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 § 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 1-6, 10-13, 15-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirokazu et al. (US 20200367430 A1) in view of Szymanis (US 4318268 A) and Gutmann et al. (EP3366103B1).
Regarding claim 1, Hirokazu teaches a blade (Hirokazu figure 3 element 20 "cutter blade") for a mower (Hirokazu figure 1 element 3 "mower unit"), comprising:
a substantially flat central portion having a rotational axis configured to be coupled to a motor for rotating the blade; (Hirokazu figure 1 element 40 "center section")
a distal portion extending radially from opposing sides of the flat central portion, the distal portion being a cutting region of the blade when mowing and defined by the following: (Hirokazu [0040] figure 3 element 42 "first portion")
Hirokazu fails to disclose a non-zero leading angle defining an angle of attack; and a non-zero camber percentage; and an intermediate portion disposed between the central portion and the distal portion and configured to minimize an amount of torsional stress between the central portion and the distal portion, wherein each distal portion comprises about 25 percent or less of a total length of the blade, and the intermediate portion is flatter on a side proximate the central portion than a side proximate the distal portion.
Hirokazu also fails to disclose a non-zero camber percentage.
Szymanis teaches a non-zero leading angle defining an angle of attack; and an intermediate portion disposed between the central portion and the distal portion and configured to minimize an amount of torsional stress between the central portion and the distal portion, wherein each distal portion comprises about 25 percent or less of a total length of the blade, and the intermediate portion is flatter on a side proximate the central portion than a side proximate the distal portion.
Szymanis states, "The combination of cutting blade 26 with cutting chamber 12 permits the angle of pitch e of end portion 44 of my blade to be substantially reduced in comparison to the prior art, an angle of 20. degree" (Szymanis Col. 5, 32-35)
Szymanis also states, "The cutting blade of a typical commercial embodiment comprises a tip portion occupying approximately 15% of the radius of the blade, which is upwardly pitched at an angle of some 25. degree. By upwardly is meant that the blade slopes upwardly from the forward cutting edge to the rearward trailing flank of the blade. The purpose of so pitching this tip portion of the blade is to provide a strong upward current of air for suspending the grass cuttings within the housing." (Szymanis Col. 2, lines 38-46 and annotated Fig. 2 and 5 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
849
596
media_image1.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 for a mower as taught by Hirokazu so as to utilize the non-zero leading angle (angle of attack) and intermediate portion geometry in view of Szymanis to improve lift characteristics, airflow generation, and cutting consistency of the mower blade.
Gutmann teaches a non-zero camber percentage.
Gutman states, “The upper curve at the location of the cutting edge is at an entrance angle to the cutting direction, and wherein the entrance angle is in a range of 0 ° to 5 ° inclusive, preferably in a range of 1.5 ° to 3.0 ° inclusive.” (Gutmann PDF print page 2 lines 8-10 and figure 3 element 22 "upper curve")
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 for a lawn mower as taught by Hirokazu so as to utilize the upper curve in view of Gutmann to create better airflow, lifting the grass more effectively before cutting it. The upper curve also reduces the drag on the blade making it easier to move through the grass.
Regarding claim 2, Hirokazu teaches a blade of claim 1.
Hirokazu fails to disclose wherein the non-zero leading angle is about twenty-five to about thirty-five degrees and wherein the camber percentage is about 2 to about 12 percent.
Gutmann teaches wherein the non-zero leading angle is about twenty-five to about thirty-five degrees and wherein the camber percentage is about 2 to about 12 percent.
Gutmann states, “These contact lines each indicate an angle of incidence γ relative to the cutting direction 20. Due to the constant chord T .sub.F in conjunction with the difference between the inner height h .sub.i and the outer height h .sub.a, there is also a cross-sectional rotation along the radial extent of the cutting portion 3 with an inner angle γ .sub.i and an outer angle γ .sub.a . The angle of attack γ spans in the illustrated embodiment, a range of the inner angle of attack γ .sub.i with about 16 ° to the outer angle γ .sub.a with about 12 °. But it can also be appropriate angle courses, which are approximately in a range of 25 ° to 5 ° and in particular from about 20 ° to 10 °.” (Gutmann PDF print page 7 lines 6-12 and figure 5 element 4 "angle of incidence")
Gutmann also states, “Fig. 4 shows the cutting section 3 in an enlarged detail Fig. 3 in the vicinity of the lowest point 7 and the sharpened cutting edge 4. It can be seen that the upper curve 22 at the location of the cutting edge 4 is not parallel to the horizontal Drehebene E or to the cutting direction 20, but at an entrance angle α to it. The entrance angle α is advantageously in a range of 0 ° to 5 ° inclusive, and more preferably in a range of 1.5 ° to 3.0 ° inclusive.” (Gutmann PDF print page 5 lines 38-42 and figure 3 element 22 "upper curve")
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 as taught by Hirokazu so as to utilize the angle of incidence and upper curve in view of Gutmann to create more lift, which in turn improves airflow. Thus, changing the angle of incidence allows cutting all of the grass evenly in one pass. Now, adding the upper curve or camber of the blade can enhance the lift even more and reduce resistance as the blade moves through the grass. This can result in less strain on the motor and reduced wear on the blade.
Regarding claim 3, Hirokazu teaches the blade of claim 1, wherein the distal portion is curved about an edge furthest from the rotational axis based at least in part on a curve associated with a baffle surrounding the blade when attached to the motor. (Hirokazu [0039] figure 6 element 52 "wind generating portions")
Regarding claim 4, Hirokazu teaches the blade of claim 1, wherein the camber percentage varies along a width of the blade such that at least a portion of a leading edge of the blade located within the distal portion is substantially flat. (Hirokazu figure 3 element 51 " blade portions")
Regarding claim 5, Hirokazu teaches the blade of claim 1, wherein the distal portion is swept backwards to one or more of: (Hirokazu figure 5 element 20 "cutter blade")
vary linearly with respect to a radius of the blade, or (Hirokazu figure 3 element 20 "cutter blade")
curve along the radius. (Hirokazu figure 3 element 42 "second portions")
Regarding claim 6, Hirokazu teaches the blade of claim 1, wherein the blade is further defined by one or more of a leading edge or a trailing edge and wherein one or more of the leading edge or the trailing edge is tapered. (Hirokazu [0044] figure 3 element 52a "tapered portion")
Regarding claim 10, Hirokazu teaches the blade of claim 1, wherein a leading edge of the distal portion is sharpened. (Hirokazu [0039] figure 7 element 51 " blade portions")
Regarding claim 11, Hirokazu teaches a blade (Hirokazu figure 3 element 20 "cutter blade") for a mower (Hirokazu figure 1 element 3 "mower unit"), comprising:
a substantially flat central portion having a rotational axis configured to be coupled to a motor for rotating the blade; (Hirokazu figure 1 element 40 "center section")
a distal portion extending radially from opposing sides of the flat central portion, the distal portion being a cutting region of the blade when mowing and defined by the following: (Hirokazu [0040] figure 3 element 42 "first portion")
Hirokazu fails to disclose a non-zero leading angle defining an angle of attack; and a non-zero camber percentage; and an intermediate portion disposed between the central portion and the distal portion and configured to minimize an amount of torsional stress between the central portion and the distal portion, wherein the intermediate portion is flatter on a side proximate the central portion than a side proximate the distal portion.
Hirokazu also fails to disclose a non-zero camber percentage.
Szymanis teaches a non-zero leading angle defining an angle of attack; and an intermediate portion disposed between the central portion and the distal portion and configured to minimize an amount of torsional stress between the central portion and the distal portion, wherein the intermediate portion is flatter on a side proximate the central portion than a side proximate the distal portion. (See Szymanis annotated Fig. 2 and 5 below)
Szymanis states, "The combination of cutting blade 26 with cutting chamber 12 permits the angle of pitch e of end portion 44 of my blade to be substantially reduced in comparison to the prior art, an angle of 20. degree" (Szymanis Col. 5, 32-35)
PNG
media_image1.png
849
596
media_image1.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 for a mower as taught by Hirokazu so as to utilize the non-zero leading angle (angle of attack) and intermediate portion geometry in view of Szymanis to improve lift characteristics, airflow generation, and cutting consistency of the mower blade.
Gutmann teaches a non-zero camber percentage.
Gutman states, “The upper curve at the location of the cutting edge is at an entrance angle to the cutting direction, and wherein the entrance angle is in a range of 0 ° to 5 ° inclusive, preferably in a range of 1.5 ° to 3.0 ° inclusive.” (Gutmann PDF print page 2 lines 8-10 and figure 3 element 22 "upper curve")
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 for a lawn mower as taught by Hirokazu so as to utilize the upper curve in view of Gutmann to create better airflow, lifting the grass more effectively before cutting it. The upper curve also reduces the drag on the blade making it easier to move through the grass.
Regarding claim 12, Hirokazu teaches the blade of claim 11.
Hirokazu fails to disclose wherein the non-zero leading angle at the distal portion is about 15 degrees to about 45 degrees.
Gutmann teaches wherein the non-zero leading angle at the distal portion is about 15 degrees to about 45 degrees.
Gutmann states “These contact lines each indicate an angle of incidence γ relative to the cutting direction 20. Due to the constant chord T .sub.F in conjunction with the difference between the inner height h .sub.i and the outer height h .sub.a, there is also a cross-sectional rotation along the radial extent of the cutting portion 3 with an inner angle γ .sub.i and an outer angle γ .sub.a . The angle of attack γ spans in the illustrated embodiment, a range of the inner angle of attack γ .sub.i with about 16 ° to the outer angle γ .sub.a with about 12 °. But it can also be appropriate angle courses, which are approximately in a range of 25 ° to 5 ° and in particular from about 20 ° to 10 °. “(Gutmann PDF print page 7 lines 6-12 and figure 5 element 4 "angle of incidence")
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 as taught by Hirokazu so as to utilize the angle of incidence in view of Gutmann to create a more aggressive cutting edge, which slices through grass without tearing to create a clean and effective cut.
Regarding claim 13, Hirokazu teaches the blade of claim 12, wherein a chord width of the blade is substantially the same across a length of the blade. (Hirokazu figure 5 element T1 "thickness")
Regarding claim 15, Hirokazu teaches the blade of claim 11, wherein an edge furthest from the rotational axis of the blade is curved. (Hirokazu figure 3 element 52 "wind generating portions")
Regarding claim 16, Hirokazu teaches a mower, comprising: (Hirokazu [0032] figure 1 "grass cutting machine")
a plurality of wheels; (Hirokazu figure 1 element 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b "wheel")
a deck assembly disposed between the plurality of wheels; and (Hirokazu [0033] figure 1 element 3 "mower unit")
a blade (20) disposed in the deck assembly (30), the blade comprising:
a central portion having a rotational axis coupled to a motor for rotating the blade; (Hirokazu [0038] figure 2 element 80 "mower motor" and 21 "rotational shafts")
a distal portion extending from opposing sides of the central portion, the distal portion being a cutting region of the blade when mowing and defined by the following: (Hirokazu [0040] figure 2 element 42 "second portions" and 51 "blade portion")
a distal portion extending radially from opposing sides of the flat central portion, the distal portion being a cutting region of the blade when mowing and defined by the following: (Hirokazu [0040] figure 3 element 42 "first portion")
Hirokazu fails to disclose a non-zero leading angle defining an angle of attack; and a non-zero camber percentage; and an intermediate portion disposed between the central portion and the distal portion and configured to minimize an amount of torsional stress between the central portion and the distal portion, wherein the intermediate portion is flatter on a side proximate the central portion than a side proximate the distal portion.
Hirokazu also fails to disclose a non-zero camber percentage.
Szymanis teaches a non-zero leading angle defining an angle of attack; and an intermediate portion disposed between the central portion and the distal portion and configured to minimize an amount of torsional stress between the central portion and the distal portion, wherein the intermediate portion is flatter on a side proximate the central portion than a side proximate the distal portion. (See Szymanis annotated Fig. 2 and 5 below)
Szymanis states, "The combination of cutting blade 26 with cutting chamber 12 permits the angle of pitch e of end portion 44 of my blade to be substantially reduced in comparison to the prior art, an angle of 20. degree" (Szymanis Col. 5, 32-35)
PNG
media_image1.png
849
596
media_image1.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 for a mower as taught by Hirokazu so as to utilize the non-zero leading angle (angle of attack) and intermediate portion geometry in view of Szymanis to improve lift characteristics, airflow generation, and cutting consistency of the mower blade.
Gutmann teaches a non-zero camber percentage.
Gutman states, “The upper curve at the location of the cutting edge is at an entrance angle to the cutting direction, and wherein the entrance angle is in a range of 0 ° to 5 ° inclusive, preferably in a range of 1.5 ° to 3.0 ° inclusive.” (Gutmann PDF print page 2 lines 8-10 and figure 3 element 22 "upper curve")
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 for a lawn mower as taught by Hirokazu so as to utilize the upper curve in view of Gutmann to create better airflow, lifting the grass more effectively before cutting it. The upper curve also reduces the drag on the blade making it easier to move through the grass.
Regarding claim 18, Hirokazu teaches the mower of claim 16.
Hirokazu fails to disclose wherein each distal portion comprises about 25 percent or less of a total length of the blade.
Szymanis however teaches wherein each distal portion comprises about 25 percent or less of a total length of the blade.
Szymanis also states, "The cutting blade of a typical commercial embodiment comprises a tip portion occupying approximately 15% of the radius of the blade" (Szymanis Col. 2, lines 38-40)
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 mower as taught by Hirokazu so as to utilize the percentage of the distal portion in view of Szymanis to optimize the distribution of forces along the blade. The short length would reduce the amount of torsional stress and vibration which leads to a smoother operation and a longer blade life.
Regarding claim 19, Hirokazu teaches the mower of claim 16, further comprising a baffle disposed about the blade for controlling air flow within the deck assembly. (Hirokazu [0039] "baffle plate")
Regarding claim 20, Hirokazu teaches the mower of claim 16, wherein the blade comprises a flat plate that is bent to form the distal portion and the intermediate portion. (Hirokazu [0039] "flat face" and [0042] "bent" figure 3 element 42 "second portion")
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirokazu et al. (US 20200367430 A1) in view of Szymanis (US 4318268 A) and Gutmann et al. (EP3366103B1) as applied to claims 1-6, 10-13, 15-16, 18-20 above, and further in view of Warren (US 5775078 A).
Regarding claim 7, Hirokazu teaches the blade of claim 1, wherein the blade is further defined by a thickness and a chord width, and wherein the chord width is based at least in part on the thickness (Hirokazu [0044] figure 5 element T1 "thickness"). Hirokazu however is silent on the chord width.
Regarding claim 8, Hirokazu in view of Szymanis and Gutmann teaches the blade of claim 7.
Hirokazu in view of Szymanis and Gutmann fails to disclose wherein the chord width is about two to about three inches.
Warren however teaches a chord width wherein the chord width is about two to about three inches.
Warren states, “Blade 16 width is approximately 2.5 inches.” (Warren column 6 lines 11-12 "width")
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 as taught by Hirokazu in view of Szymanis and Gutmann so as to utilize the width of the blade in view of Warren to maximize lift while keeping a safe level of stiffness to the blade. The extra lift helps keep the grass standing upright as it’s being cut. The extra material on the chord width in turn, reduces vibration and flexing during operation.
Regarding claim 14, Hirokazu in view of Szymanis and Gutmann teaches a blade of claim 11.
Hirokazu in view of Szymanis and Gutmann fails to disclose wherein a width of the blade is about 2 to about 3 inches, and a thickness of the blade is about 0.15 inches to about 0.2 inches.
Warren however teaches wherein a width of the blade is about 2 to about 3 inches, and a thickness of the blade is about 0.15 inches to about 0.2 inches.
Warren states, “Blade 16 width is approximately 2.5 inches. “(Warren column 6 lines 11-12 "width")
Warren also states, “A preferred blade may be manufactured of hot rolled steel austempered to hardness RC 38-44, with approximately 0.25 inch thickness.” (Warren column 6 lines 52-56 "thickness")
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 as taught by Hirokazu in view of Szymanis and Gutmann so as to utilize the width and thickness of the blade in view of Warren to provide a width with enough surface area to create the necessary lift and airflow needed when mulching and bagging while maintaining a consistent cut. A thickness of approximately 0.25 inches gives enough rigidity and strength to handle the stresses of cutting without bending or breaking the blade.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirokazu et al. (US 20200367430 A1) in view of Szymanis (US 4318268 A) and Gutmann et al. (EP3366103B1) as applied to claims 1-6, 10-13, 15-16, 18-20 above, and further in view of William (US 5209052 A).
Regarding claim 9, Hirokazu in view of Szymanis and Gutmann teaches the blade of claim 1.
Hirokazu in view of Szymanis and Gutmann fails to disclose wherein the flat central portion include a central opening and one or more peripheral openings configured for coupling the blade to the motor.
William however teaches wherein the flat central portion include a central opening and one or more peripheral openings configured for coupling the blade to the motor.
William states, “At the outboard trailing edge corners of the blade 1 is a deflector 5 bent to improve and control the effect of the blade. Located in the center of the blade 1 is one hole 6 drilled to accept the bolt that holds the blade 1 to the powerplants shaft. On either side of the center hole are two holes 7.” (Carroll column 1-2 lines 67-68, 1-4 figure 1 element 6-7 "hole")
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 as taught by Hirokazu in view of Szymanis and Gutmann so as to utilize the holes on either side of the center hole in view of William to balance the blade and reduce vibrations during operation by adding structural strength around the mounting area.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirokazu et al. (US 20200367430 A1) in view of Szymanis (US 4318268 A) and Gutmann et al. (EP3366103B1) as applied to claims 1-6, 10-13, 15-16, 18-20 above, and further in view of Patridge (US 20190045707 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Hirokazu in view of Szymanis and Gutmann teaches the mower of claim 16.
Hirokazu in view of Szymanis and Gutmann does not specifically teach wherein a gap between the blade and a cutting chamber of the deck assembly is about .03 to about .25 inches.
Patridge however teaches wherein a gap between the blade and a cutting chamber of the deck assembly is about .03 to about .25 inches.
Patridge states, “The horizontal clearance between the lower blades and/or between the upper blades may be from 0.05 to 2 inches, e.g., from 0.10 to 1 inches or from 0.25 to 0.5 inches. In some embodiments, the vertical clearance between the lower and upper blades on a given spindle may be from 0.02 to 1 inches, e.g., from 0.05 to 0.5 inches or from 0.1 to 0.4 inches.” (Patridge [0049] "horizontal clearance")
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 for a lawn mower as taught by Hirokazu in view of Szymanis and Gutmann so as to utilize the angle of attack in view of Patridge to create a stronger vacuum effect under the deck of the mower, lifting the grass blades effectively before they are cut. Having a precise gap size reduces the chances of grass clippings clogging the deck, thus providing a smooth discharge.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JOSE ANTONIO MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5896. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-5.
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