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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 24 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Williams cannot be combined with Henshaw because Williams uses a threaded shaft blade securement tool whereas Henshaw disclose a loop retainer that encloses the blade. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Williams teaches a lawn mower including a blade securement tool 80 configured to limit rotation of the cutting blade during servicing (See Williams Fig. 1 and Fig.3). Henshaw likewise teaches a blade securement tool 1(20) configured to be disposed at opposite lateral sides of the cutting blade to prevent rotation of the blade servicing (See Henshaw Fig. 11).
Thus, both Williams and Henshaw address the same known problem in the art, namely preventing rotation of a mower blade while the blade fastener is loosened or tightened.
The rejection proposes substituting the blade securement tool of Williams with the blade securement tool taught by Henshaw. Such substitution merely replaces one known blade holding structure with another known blade holding structure to perform the same function of preventing blade rotation during servicing. The modification would have been well within the level of ordinary skill in the art and would have involved only routine design choice.
Among other things, it is observed that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have easily understood that Williams could be modified to replace the single hole in the deck (discussed at Col. 4, Lines 1-6 of Williams) with two holes in the deck so as to utilize the “loop retainers” of Henshaw. Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are familiar with drills, fasteners (such as bolts, nuts, etc.), and other tools and would have likewise realized the ease of merely making a second hole in the mower deck so as to retain a blade by surrounding the blade on both sides using the technique taught by Henshaw using loop retainers (in place of the need to make respective holes in both the blade and the mower deck). In other words, all that the proposed modification is doing is replacing the respective holes in the blade and mower deck of Williams with two holes in the mower deck, so as to allow for a known “loop retainer” (as taught by Henshaw) to replace a single fastener of the type taught by Williams.
Accordingly, the combination does not change the principle of operation of Williams, but merely substitutes a known blade securement tool to perform the same predictable function.
Applicant argues Williams only prevents rotation in one direction. Applicant’s arguments is not persuasive. Williams discloses a blade securement tool 80 configured to interface with the cutting blade to limit rotation of the cutting blade during servicing.
The rejection does not rely on Williams to disclose blade engaging members positioned on opposite lateral sides of the cutting blade. Rather, Henshaw teaches a blade securement tool 1(20) configured to be disposed at opposite lateral sides of the cutting blade for preventing blade rotation. The rejection proposes modifying the blade securement tool of Williams with the blade securement disclosed by Henshaw.
Applicant argues Henshaw’s blade securement tool encloses the blade. Applicant’s arguments is not persuasive. Henshaw discloses a blade securement tool comprising blade engaging members disposed on opposite lateral sides of the blade to prevent rotation during servicing. The rejection relies on Henshaw only for teaching the arrangement of blade engaging members positioned on opposite sides of the cutting blade. Modifying the blade securement tool of Williams to incorporate the blade engaging structure disclosed by Henshaw would have been a predictable substitution of one known blade holding structure for another to perform the same function.
Applicant argues that Williams and Henshaw structures are incompatible. Applicant’s arguments is not persuasive. The rejection does not require the structures of the references to be bodily incorporated into one another. Rather, the rejection proposes substituting the blade securement tool of Williams 80 with the blade securement tool disclosed by Henshaw 1(20).
Williams discloses a mower deck including an opening for receiving a blade securement tool to limit blade rotation during servicing. Henshaw discloses a blade securement tool comprising side pins configured to be received within spaced openings to engage opposite lateral sides of a cutting blade.
It would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the blade securement tool of Williams with the blade securement tool taught by Henshaw and to provide corresponding spaced opening in the mower deck to receive the side pins of the Henshaw tool. Such substitution merely replaces one known blade securement structure with another known blade securement structure to perform the same function of preventing blade rotation during servicing.
Applicant argues that the proposed modification would change the principle of operation of Williams. Applicant’s arguments is not persuasive. The principle of operation of Williams is to secure the blade during servicing to prevent rotation while the blade fastener is loosened or tightened. Incorporating the blade engaging structure disclosed by Henshaw would continue to perform the same function of preventing blade rotation during servicing and therefore would not change the principle of operation of Williams.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 19-20, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 6796111 B2) in view of Henshaw (US 8209837 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Williams teaches a lawn mower (2) comprising:
a mower deck (5);
a cutting blade (47) rotatably mounted relative to the mower deck (5);
a motor (38) for driving the cutting blade (47); and a blade changing mechanism (75) comprising:
a fastener (84) for securing the cutting blade (47) to the motor (38);
at least one opening (See Williams annotated Fig. 1 and 3 below) at the mower deck (5) for removably receiving the blade securement tool (80; Williams Col. 4, lines 1-3), wherein the at least one opening is spaced apart from an outer edge of the mower deck (See Williams annotated Fig. 1 and 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
967
687
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Williams fails to disclose a blade securement tool configured to be simultaneously disposed at opposite lateral sides of the cutting blade for limiting the cutting blade from rotating.
Henshaw teaches a blade securement tool (1(20); See Fig. 11) configured to be simultaneously disposed at opposite lateral sides of the cutting blade (6) for limiting the cutting blade from rotating.
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the blade securement tool of Williams with the loop retainer as disclosed by Henshaw so as to incorporate a blade securement tool positioned on opposite sides of the cutting blade, in order to prevent rotation of the cutting blade while the blade fastener is loosened or tightened during servicing.
Regarding claim 2, Williams teaches the lawn mower of claim 5.
William fails to disclose wherein a first of the two side pins is disposed on a first lateral side of the cutting blade, and wherein a second of the two side pins is simultaneously disposed on a second lateral side of the cutting blade.
Henshaw teaches wherein a first of the two side pins (left side of 20) is disposed on a first lateral side of the cutting blade (left side of 6), and wherein a second of the two side pins (right side of 20) is simultaneously disposed on a second lateral side of the cutting blade (right side of 6). See Henshaw annotated Fig. 11 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
659
662
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the blade securement tool of Williams with the loop retainer as disclosed by Henshaw so as to incorporate a blade securement tool positioned on opposite sides of the cutting blade, in order to prevent rotation of the cutting blade while the blade fastener is loosened or tightened during servicing.
Regarding claim 3, Williams teaches the lawn mower of claim 1.
Williams fails to disclose wherein the blade changing mechanism comprises two spaced apart openings.
Henshaw teaches the blade changing mechanism (1a) comprises two spaced-apart openings for receiving a U-shaped piece. (Note: bolted on means there are holes)
Henshaw states, "FIG. 11 shows an alternate embodiment which is self-retaining. Loop retainer 1 (20) is inserted at an angle with loop retainer 1 (20) enclosing the blade end (6) and the retainer located between the blade (6) and the underside of the mower deck (12). Similarly loop retainer 2 (21) is inserted at an angle." Henshaw Col. 6, lines 15-21 and annotated Fig. 11 below.
PNG
media_image3.png
468
526
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the blade changing mechanism of Williams with two spaced apart openings as disclosed by Henshaw in order to improve blade retention stability by allowing a U-shaped piece to be installed and to allow the blade changing mechanism to be used with, and removed, a variety of blades.
Regarding claim 5, Williams teaches the lawn mower of claim 3.
Williams fails to disclose wherein the blade securement tool comprises a U-shaped piece with two side pins, the U-shaped piece crosses the cutting blade when the two side pins are received in the two openings.
Henshaw teaches wherein the blade securement tool comprises a U-shaped piece with two side pins, the U-shaped piece crosses the cutting blade when the two side pins are received in the two openings.
Henshaw states, "Alternately, it can be retained on the blade with any of a number of pinning devices ranging from a toggle pin to a bolt to a bolt and nut to a pin with retaining clip. It can also be retained by a secondary "C" shaped retainer (18) which is slid over the device's open side (FIG. 9)." Henshaw Col. 7, lines 8-11 and annotated Fig. 11 below.
PNG
media_image4.png
608
707
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the blade securement tool of Williams with the U-shaped piece with two side pins and two spaced apart openings as disclosed by Henshaw in order to improve blade retention stability by allowing a U-shaped piece to be installed and to allow the blade changing mechanism to be used with, and removed, a variety of blades.
Regarding claim 6, Williams teaches the lawn mower of claim 5.
Williams fails to disclose the U-shaped piece comprises a horizontal member connected between the two side pins, wherein the horizontal member has a length larger than a width of the cutting blade.
Henshaw teaches the U-shaped piece comprises a horizontal member connected between the two side pins, wherein the horizontal member has a length larger than a width of the cutting blade. See Henshaw annotated Fig. 11 below.
PNG
media_image5.png
584
657
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the blade securement tool of Williams with the U-shaped piece comprises a horizontal member connected between the two side pins as disclosed by Henshaw in order to increase cross-member rigidity and improves the stability of the blade during servicing.
Regarding claim 19, Williams teaches a lawn mower (2) comprising:
a mower deck (5) defining a cutting area (See Henshaw annotated Fig. 3 below);
PNG
media_image6.png
546
663
media_image6.png
Greyscale
a cutting blade (47) rotatably mounted (Mounted via 40) within the cutting area;
a motor (38) configured to drive the cutting blade (47) to rotate; and
a blade changing mechanism (75) comprising:
a fastener (84) for securing the cutting blade (47) to the motor (38);
an opening extending from the cutting area into the mower deck (5), wherein the opening receives the blade securement tool (80) to interface with the cutting blade (47) and limit the cutting blade from rotating in at least one direction. (See Williams annotated Fig. 1 and 3 below)
PNG
media_image7.png
966
646
media_image7.png
Greyscale
However, Williams fails to disclose a blade securement tool configured to be simultaneously disposed at opposite lateral sides of the cutting blade.
Henshaw teaches a blade securement tool (1(20); See Fig. 11) configured to be simultaneously disposed at opposite lateral sides of the cutting blade (6).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the blade securement tool of Williams with the loop retainer as disclosed by Henshaw so as to incorporate a blade securement tool positioned on opposite sides of the cutting blade, in order to prevent rotation of the cutting blade while the blade fastener is loosened or tightened during servicing.
Regarding claim 20, Williams teaches the lawn mower of claim 19.
Williams fails to disclose wherein the opening comprises a first opening and a second opening, wherein the blade securement tool comprises a first pin and a second pin, wherein the first pin is received at the first opening, and wherein the second pin is received at the second opening.
Henshaw teaches wherein the opening comprises a first opening and a second opening, wherein the blade securement tool comprises a first pin and a second pin, wherein the first pin is received at the first opening, and wherein the second pin is received at the second opening. See Henshaw annotated Fig. 11 below.
PNG
media_image8.png
584
657
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the blade changing mechanism of Williams with the U-shaped piece comprises a horizontal member connected between the two side pins as disclosed by Henshaw in order to improve alignment and distribute holding forces between two locations instead of one, and facilitate safer and more efficient servicing.
Regarding claim 22, Williams teaches the lawn mower of claim 19, wherein the opening is spaced apart from an outer edge of the mower deck. See Williams annotated Fig. 1 and 3 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
967
687
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, Williams teaches the lawn mower of claim 19.
Williams fails to disclose wherein the blade securement tool comprises a U- shaped piece.
Henshaw teaches wherein the blade securement tool comprises a U- shaped piece.
Henshaw states, "Alternately, it can be retained on the blade with any of a number of pinning devices ranging from a toggle pin to a bolt to a bolt and nut to a pin with retaining clip. It can also be retained by a secondary "C" shaped retainer (18) which is slid over the device's open side (FIG. 9)." Henshaw Col. 7, lines 8-11 and annotated Fig. 11 below.
PNG
media_image4.png
608
707
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the blade securement tool of Williams with the U-shaped piece as disclosed by Henshaw in order to improve blade retention stability by allowing a U-shaped piece to be installed and to allow the blade changing mechanism to be used with, and removed, a variety of blades.
Regarding claim 24, Williams teaches the lawn mower of claim 19, wherein cutting blade (47) includes a central portion and two end portions extending from the central portion in opposite directions, and wherein the blade securement tool (80) interacts with the central portion of the cutting blade. See Williams annotated Fig. 3 below.
(Note: In Fig. 3, element 80 interacts with the central portion by immobilizing the entire blade (47), including by restraining rotation at the central mounting portion.)
PNG
media_image9.png
546
664
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Williams teaches the lawn mower of claim 24, wherein the blade securement tool (80) limits the cutting blade (47) from rotating in both directions, and wherein the blade securement tool contacts the cutting blade a lateral side of the cutting blade to limit the cutting blade from rotating. See Williams annotated Fig. 3 below.
PNG
media_image10.png
546
663
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 6796111 B2) in view of Henshaw (US 8209837 B1) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 19-20, and 22-25 above, and further in view of Zhou (CN 204259408 U).
Regarding claim 26, Williams, as part of the assembly taught by the combined teachings of Williams in view of Henshaw, teaches the lawn mower of claim 19 and the lawn mower (2).
Williams in view of Henshaw fails to disclose wherein the lawn mower (2) further comprises one or more edge guides defining a channel extending from an area radially exterior to the cutting area.
Zhou teaches wherein the lawn mower (push mower) further comprises one or more edge guides (4) defining a channel (42) extending from an area radially exterior to the cutting area.
Zhou states, "In this embodiment, grass is several guide rib is configured to guide Hay 4 bottom surface 42, guide surface 41 is grass guiding rib 42 of the side wall. grass guiding rib 42 is divided into several groups, each group comprises two oppositely set guide rib 42, each straw guide ribs in each group 42 toward the side surface of the other one straw guide ribs 42 are the straw guide ribs 42 of the guide surface 41, each group of two straw guide ribs 42 are formed bipyridinium guide groove 43. bipyridinium guide groove 43 groove width is gradually reduced on the blade assembly from the outer side of the chassis I extending direction." See ¶ [0018] and annotated Fig. 1 below.
PNG
media_image11.png
1008
669
media_image11.png
Greyscale
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the lawn mower of Williams in view of Henshaw with one or more edge guides defining a channel as disclosed by Zhou in order to provide a guided path for cutting grass, improve directional flow control within the mower deck, and reduce clogging or turbulence during operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27-32 allowed.
Claims 4 and 21 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE ANTONIO MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5896. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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.
JOSE ANTONIO. MARTINEZ
Examiner
Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671