DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 69 and 80 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 69, line 22 recites “angle is in in the range”, should read – angle is in the range –.
Claim 80 recites the same limitations as dependent claim 69, line 6 and therefore is redundant.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 69-83 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson et al. (US 4594843) in view of Biernath et al. (US 5839263 A) and Long (US 5299414 A).
Regarding claim 69, Andersson et al. discloses a cutting blade [6] for use in a cutting assembly (see Fig. 1), the cutting blade comprising:
a body (body of [6]) having a first portion [9] and an attachment point [11] configured to pivotably attach (through fastener [15]) the cutting blade to a mounting beam [2], wherein the body includes a leading edge (see below), and a reference axis (see below) extends along the leading edge,
a cutting portion (see below; portion of the body with the cutting edge) having a cutting edge [7] on a forward edge (see below) and an upturn ([8]; see Col. 1, lines 59-62) on a rearward edge (see below), wherein the cutting portion tapers (see below) towards the direction of a center of rotation ([1]; attached to motor shaft at [1], therefore, the blade and mounting beam rotate about this point) of the cutting blade when in use, and
a step (see below) that separates the first portion and the cutting portion from each other (see below; [10] is a part of the first portion, see Col. 1, lines 59-64, therefore, the two portions are separated via the step),
wherein the step is orientated at an angle (see below) to a substantially horizontal plane (see below) in which the first portion lies,
wherein the cutting edge is oriented at a rake angle (see below) which is the angle between a rake angle reference axis (see below) that extends along a leading edge of the cutting blade (see below) and a cutting edge axis (see below) that extends along at least a part of the cutting edge (see below),
wherein the upturn has a forward-most edge (see below; upturn is upwardly bent from body of the blade, forward-most edge is where the bending occurs, and angled from upturn being angled, see Col. 1, lines 59-62) and an upturn axis (see below) extends along the forward-most edge,
wherein the upturn has an upturn radial angle (see below) which is the angle between the upturn axis and the reference axis and is in the range of substantially 0° to substantially 30°, and
wherein the upturn has an upturn vertical angle (see below) which is measured between a surface on which the upturn lies (see below) and a substantially horizontal plane in use (see below; same horizontal plane as used for the step angle).
PNG
media_image1.png
339
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
266
604
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
54
524
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
289
478
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
423
586
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
453
779
media_image6.png
Greyscale
But Andersson et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the rake angle is in the range of substantially 4° to substantially 41°, the upturn radial angle is in the range of substantially 0° to substantially 30°, and the upturn vertical angle is in the range of substantially 31° to substantially 49°.
However, Andersson et al. teaches the cutting blade can be modified in a variety of different ways as long as it's possible to arrange along the periphery contact sections and to make, at either contact section, a recess having at least one transversely disposed side (see Col. 2, lines 52-61); therefore, the range of the upturn radial angle is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the upturn radial angle be in the range of substantially 0° to substantially 30° in order to angle the upturn in relation to the body to better lift the material to be cut. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
But Andersson et al. still fails to disclose fails to explicitly disclose wherein the rake angle is in the range of substantially 4° to substantially 41°, and the upturn vertical angle is in the range of substantially 31° to substantially 49°.
Biernath et al. discloses a similar cutting blade [40] orientated at a rake angle (see Col. 8, lines 50-53).
But Biernath et al. fails to explicitly disclose the rake angle is in the range of substantially 4° to substantially 41°.
However, Biernath et al. teaches the angle can be negative, neutral, or positive for changing the amount of the cutting edge exposed to the grass (see Col. 8, lines 53-57); therefore, the rake angle is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the rake angle in the range of substantially 4° to substantially 41° in order to alter the amount of the cutting edge exposed to the grass for mowing under different dense growth applications. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
But Bierneth et al. fails to disclose the upturn vertical angle is in the range of substantially 31° to substantially 49°.
Long discloses a similar cutting blade [14] comprising an upturn vertical angle [B] is in the range of substantially 31° to substantially 49° (see Col. 4, lines 48-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the upturn vertical angle of Andersson et al. in the range of substantially 31° to substantially 49° as taught by Long in order to provide an increased lift for the grass clippings (see Long Col. 4, lines 54-56).
Regarding claim 70, Andersson et al. discloses a cutting blade [6] for a cutting assembly (see Fig. 1), the cutting blade comprising:
a body (body of [6]) having a first portion [9] and an attachment point [11] configured to pivotably attach (through fastener [15]) the cutting blade to a mounting beam [2],
a cutting portion (see below; portion of the body with the cutting edge) having a cutting edge [7] on a forward edge (see below) and an upturn ([8]; see Col. 1, lines 59-62) on a rearward edge (see below), wherein the cutting portion tapers (see below) towards the direction of a center of rotation ([1]; attached to motor shaft at [1], therefore, the blade and mounting beam rotate about this point) of the cutting blade when in use, and
a step (see below) that separates the first portion and the cutting portion from each other (see below; [10] is a part of the first portion, see Col. 1, lines 59-64, therefore, the two portions are separated via the step),
wherein the step is orientated at an angle (see below) to a substantially horizontal plane (see below) in which the first portion lies,
wherein the cutting edge is oriented at a rake angle (see below) which is the angle between a rake angle reference axis (see below) and a cutting edge axis (see below),
wherein the rake angle reference axis extends from the center of rotation [1] of the cutting blade in use to an outer tip (see below) of the cutting edge,
wherein the cutting edge axis extends along at least a part of the cutting edge (see below),
wherein the upturn has a forward-most edge (see below) and a rear edge (see below) having an upturn outer tip (see below), wherein an upturn axis (see below; located along the forward-most edge) extends along the forward-most edge, and wherein an upturn radius axis (see below) extends from the center of rotation to the upturn outer tip,
wherein the upturn has an upturn radial angle (see below) which is the angle between the upturn axis and the upturn radius axis, and
wherein the upturn has an upturn vertical angle (see below) which is measured between a surface on which the upturn lies (see below) and a substantially horizontal plane (see below) in use.
PNG
media_image7.png
339
484
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
266
604
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
54
524
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
269
487
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
358
637
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
453
779
media_image6.png
Greyscale
But Andersson et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the rake angle is in the range of substantially 0° to substantially 30°, the upturn radial angle is in the range of substantially -2° to substantially 20°, and the upturn vertical angle is in the range of substantially 31° to substantially 49°.
However, Andersson et al. teaches the cutting blade can be modified in a variety of different ways as long as it's possible to arrange along the periphery contact sections and to make, at either contact section, a recess having at least one transversely disposed side (see Col. 2, lines 52-61); therefore, the range of the upturn radial angle is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the upturn radial angle be in the range of substantially -2° to substantially 20° in order to angle the upturn in relation to the body to better lift the material to be cut. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
But Andersson et al. still fails to disclose fails to explicitly disclose wherein the rake angle is in the range of substantially 0° to substantially 30°, and the upturn vertical angle is in the range of substantially 31° to substantially 49°.
Biernath et al. discloses a similar cutting blade [40] orientated at a rake angle (see Col. 8, lines 50-53).
But Biernath et al. fails to explicitly disclose the rake angle is in the range of substantially 0° to substantially 30°.
However, Biernath et al. teaches the angle can be negative, neutral, or positive for changing the amount of the cutting edge exposed to the grass (see Col. 8, lines 53-57); therefore, the rake angle is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the rake angle in the range of substantially 0° to substantially 30° in order to alter the amount of the cutting edge exposed to the grass for mowing under different dense growth applications. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
But Bierneth et al. fails to disclose the upturn vertical angle is in the range of substantially 31° to substantially 49°.
Long discloses a similar cutting blade [14] comprising an upturn vertical angle [B] is in the range of substantially 31° to substantially 49° (see Col. 4, lines 48-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the upturn vertical angle of Andersson et al. in the range of substantially 31° to substantially 49° as taught by Long in order to provide an increased lift for the grass clippings (see Long Col. 4, lines 54-56).
Regarding claim 72, Andersson et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses the outer tip (see above), center of rotation [1], and the mounting beam [2], but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the outer tip is substantially 590 mm from the center of rotation in use when secured to the mounting beam.
However, Andersson et al. teaches the cutting blade can be modified in a variety of different ways as long as it's possible to arrange along the periphery contact sections and to make, at either contact section, a recess having at least one transversely disposed side (see Col. 2, lines 52-61); therefore, the length of the outer tip to the center of rotation is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the distance from the outer tip substantially 590 mm from the center of rotation in order for the invention to apply to mower blades of other types. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 73, Andersson et al. discloses a cutting blade [6] for a cutting assembly (see Fig. 1), the cutting blade comprising:
a body (body of [6]) having a first portion [9] and an attachment point [11] configured to pivotably attach (through fastener [15]) the cutting blade to a mounting beam [2],
a cutting portion (see below) having a cutting edge [7] on a forward edge (see below) and an upturn ([8]; see Col. 1, lines 59-62) on a rearward edge (see below), wherein the cutting portion tapers (see below) towards the direction of a center of rotation ([1]; attached to motor shaft at [1], therefore, the blade and mounting beam rotate about this point) of the cutting blade when in use, and
a step (see below) that separates the first portion and the cutting portion from each other (see below; [10] is a part of the first portion, see Col. 1, lines 59-64, therefore, the two portions are separated via the step),
wherein the step is orientated at an angle (see below) to a substantially horizontal plane (see below) in which the first portion lies,
wherein the cutting edge is oriented at a rake angle (see below) which is the angle between a rake angle reference axis (see below) and a cutting edge axis (see below) that extends along the cutting edge,
wherein the cutting edge axis extends along at least a part of the cutting edge (see below), and
wherein the rake angle reference axis extends from the center of rotation of the cutting blade in use to an intersection point (see below), the intersection point being the point of intersection between the cutting edge axis and an axis (see below) that extends along a base edge (see below) of the cutting blade,
wherein the upturn has a forward-most edge (located along the upturn axis, see below) and a rear edge (located along the rear axis, see below), wherein an upturn axis (see below) extends along the forward-most edge, and wherein an upturn radius axis (see below) extends from the center of rotation to a second intersection point (see below), the second intersection point being the point of intersection between an axis (see below) that extends along the rear edge and the axis that extends along the base edge of the cutting blade,
wherein the upturn has an upturn radial angle (see below) which is the angle between the upturn axis and the upturn radius axis, and
wherein the upturn has an upturn vertical angle (see below) which is measured between a surface (see below) on which the upturn lies and a substantially horizontal plane (see below) in use.
PNG
media_image7.png
339
484
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
266
604
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
54
524
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
324
655
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
346
629
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
453
779
media_image6.png
Greyscale
But Andersson et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the rake angle is in the range of substantially 0° to substantially 30°, the upturn radial angle is in the range of substantially -2° to substantially 20°, and the upturn vertical angle is in the range of substantially 31° to substantially 49°.
However, Andersson et al. teaches the cutting blade can be modified in a variety of different ways as long as it's possible to arrange along the periphery contact sections and to make, at either contact section, a recess having at least one transversely disposed side (see Col. 2, lines 52-61); therefore, the range of the upturn radial angle is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the upturn radial angle be in the range of substantially -2° to substantially 20° in order to angle the upturn in relation to the body to better lift the material to be cut. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
But Andersson et al. still fails to explicitly disclose wherein the rake angle is in the range of substantially 0° to substantially 30°, and the upturn vertical angle is in the range of substantially 31° to substantially 49°.
Biernath et al. discloses a similar cutting blade [40] orientated at a rake angle (see Col. 8, lines 50-53).
But Biernath et al. fails to explicitly disclose the rake angle is in the range of substantially 0° to substantially 30°.
However, Biernath et al. teaches the angle can be negative, neutral, or positive for changing the amount of the cutting edge exposed to the grass (see Col. 8, lines 53-57); therefore, the rake angle is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the rake angle in the range of substantially 0° to substantially 30° in order to alter the amount of the cutting edge exposed to the grass for mowing under different dense growth applications. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
But Bierneth et al. fails to disclose the upturn vertical angle is in the range of substantially 31° to substantially 49°.
Long discloses a similar cutting blade [14] comprising an upturn vertical angle [B] is in the range of substantially 31° to substantially 49° (see Col. 4, lines 48-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the upturn vertical angle of Andersson et al. in the range of substantially 31° to substantially 49° as taught by Long in order to provide an increased lift for the grass clippings (see Long Col. 4, lines 54-56).
Regarding claim 75, Andersson et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses the second intersection point (see above) and the center of rotation [1], but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second intersection point is substantially 590 mm from the center of rotation in use.
However, Andersson et al. teaches the cutting blade can be modified in a variety of different ways as long as it's possible to arrange along the periphery contact sections and to make, at either contact section, a recess having at least one transversely disposed side (see Col. 2, lines 52-61); therefore, the length of the second intersection point to the center of rotation is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the distance from the outer tip substantially 590 mm from the center of rotation in order for the invention to apply to mower blades of other types. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 76, Andersson et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the base edge (see above) provides an outermost edge (see above) of the body (body of [6]).
Regarding claim 77, Andersson et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein at least a part of the leading edge (see below) of the cutting blade [6] is substantially parallel (see below) to a rotation axis (see below) that extends from the attachment point [11] to the center of rotation [1].
PNG
media_image12.png
292
565
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 79, Andersson et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the upturn [8] and the cutting edge [7] are located on opposite sides (see Fig. 1) of the body (body of [6]) of the cutting blade [6].
Regarding claim 80, Andersson et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the cutting edge [7] is provided on a forward edge (see above) of the cutting blade [6].
Regarding claim 81, Andersson et al. discloses a cutting assembly (see Fig. 1) including: the cutting blade [6] according to claim 69 (see claim 69 above), and the mounting beam [2].
Regarding claim 82, Andersson et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the mounting beam [2] has a first end (see below) and a second end (see below), and wherein the cutting blade [6] is attached at or towards (see below) the first end of the mounting beam.
PNG
media_image13.png
232
688
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 83, Andersson et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses a second cutting blade (see below) which is attached at or toward (see below) the second end (see below) of the mounting beam [2].
PNG
media_image14.png
240
750
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Please see updated art rejections above in response to applicant’s claim amendments, now including Long (US 5299414 A).
Applicant’s remarks in page 3 argues that Andersson et al.’s cutting edge fails to taper away from the center of rotation. However, as can be seen in the annotated figure above, the cutting edge tapers towards the step of the blade and therefore tapers towards the center of rotation [1].
Further, in page 6, applicant argues “Andersson does not disclose an upturn”. But Andersson et al. does disclose an upturn [8] (see Andersson et al. Col. 1, lines 59-62). Therefore, Andersson et al. is capable of having an upturn radial and vertical angle as can be seen in the annotated figures above. Likewise, while Andersson et al. fails to disclose the specific ranges of angles for the rake, upturn, and vertical angles, Andersson et al. discloses the same structure as can be seen in the annotated figures above; therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use result effective variables to achieve the desired ranges of angles.
It can be seen then that the rejection under Andersson et al., Biernath, and Long teaches the newly added claim limitations and applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 SUNNY WEBB whose telephone number is (571)272-3830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 to 5:30 E.T..
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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/SUNNY D WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671