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
The following is a Final Office Action on the merits.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made to the amendments received April 28, 2026 amending Claims 1, 16, and 21. Claim 22 was cancelled by the amendment. Updated drawings and an updated specification were submitted.
Specification
The amendment filed 4/28/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The addition of reference to Figure 7.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Drawings
The amendment filed 4/28/2026 is objected to because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. Specifically, it includes Figure 7 that shows a very specific arrangement that is not supported in the general statement in the original disclosure.
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 BOTH extend toward a central portion and the left and right track portions MEET 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.
To resolve this issue, the Examiner recommends the Applicant consider amending the term “central portion” in all claims to be “middle” or “center” since the “central portion” does not really exist in a form consistent with the claims. In the amended form “a first helical track portion having a first helical track extending about the axis in a first direction from a first end of the rotor towards a middle of the rotor”, “a second helical track portion having a second helical track extending about the axis in a second direction from a second end of the rotor towards the middle of the rotor” and “the first helical track portion and the second helical track portion meet . In this amended state, the first helical track and second helical track portions meet and are adjacent each other consistent with originally filed Figure 2.
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.
To resolve this issue, the Examiner recommends the Applicant cancel Claim 21 and pursue it in a CIP application. The specification does not provide sufficient detail that supports the specific arrangement of non-helical tracks that have been submitted after the original filing.
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 13-21.
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 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 and 16, and therefore dependent Claims 2, 5-15, and 17-20, 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. As previously discussed, Claims 1 and 16 include limitations that create a situation where the helical track portions meet at a central portion to form a continuous V-shaped pattern. As claimed, the central portion will be located between the helical track portions, in other words, separating the two portions which will automatically prevent the claimed continuous V-shape. The original disclosure does not provide guidance as to how the central portion can perform both claim limitations, making the scope of the claims indefinite.
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.
Claim 21 is 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 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 and extending substantially parallel to the axis of the rotor (as shown in modified figure below, the thickness of the claimed center blades 158 extend substantially parallel to the axis of the rotor. Also, when the modified version of the tracks, as shown, are assembled, they are in a side by side position of the claimed center blades 158 cause the non-helical tracks to extend substantially parallel to the axis 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_image1.png
818
1099
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
873
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Drawing Objections
The Examiner has reviewed the Applicant’s amendments and found them to include new matter. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the previous Claim Objection.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
The Examiner has reviewed the Applicant’s amendments and found them satisfactory. Therefore, the Examiner withdraws the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The Examiner has reviewed the Applicant’s amendments and found them satisfactory. Therefore, the Examiner withdraws the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). However, as necessitated by amendment, the new rejections have been made to reflect updated claim limitations.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102
Applicant’s arguments with amendments, filed 4/28/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection(s) of Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16-19, and 22 as being anticipated by Dougherty US 10,882,051 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections have been withdrawn.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with amendments, filed 4/28/2026, 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 persuasive. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of Claims 2, 9, 15, and 20 have been withdrawn. With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of Claim 21 as being taught 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.
Responses to the Applicants non-persuasive arguments follow.
The Applicant argues: “Independent claim 21 has been amended to include the feature of "a third track portion... having a plurality of non-helical tracks... extending substantially parallel to the axis of the rotor." Applicant respectfully submits that at least the structural feature of independent claim 21, that the plurality of non-helical tracks extend substantially parallel to the axis of the rotor, is not taught or suggested by Dougherty.
The Examiner's assertion that Dougherty's single "center blade 158" teaches these
features is incorrect. First, the cutters on Dougherty's center blade are mounted radially (i.e., perpendicular to the axis) for a chopping function. The presently claimed invention requires tracks that are parallel to the axis for a lifting function. This is a fundamental difference in structure and orientation (0 degrees vs. 90 degrees) that would not have been an obvious design choice.
Furthermore, Dougherty discloses only a single "center blade 158", not the claimed "plurality" of non-helical tracks. The Examiner's argument that merely duplicating this part would be obvious is unpersuasive, particularly as there is no motivation in the art to do so when it would fundamentally change the chopping function of the radial blades.
Therefore, Dougherty fails to anticipate or render obvious the subject matter of amended claim 21.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in Figure 15, the center blade 158 is combined with a plurality of segmented blade spirals 156 to form a cutting array. As shown in Figure 16, the Figure 15 cutting array is located on the left side of the rotor center and a mirror image of the segmented blade spirals 156 are located right of rotor center. As presented in the rejection, it would have been obvious to modify the cutting array right of rotor center to be mirror image of the entire cutting array shown in Figure 15 resulting in a plurality of center blades arranged side by side that extend parallel to the axis of the rotor as shown in the Examiner provided figures, with the motivation to merely duplicate the disclosed structural details of the cutting array shown in Figure 15 for the mirror image cutting array that is mounted on the right side of rotor center ensuring that the rotor operation is symmetrical. Duplication of disclosed structure shown in Figure 15 with a mirror version is obvious matter of design choice to one with ordinary skill in the art, therefore, it is not novel.
As shown in Figure 15, the cutters 152 of center blade 158 are oriented in the same direction as the cutters 152 of the segmented blade spirals. Therefore, the cutters on the center blade will not change the device operation and would allow lifting of the ground material upward during rotation. The Applicant’s argument regarding lifting and changing device operation is not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights