 13 with drum 132), rotatable about an axis (about centerline of drum 132), the rotor having:
a first helical track portion (left side of center of drum 132, labeled in attached Figures 16 and 13 below) having a first helical track (blade spiral 156a) extending about the axis in a first direction (left to right direction in Figure 13) from a first end (left side of drum 132, Figure 13) of the rotor [[to]] towards a central portion (portion with blade spirals 156b and 156c – note that the term “portion” does not limit a defined boundary for the exact location of the transition. For the purpose of examination, this portion extends completely between blade spiral 156a and 156d as labeled and shown in attached Figures 16 and 13 below) of the rotor, wherein the first direction comprises an anticlockwise direction (Figures 13 and 14);
a second helical track portion (right side of center of drum 132, labeled in attached Figures 16 and 13 below) having a second helical track (blade spiral 156d) extending about the axis in a second direction (right to left direction in Figure 13) from a second end (right side of drum 132, Figure 13) of the rotor [[to]] towards the central portion of the rotor, wherein the second direction comprises a clockwise direction (Figures 13 and 14);
wherein the first helical track portion and the second helical track portion are immediately adjacent at the central portion (labeled and shown in attached Figures 16 and 13 below where the first helical track portion is immediately adjacent at the central portion, and the second helical track portion is immediately adjacent at the central portion. In other words, the boundary of each track portion is immediately adjacent the boundaries of the central portion);
wherein each helical track portion comprises between 2 and 10 helical tracks (blade spirals 156a and 156d are formed by welding multiple helical tracks - cutter segments 160 to lateral segments 162 to form a multi-turn helical path as shown in Figures 13-16), each helical track having a plurality of teeth (cutter 152) arranged therealong (Figures 13-16); and
wherein the teeth are closely spaced along the helical tracks to provide full coverage across the rotor (Figure 13 shows cutter 152 locations creating full coverage with each rotation) such that the rotor, using the teeth, is capable of lifting and removing in one pass substantially all thatch, stalks, blades, infected humus and or sand, where the teeth on the first helical track portion are to lift the thatch, stalks, blades, infected humus and or sand inwards from the first end (two outer segmented blade spirals 156a, 156d configured to push material toward the center of the drum assembly 106) and where the teeth on the second helical track portion are to lift the thatch, stalks, blades, infected humus and or sand inwards from the second end (two outer segmented blade spirals 156a, 156d configured to push material toward the center of the drum assembly 106)(Column 3, Lines 21-23 - “During use the drum assembly 106 pulls plant material into the breaker bar 118 and breaker guides 120”. As shown in Figure 6, the material is lifted from the ground into contact with the breaker bar and breaker guides).
PNG
media_image1.png
818
1099
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1276
1662
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Dougherty anticipates:
5. (Previously Presented) The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein each helical track (blade spirals 156a and 156d) comprises a continuous structure (shown in Figure 16) upstanding from the surface of the rotor (shown in Figure 16).
Regarding Claim 6, Dougherty anticipates:
6. (Previously Presented) The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein each helical track (blade spirals 156a and 156d) comprises a series of discrete brackets or posts (blade spirals 156a and 156d are formed by welding multiple helical tracks - cutter segments 160 to lateral segments 162 to form a multi-turn helical path as shown in Figures 13-16).
Regarding Claim 7, Dougherty anticipates:
7. (Previously Presented) The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein each helical track (blade spirals 156a and 156d) comprises a slot (kerf 148) in the surface of the rotor (assembly shown in Figure 15) into which a tooth (cutter 152) is inserted (Figures 13-16).
Regarding Claim 8, Dougherty anticipates:
8. (Previously Presented) The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the length of the first helical track portion (left side of center of drum 132, Figure 13) is equal to the length of the second helical track portion (right side of center of drum 132, Figure 13)(shown in Figure 16).
Regarding Claim 10, Dougherty anticipates:
10. (Previously Presented) Turf treatment equipment (assembly shown in Figure 1) comprising, a chassis (tractor 102) and mounted therein the apparatus (mulcher 100) of claim 1, wherein the turf treatment equipment is configured so that the cylindrical rotor (assembly shown in Figure 13) traverses over the turf and rotates relative to the turf, so as to lift material therefrom (Column 3, Lines 21-23 - “During use the drum assembly 106 pulls plant material into the breaker bar 118 and breaker guides 120”. As shown in Figure 6, the material is lifted from the ground into contact with the breaker bar and breaker guides).
Regarding Claim 11, Dougherty anticipates:
11. (Previously Presented) The turf treatment equipment according to claim 10, comprising a height control arrangement adapted to control the height of the rotor (assembly shown in Figure 13) relative to the turf (Figures 1 and 20-22).
Regarding Claim 13, Dougherty anticipates:
13. (Previously Presented) A method for the treatment of turf comprising grass growing in a matrix, the method comprising: removing thatch or other infestation using the apparatus (mulcher 100) as claimed in claim 1 (The mulcher 100 is generally intended for use in forestry management services that involve felling, grinding and mulching trees, brush, and other vegetation).
Regarding Amended Claim 14, Dougherty anticipates:
14. (Currently Amended) The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least two helical tracks (blade spirals 156a and 156d are formed by welding multiple helical tracks - cutter segments 160 to lateral segments 162 to form a multi-turn helical path as shown in Figures 13-16) extend along a surface of the rotor (drum 132) from the first end (left side of drum 132, Figure 13) of the rotor [[to]] towards the central portion (portion with blade spirals 156b and 156c, labeled and shown in attached Figures 16 and 13 above), wherein at least two helical tracks extend along a surface of the rotor from the second end (right side of drum 132, Figure 13) of the rotor [[to]] towards the central portion (labeled and shown in attached Figures 16 and 13 above).
Regarding Amended Claim 16, Dougherty anticipates:
16. (Currently Amended) A turf treatment apparatus (mulcher 100), comprising:
a cylindrical rotor (assembly shown in Figure 13 with drum 132), rotatable about an axis (about centerline of drum 132), the rotor comprising:
a first helical track portion (left side of center of drum 132, labeled in attached Figures 16 and 13 below), the first helical track portion comprising a first helical track (blade spiral 156a), the first helical track extending along a surface of the rotor from a first end of the rotor [[to]] towards a central portion (portion with blade spirals 156b and 156c – note that the term “portion” does not limit a defined boundary for the exact location of the transition. For the purpose of examination, this portion extends completely between blade spiral 156a and 156d as labeled and shown in attached Figures 16 and 13 below) of the rotor, the first helical track extending in an anticlockwise direction (Figures 13 and 14), the first helical track comprising teeth (cutter 152), the teeth configured to lift and remove thatch, stalks, blades, infected humus, and/or sand, the teeth configured to pull the lifted thatch, stalks, blades, infected humus, and/or sand inwards from the first end (two outer segmented blade spirals 156a, 156d configured to push material toward the center of the drum assembly 106 and Column 3, Lines 21-23 - “During use the drum assembly 106 pulls plant material into the breaker bar 118 and breaker guides 120”. As shown in Figure 6, the material is lifted from the ground into contact with the breaker bar and breaker guides); and
a second helical track portion (right side of center of drum 132, labeled in attached Figures 16 and 13 below), the second helical track portion comprising a second helical track (blade spiral 156d), the second helical track extending along a surface of the rotor from a second end of the rotor [[to]] towards the central portion of the rotor, the second helical track extending in a clockwise direction (Figures 13 and 14), the second helical track comprising teeth (cutter 152), the teeth configured to lift and remove thatch, stalks, blades, infected humus, and/or sand; the teeth configured to pull the lifted thatch, stalks, blades, infected humus, and/or sand inwards from the second end (two outer segmented blade spirals 156a, 156d configured to push material toward the center of the drum assembly 106 and Column 3, Lines 21-23 - “During use the drum assembly 106 pulls plant material into the breaker bar 118 and breaker guides 120”. As shown in Figure 6, the material is lifted from the ground into contact with the breaker bar and breaker guides);
wherein the first helical track portion and the second helical track portion are immediately adjacent at the central portion (labeled and shown in attached Figures 16 and 13 below where the first helical track portion is immediately adjacent at the central portion, and the second helical track portion is immediately adjacent at the central portion. In other words, the boundary of each track portion is immediately adjacent the boundaries of the central portion);
wherein each helical track portion comprises between 2 and 10 helical tracks (blade spirals 156a and 156d are formed by welding multiple helical tracks - cutter segments 160 to lateral segments 162 to form a multi-turn helical path as shown in Figures 13-16).
PNG
media_image1.png
818
1099
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1276
1662
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, Dougherty anticipates:
17. (Previously Presented) The apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the length of the first helical track portion (left side of center of drum 132, Figure 13) is equal to the length of the second helical track portion (right side of center of drum 132, Figure 13)(shown in Figure 16).
Regarding Claim 18, Dougherty anticipates:
18. (Previously Presented) The apparatus according to claim 16, wherein each helical track (blade spiral 156a or 156d) comprises a slot (kerf 148) in the surface of the rotor (assembly shown in Figure 15) into which a tooth (cutter 152) is inserted (Figures 13-16).
Regarding Amended Claim 19, Dougherty anticipates:
19. (Currently Amended) The apparatus according to claim 16, wherein at least two helical tracks (blade spirals 156a and 156d are formed by welding multiple helical tracks - cutter segments 160 to lateral segments 162 to form a multi-turn helical path as shown in Figures 13-16) extend along a surface of the rotor (assembly shown in Figure 13 with drum 132) from the first end (left side of drum 132, Figure 13) of the rotor [[to]] towards the central portion (portion with blade spirals 156b and 156c – note that the term “portion” does not limit a defined boundary for the exact location of the transition. For the purpose of examination, this portion extends completely between blade spiral 156a and 156d as shown in Figure 13), wherein at least two helical tracks extend along a surface of the rotor from the second end (right side of drum 132, Figure 13) of the rotor [[to]] towards the central portion (labeled and shown in attached Figures 16 and 13 above).
Regarding New Claim 22, Dougherty anticipates:
22. (New) The turf treatment apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first helical track portion and the second helical track portion overlap (see discussion below).
As previously discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections, this claim limitation creates a scenario where the first and second helical track portions are both adjacent to a central portion and concurrently overlap. This is not possible in combination with the other claim limitations.
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 of this title, 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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 2, 9, 15, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Dougherty US 10,882,051 (hereafter Dougherty) in view of design choice.
Regarding Claim 2, Dougherty teaches:
2. (Previously Presented) The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein each helical track portion (blade spirals 156a and 156d) comprises four helical tracks (see discussion below).
Dougherty teaches blade spirals 156a and 156d are formed by welding multiple helical tracks - cutter segments 160 to lateral segments 162 to form a multi-turn helical path as shown in Figures 13-16 to form a desired length. As shown in Figure 16 the helical path is roughly two and a half revolutions. It would have been obvious design choice to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the helical path from any number of pieces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to form the track portion from four helical track pieces as claimed with the motivation
Regarding Claim 9, Dougherty teaches:
9. (Previously Presented) The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the length of the first helical track portion (left side of center of drum 132, Figure 13) is not equal to the length of the second helical track portion (right side of center of drum 132, Figure 13) (see discussion below).
Dougherty teaches in Figure 13 a device that is symmetrically arranged about its midpoint with helical tracks. The claim limitations of Claim 9 rely upon the term “portion” without any defined boundary. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to merely redefine the portions to be different lengths across the drum 132 resulting in the track length included in the two portions being different. Therefore, in this case, the Dougherty device does not need to be modified to teach the claim limitation, just the interpretation of the area defined by the portion.
PNG
media_image3.png
1159
1067
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, Dougherty teaches:
15. (Previously Presented) The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the teeth (cutter 152) are configured to lift and remove thatch, stalks, blades, infected humus, and/or sand while not removing stolons and/or artificial fibers (see discussion below).
The Examiner provided figure above is a side by side comparison of the structure and arrangement of the teeth of the Appellant’s and Dougherty devices. Dougherty doesn’t teach that the device is able to perform on a surface in an intended use scenario without removing stolons and/or artificial fibers. It is apparent to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that both the Dougherty and the Appellant’s device employ rectangular steel teeth positional along a cylindrical rotor and oriented at similar angle relative to the rotor surface in a similar manner. Therefore, there doesn’t appear to be a structural or difference in the configuration of the teeth that would allow the Appellant’s device to perform an operation that would not also be capable of being performed by the Dougherty device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the cutters 152 are configured, like the Appellant’s, to lift and remove thatch, stalks, blades, infected humus, and/or sand while not removing stolons and/or artificial fibers a claimed with perhaps a mere change of a working surface or operation independent of the teeth.
Regarding Claim 20, Dougherty teaches:
20. (Previously Presented) The apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the teeth (cutter 152) are configured to lift and remove thatch, stalks, blades, infected humus, and/or sand while not removing stolons and/or artificial fibers (see discussion below).
The Examiner provided figure above is a side by side comparison of the structure and arrangement of the teeth of the Appellant’s and Dougherty devices. Dougherty doesn’t teach that the device is able to perform on a surface in an intended use scenario without removing stolons and/or artificial fibers. It is apparent to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that both the Dougherty and the Appellant’s device employ rectangular steel teeth positional along a cylindrical rotor and oriented at similar angle relative to the rotor surface in a similar manner. Therefore, there doesn’t appear to be a structural or difference in the configuration of the teeth that would allow the Appellant’s device to perform an operation that would not also be capable of being performed by the Dougherty device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the cutters 152 are configured, like the Appellant’s, to lift and remove thatch, stalks, blades, infected humus, and/or sand while not removing stolons and/or artificial fibers a claimed with perhaps a mere change of a working surface or operation independent of the teeth.
Regarding New Claim 21, Dougherty teaches:
21. (New) A turf treatment apparatus (mulcher 100), comprising:
a cylindrical rotor (assembly shown in Figure 13 with drum 132), rotatable about an axis (about centerline of drum 132), the rotor comprising:
a first helical track portion (left side of center of drum 132, labeled in attached Figures 16 below) having a first helical track (blade spiral 156a) extending about the axis in a first direction (left to right direction in Figure 13) from a first end (left side of drum 132, Figure 13) of the rotor towards a central portion (portion with blade spirals 156b and 156c – note that the term “portion” does not limit a defined boundary for the exact location of the transition. For the purpose of examination, this portion extends completely between blade spiral 156a and 156d as labeled and shown in attached Figures 16 and 13 below) thereof;
a second helical track portion (right side of center of drum 132, labeled in attached Figures 16 below) having a second helical track (blade spiral 156d) extending about the axis in a second direction (right to left direction in Figure 13) from a second end (right side of drum 132, Figure 13) of a rotor towards the central portion thereof (Figures 13 and 14), and
a third track portion (center blade 158 labeled in attached Figure 16 below) located between the first and second helical track portions (shown in attached Figure 16 below), the third track portion having a plurality of non-helical tracks (see discussion below) arranged along the surface of the rotor.
Dougherty discloses a third track portion as a center blade 158 with two cutters 152 arranged in a non-helical pattern as labeled in attached Figure 16 below. In Figure 16, Dougherty discloses a single center blade 158 rather than a plurality as claimed. In Figure 15, Dougherty discloses an assembly of one helical track attached to the center blade 158. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to build a second assembly shown in Figure 15 with one helical track in a different direction attached to the center blade 158. That being said, it would be obvious to combine the two Figure 15 assemblies as shown in the Examiner attached figures to form the entire center portion using two similar assemblies as shown and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Motivation to employ similar parts during assembly will ensure that the correct track portions are installed in the correct position and orientation since they are uniquely configured with the center blades that can be mounted adjacent to each other.
PNG
media_image4.png
818
1099
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
873
708
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Dougherty US 10,882,051 (hereafter Dougherty) in view of Biog AT 13352 U1 (hereafter Biog).
Regarding Claim 12, Dougherty teaches:
12. (Previously Presented) The turf treatment equipment according to claim 10, …
Dougherty does not teach:
… further comprising a conveyer belt to remove the lifted material therefrom.
The reference Biog teaches:
… further comprising a conveyer belt (conveyor 7) to remove the lifted material (mulch) therefrom.
Dougherty discloses a mulching device that is intended to create mulch through the grinding of trees, brush, and other vegetation. Dougherty does not disclose the use of a conveyor belt to collect and remove the mulched material. The reference Biog teaches a mulching device (mulcher 1) that is intended to create mulch and use a conveyor belt (conveyor 7) to remove the newly created mulch. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Dougherty device to include a conveyor as taught by Biog with the motivation to remove the mulch in real time rather than a separate operation with a different device.
Response to Arguments
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102
Applicant’s arguments with amendments, filed 10/1/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection(s) of Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16-19 as being anticipated by Dougherty US 10,882,051 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. However, as necessitated by amendment, the previous rejections have been modified to reflect updated claim limitations.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with amendments, filed 10/1/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of Claims 2, 9, 15, and 20 as being taught by Dougherty US 10,882,051 and Claim 12 as being taught by Dougherty US 10,882,051 in view of Biog AT 13352 U1 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. However, as necessitated by amendment, the previous rejections have been modified to reflect updated claim limitations.
Responses to the Applicants specific arguments follow.
The Applicant argues: “In the Final Office Action, claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 16-19 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being allegedly anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 10,882,051 to Dougherty. Further claims 2, 9, 15 and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being allegedly unpatentable over Dougherty in view of design choice. Finally, claim 12 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doughtery in view of AT 13352 U1 to Biog.
Without wishing to acquiesce to the propriety of said rejections, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 1 as presently amended patentably defines over Dougherty. Presently, independent claim 1 has been amended to include the feature that the turf treatment apparatus comprises, inter alia, a first helical track portion extending towards a central portion and a second helical track portion extending towards the central portion, wherein the first helical track portion and the second helical track portion are immediately adjacent at the central portion. Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references are silent to an apparatus comprising a first helical track portion extending towards a central portion and a second helical track portion extending towards the central portion, wherein the first helical track portion and the second helical track portion are immediately adjacent at the central portion.
For instance, as shown by FIGS. 2 and 3, it can be seen that the first helical track portion 25a extends towards a central portion of the rotor 20, as does the second helical track portion 25b. Further, it can be seen from FIGS. 2 and 3 that first helical track portion 25a and second helical track portion 25b are immediately adjacent at a central portion of the rotor. This structure defines a continuous structure where the two opposing helical track portions converge.
In stark contrast to this, the inner segmented blade spirals (156a, 156b) of FIG. 13 of
Dougherty are explicitly separated by a gap. This gap is an intentional design feature. Dougherty states in col. 5, In. 10-12 that "The spacing between flights 144 near the ends of the drum 132 allows the mulched material to drop out of the frame assembly 104." The present claimed invention states the opposite structure: a continuous, "immediately adjacent" arrangement at the center portion that is configured to consolidate material for collection, as opposed to allowing the material to drop out.
Additionally, independent claim 1 cumulatively requires that the first helical track portion (and second helical track portion) extend from a first end (or second end) of the rotor towards the central portion of the rotor, wherein the first helical portion and the second helical portion are immediately adjacent at the central portion. FIG. 2 is copied below.
As can be seen in FIG. 2, the first helical track portion 25a extends from the first end 27a of the rotor 20, and is adjacent to the second helical track portion 25b (which extends from the corresponding second end 27b of the rotor 20). Thus, the first helical track portion 25a is
immediately adjacent to a second helical track portion 25b, both of which extend from a respective end 27a, 27b of the rotor 20.
In contrast to this, as shown by FIG. 8 of Dougherty, flight 144c, which extends from a first end of the drum 132 is not adjacent to a flight that extends from an opposing end of the drum 132 (shown below).
Indeed, as illustrated above, flights 144c and 144d, which extend from an end of the drum 132, are not adjacent.
As anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102 requires that every single limitation of the claim be found in a single reference, and because Dougherty clearly lacks the claimed feature of the helical track portions that are immediately adjacent at the central portion, Dougherty cannot anticipate claim 1 as amended. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under section 102 to independent claim 1.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant submits that claim 1 is patentably distinct from the cited art.
Independent Claim 16
Applicant submits that independent claim 16 is patentably distinct from the cited prior art in view of the arguments and amendments above as applied to independent claim 1.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s newly amended language can be interpreted in two ways:
Aligned with the Applicant’s arguments, the first and second helical track portions are immediately adjacent each other at the central portion. However, with that interpretation, “a central portion of the rotor”, that allows the first and second portion to extend towards the central portion, limits the central portion to be an identifiable location between the first and second portion. If the first and second region are immediately adjacent, the central portion does not have any dimensional distance along the axis of the rotor, making it impossible to define a central area (portion) of the rotor. As described in the previous rejection, the “central portion” consistent with this interpretation is not identified in the Drawings. Therefore, this interpretation would be inconsistent with the invention since it requires the central portion to not exist on any part of the device.
As interpreted by the Examiner the first and second helical track portion are both immediately adjacent at the central portion – meaning that the first helical track portion is immediately adjacent the central portion (without gap or structural separation) and that the second helical track portion is immediately adjacent the central portion (without gap or structural separation). With the portions defined by the Examiner in the description and provided figures, the Dougherty device clearly discloses these claim limitations.
Therefore, it would be reasonable to interpret that claim language consistent with the Examiner’s interpretation since it is the most consistent with the Applicant’s disclosure.
The Applicant argues: “Independent Claim 21
With respect to newly added independent claim 21, Applicant submits that is novel over Dougherty for at least the reason that independent claim 21 recites a feature that Dougherty lacks: "a third track portion located between the first helical track portion and the second helical track portion, wherein the third track portion comprises a plurality of non-helical tracks arranged along the surface of the rotor." Dougherty does not teach this feature. The central portion of Dougherty's drum comprises a single "center blade 158" and a functional gap designed to let material drop out. This structure is fundamentally different, both structurally and functionally, from the claimed "plurality of non-helical tracks." Therefore, Dougherty fails to anticipate or render obvious the subject matter of newly presented independent claim 21.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant does not provide a drawing that shows how this embodiment is configured. Therefore, it is unclear how the “third track portion” is arranged. As previously presented, the center blade 158 presents at least two blades 152 that are not helically located. Therefore, the center blade 158 can be properly identified as a non-helical track located between the first helical track portion and the second helical track portion as labeled in the Examiner’s provided figures. The center portion as identified by the Examiner in Figure 16, appears to be formed using an assembly shown in Figure 15 combined with essentially a symmetrical version of Figure 15. As presented in the rejection, it would have been obvious that the center portion be formed with blades including two adjacently located center blades with the motivation to make the part 156c different than part 156a to prevent confusion during rotor assembly.
The Applicant argues: “Dependent Claim 22
Dependent claim 22 includes the feature that the first helical track portion and the second helical track portion overlap. As shown in FIG. 3, the first helical track 26a overlaps with the second helical track 26b (zoomed in portion of FIG. 3 reproduced below).
Thus, dependent claim 22, dependent on claim 1, includes the features, that the turf treatment apparatus comprises a rotor comprising first and second helical track portions that extend from a respective first and second end of the rotor towards a central portion, where they overlap.
In addition to the reasons as applied to claim 1 above, it is believed that dependent claim 22 is patentably distinct from Dougherty, as the flights of Dougherty do not overlap at a central portion.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s newly amended language includes new matter that requires the first and second helical tracks to be concurrently adjacent at the central portion from Claim 1 and overlap per Claim 22. The same limitations cannot exist at the same time. The Applicant does not disclose a figure that shows both conditions existing on the same embodiment. Therefore, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The Applicant argues: “Dependent Claims
Applicant further submits that for at least the reasons relating to corresponding
independent claims, the pending dependent claims are in condition for allowance. However, Applicant also notes that the patentability of the dependent claims certainly does not hinge on the patentability of independent claims. In particular, it is believed that some or all of these claims may possess features that are independently patentable, regardless of the patentability of the independent claims.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument is moot since it incorrectly depends on the independent claims being in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm.
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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723