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 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.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Houst et al. (US 3788050 A).
Regarding claim 18, Houst et al. teaches a mower blade [13] comprising:
a blade having a blade major axis (see below; not shown but extends from one end [32] of the blade to the other end [33]), a blade minor axis (see below), and a center axis (see below; extends from center of blade out of the page) extending transverse to the blade;
the blade comprising a first aperture ([46], see Fig. 4c) centered on the center axis (see below),
wherein the first aperture is symmetric both about the blade major axis and about the blade minor axis (see below), wherein the first aperture is a convex, irregular hexagon ([46] is a shape with six straight sides; therefore, is a convex, irregular hexagon, see Fig. 4c) having a first geometry (first geometry is a hexagon), the first geometry comprising a first side (see below), a second side (see below), a third side (see below), a fourth side (see below), a fifth side (see below), and a sixth side (see below), wherein:
the first side and the fourth side are parallel to each other (see below) and are each of a first side-length (see below; solid lines),
the second side and the fifth side are parallel to each other (see below) and are each of a second side-length (see below; dotted lines), and
the third side and the sixth side are parallel to each other (see below) and are each of the second side-length; and
wherein the first side-length is less than the second side-length (while not explicit, it’s obvious from the lengths below that the second side-length is longer than the first),
wherein each of the second side and the sixth side forms a first obtuse interior angle (see below) with the first side, each of the third side and the fifth side forms a second obtuse interior angle (see below) with the fourth side, and the second side and the third side form a third obtuse interior angle (see below),
wherein the first obtuse interior angle and the second obtuse interior angle are equal (see below; due to being between a first and second side-length side), and the third obtuse interior angle is different from the first obtuse interior angle and the second obtuse interior angle (see below; third obtuse is different due to being between two of the second side-length sides),
wherein the retaining plate aperture is configured to engage a retaining plate ([44]; plate sits between the retaining bolt [17] and the blade [13], forming the mounting hole [28], see Col. 2, lines 63-67 and Col. 3, lines 1-8 and 54-55) on the rotary mower, the retaining plate having a second geometry (retaining plate [44] is a rectangle, see Col. 3, lines 66-67 and Col. 4, lines 1-4) and the second geometry is different from the first geometry (first geometry is a hexagon, second geometry is a rectangle; therefore, they are different, see Fig. 4c), and
wherein the elongate blade is configured to be reversibly mountable onto the retaining plate in at least two different rotational orientations (inherently shown due to the retaining plate being symmetric about the blade minor and major axis, see below; therefore, is capable of being reversibly mounted).
PNG
media_image1.png
146
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
364
511
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
170
261
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Note: Houst et al.’s Fig. 4c recites reference 44 as the aperture and 46 as the spacer (see Col. 3, lines 66-67 and Col. 4, lines 1-4), the examiner believes this to be an error within the specification. Looking at the other embodiments in Fig. 4, it is clear that reference 44 is the spacer and 46 is the aperture.
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) 1, 4-9, 12-15, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houst et al. (US 3788050 A) in view of Azbell (US 5094065 A).
Regarding claim 1, Houst et al. discloses a mower blade [13] comprising:
an elongate blade (the mower blade [13] is an elongated blade) adapted for mounting onto a rotary mower (see Col. 2, lines 20-24) for rotation about a center axis (see below; extends upwards and out of page) extending transverse to the elongate blade and separating the elongate blade into opposed elongate end portions [32 and 33]; and
a retaining plate aperture ([46], see Fig. 4c) centered on the center axis (see below), wherein the retaining plate aperture is symmetric both about the blade major axis and about the blade minor axis (see below), wherein the first aperture is a convex, irregular hexagon ([46] is a shape with six straight sides; therefore, is a convex, irregular hexagon, see Fig. 4c) having a first geometry (first geometry is a hexagon), the first geometry comprising a first side (see below), a second side (see below), a third side (see below), a fourth side (see below), a fifth side (see below), and a sixth side (see below), wherein the first side and the fourth side are parallel to each other and are each of a first side-length (see below), the second side and the fifth side are parallel to each other and are each of a second side-length (see below), and the third side and the sixth side are parallel to each other and are each of the second side-length (see below), wherein the first side-length is less than the second side-length (while not explicit, it’s obvious from the lengths below that the second side-length is longer than the first),
wherein the retaining plate aperture is configured to engage a retaining plate ([44]; plate sits between the retaining bolt [17] and the blade [13], forming the mounting hole [28], see Col. 2, lines 63-67 and Col. 3, lines 1-8 and 54-55) on the rotary mower, the retaining plate having a second geometry (retaining plate [44] is a rectangle, see Col. 3, lines 66-67 and Col. 4, lines 1-4) and the second geometry is different from the first geometry (first geometry is a hexagon, second geometry is a rectangle; therefore, they are different, see Fig. 4c), and
wherein the elongate blade is configured to be reversibly mountable onto the retaining plate in at least two different rotational orientations (inherently shown due to the retaining plate being symmetric about the blade minor and major axis, see below; therefore, is capable of being reversibly mounted).
PNG
media_image4.png
365
520
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
170
261
media_image3.png
Greyscale
But Houst et al. fails to disclose wherein the elongate blade comprises a first pin aperture positioned a distance from the center axis.
Azbell discloses a similar elongate blade (see Fig. 1) comprising a first pin aperture [14] positioned a distance (see distance in Fig. 1) from the center axis (axis extending through aperture [12]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first pin aperture of Azbell on the elongate blade of Houst et al. in order to further attach the blade to the lawn mower if the lawn mower is equipped to require such slots for mounting the blade (see Azbell Col. 2, lines 52-55). Further, it is well known in the art to have a mower blade with pin apertures for attaching blades to a variety of different lawn mowers.
Examiner’s Note: Houst et al.’s Fig. 4c recites reference 44 as the aperture and 46 as the spacer (see Col. 3, lines 66-67 and Col. 4, lines 1-4), the examiner believes this to be an error within the specification. Looking at the other embodiments in Fig. 4, it is clear that reference 44 is the spacer and 46 is the aperture.
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 19, Houst et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the second side-length (see above) is longer than the first side-length (see above; while not explicit, it’s obvious from the lengths above that the second side-length is longer than the first), but fails to explicitly disclose the second side-length is 1.85 times as long as the first side-length.
However, it would be an obvious matter of design choice to make the second side-length exactly 1.85 times as long as the first side-length, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Houst et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the second side-length (see above) is longer than the first side-length (see above; while not explicit, it’s obvious from the lengths above that the second side-length is longer than the first), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first side-length is 11 millimeters and the second side length is 20.4 millimeters.
However, it would be an obvious matter of design choice to make the first side-length be 11 millimeters and the second side length be 20.4 millimeters, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 6, 14, and 20, Houst et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the retaining plate aperture [46] has a length (see below) and a width (see below), but fails to explicitly disclose the length is 1.72 times as long as the width.
However, it would be an obvious matter of design choice to make the length be 1.72 times as long as the width, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
PNG
media_image5.png
358
472
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Houst et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the retaining plate aperture [46] has a length (see above) and a width (see above), but fails to explicitly disclose the length is 39 millimeters and the width is 22.7 millimeters.
However, it would be an obvious matter of design choice to make the length be 39 millimeters and the width be 22.7 millimeters, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, Houst et al. discloses a blade [13] adapted for mounting onto a mower (see Col. 2, lines 20-24) for rotation about a center axis (see below) extending transverse to the blade, the blade comprising:
a central aperture ([46], see Fig. 4c) located on the center axis (see below), wherein the retaining plate aperture is symmetric both about a blade major axis (see below) and about a blade minor axis (see below), and the retaining plate aperture comprises an irregular polygonal shape ([46] is a shape with six straight sides; therefore, is a convex, irregular hexagon, see Fig. 4c) having a first geometry (first geometry is a hexagon), the first geometry comprising a first side (see below), a second side (see below), a third side (see below), a fourth side (see below), a fifth side (see below), and a sixth side (see below), wherein the first side and the fourth side are parallel to each other and are each of a first side-length (see below), the second side and the fifth side are parallel to each other and are each of a second side-length (see below), and the third side and the sixth side are parallel to each other and are each of the second side-length (see below), wherein the first side-length is less than the second side-length (while not explicit, it’s obvious from the lengths below that the second side-length is longer than the first),
wherein the retaining plate aperture is configured to engage a retaining plate ([44]; plate sits between the retaining bolt [17] and the blade [13], forming the mounting hole [28], see Col. 2, lines 63-67 and Col. 3, lines 1-8 and 54-55) on the rotary mower, the retaining plate having a second geometry (retaining plate [44] is a rectangle, see Col. 3, lines 66-67 and Col. 4, lines 1-4) and the second geometry is different from the first geometry (first geometry is a hexagon, second geometry is a rectangle; therefore, they are different, see Fig. 4c), and
wherein the elongate blade is configured to be reversibly mountable onto the retaining plate in at least two different rotational orientations (inherently shown due to the retaining plate being symmetric about the blade minor and major axis, see below; therefore, is capable of being reversibly mounted).
PNG
media_image1.png
146
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
360
520
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
170
261
media_image3.png
Greyscale
But Houst et al. fails to disclose wherein the elongate blade comprises a first pin aperture positioned a distance from the center axis.
Azbell discloses a similar elongate blade (see Fig. 1) comprising a first pin aperture [14] positioned a distance (see distance in Fig. 1) from the center axis (axis extending through aperture [12]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first pin aperture of Azbell on the elongate blade of Houst et al. in order to further attached the blade to the lawn mower if the lawn mower is equipped to require such slots for mounting the blade (see Azbell Col. 2, lines 52-55). Further, it is well known in the art to have a mower blade with pin apertures for attaching blades to a variety of different lawn mowers.
Examiner’s Note: Houst et al.’s Fig. 4c recites reference 44 as the aperture and 46 as the spacer (see Col. 3, lines 66-67 and Col. 4, lines 1-4), the examiner believes this to be an error within the specification. Looking at the other embodiments in Fig. 4, it is clear that reference 44 is the spacer and 46 is the aperture.
Regarding claim 9, Houst et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the central aperture ([46], see Fig. 4c) is of a convex shape ([46] is a hexagon with straight sides; therefore, is convex, see Fig. 4c).
Regarding claim 21, Houst et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein each of the second side (see below) and the sixth side (see below) forms a first obtuse interior angle (see below) with the first side (see below) and each of the third side (see below) and the fifth side (see below) forms a second obtuse interior angle (see below) with the fourth side (see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
364
511
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Houst et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the first obtuse interior angle (see above) and the second obtuse interior angle (see above) are equal (see below; due to being between a first and second side-length side), and the third obtuse interior angle is different from the first obtuse interior angle and the second obtuse interior angle (see below; third obtuse is different due to being between two of the second side-length sides).
Regarding claim 23, Houst et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the elongate blade [13] is configured to be reversibly mountable on the retaining plate ([46], see Fig. 4c) in two rotational orientations offset by 180 degrees (while not explicit, inherently shown through the retaining plate being symmetric about the blade minor and major axis, see above; therefore, the blade is reversibly mountable in both 180 rotational orientations).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892 for the full list of references.
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
/ADAM J BEHRENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671