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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the Group I (claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 02/16/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-4, 6-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crippen (US 5241812 A) in view of Gidney (GB 2356544 A).
Regarding claim 1, Crippen teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a soil manipulating device (col. 1, lines 23-32: “a spring tine rake, usually hand operated, which permits a deeper penetration into the ground of a lawn than conventional rakes. By orienting the ground engaging portion of the spring tine elements so that the blade of each tine element is substantially parallel to the direction of the raking operation, the blades will penetrate into the matted thatch which accumulates at the base of the blades of grass”; col. 2, lines 43-44: “permit penetration of the lower ends of the tine elements into the ground surface”) comprising:
a shaft (rake handle 10a); a base plate (mounting head 10b) having a first edge (upper edge with hole for connecting to the first end of the shaft 10a) attached to a first end of the shaft, the base plate defining a first plane (flat surface of 10b); and a set of tines attached to and extending from a second edge of the base plate, each tine having opposed edges and defining an associated second plane (flat plane of blade element 13), at least one of the tines having an associated second plane intersecting with the first plane (col. 2, lines 16-21: “ A lower ground engaging blade element 13 is provided at the end of each of the tines 12 as by providing a 90 degree twist 14 in each tine in spaced relation above the respective ends 13a of the blade elements 13. In the form shown this twist 14 is provided immediately below the bend 15 in each of the tine elements 12”), (col. 1, line 24: “hand operated”; col. 2, line 5: “rake handle 10a”), positioning the user for inserting the tines into soil for manipulating the soil (col. 1, lines 23-32).
PNG
media_image1.png
882
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gidney teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a soil manipulating device (“a garden rake”) comprising: a shaft (shaft comprises handle or shaft 3) and tines (prongs 2); at least one of the tines with opposed edges being serrated (“the inner prong has serrations along both edges”; “the tool head may have one or more serrated edges which help separate soil from weeds”; “the rake may be used for tasks such as removing moss from brick paths, settling plants into plant beds or separating weeds from soil”); wherein the shaft is configured for grasping in one or both hands of a user, positioning the user for inserting the tines into soil for manipulating the soil.
PNG
media_image2.png
872
545
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to add serrations to at least one of the tines of Crippen. Doing so would make the rake easier to cut into the soil.
Regarding claim 2, both Crippen and Gidney teach (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the set of tines comprises from one to twenty eight tines.
Regarding claim 3, Crippen teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) each tine has an associated second plane at an angle relative to the first plane measuring from 88.0° to 90.0° (col. 2, lines 16-21: “ A lower ground engaging blade element 13 is provided at the end of each of the tines 12 as by providing a 90 degree twist 14 in each tine in spaced relation above the respective ends 13a of the blade elements 13. In the form shown this twist 14 is provided immediately below the bend 15 in each of the tine elements 12”).
Regarding claim 4, Crippen teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) a lip attached to and extending from the first edge of the base plate, wherein the lip is configured for positioning of a foot of the user, positioning the user for pushing the tines into the soil.
Regarding claim 6, Crippen teaches (reproduced and annotated Fig. above) a set of extension plates, each extension plate being attached to and positioned between the second edge of the base plate and a respective tine; and a set of twists, each twist being positioned in a respective extension plate such that an associated tine has an associated second plane at an angle measuring from 0.0° to 90.0° relative to the first plane (col. 2, lines 16-21: “ A lower ground engaging blade element 13 is provided at the end of each of the tines 12 as by providing a 90 degree twist 14 in each tine in spaced relation above the respective ends 13a of the blade elements 13. In the form shown this twist 14 is provided immediately below the bend 15 in each of the tine elements 12”).
Regarding claim 7, Crippen teaches (reproduced and annotated Fig. above) the base plate, the
extension plates, and the tines are formed from a single slab.
Regarding claim 15, Crippen does not show specifics of the shaft.
Gidney teaches (reproduced and annotated Fig. above) a grip (grip portion 4) attached to the shaft proximate to a second end of the shaft, wherein the grip is configured for enhancing a grasp of a user upon the shaft.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the grip of Gidney to the shaft of Crippen. Doing so would make it easier for handling the rake as well as storing it on a hook.
Regarding claim 16, Crippen teaches (reproduced and annotated Fig. above) set of cutouts positioned in the base plate, wherein the cutouts are configured for facilitating a rocking motion of the base plate and the tines within the soil.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crippen in view of Gidney and further in view of Lukensow (US 20150264855 A1)
Regarding claim 5, combination of Crippen and Gidney does not teach the tines being tapered.
Lukensow teaches a garden tool (reproduced and annotated Figs. below), having: a shaft (12, 13), a grip (15), tapered tines (17) and extension plates (par. 23: “In operation, the user can apply pressure to the ledge 16 in order to drive the tines 17 into the ground. Thus, the user can step on the ledge 16 with his or her foot and can press downward thereon”).
PNG
media_image3.png
810
312
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the tines of Crippen tapered. Doing so would make soil penetration of the tines easier.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 11 are 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.
The closest prior art to the claimed invention of claim 8 are Crippen, Gidney and England (US 3436111 A).
Regarding claim 8, combination of Crippen and Gidney does not teach combination of claimed S-curves, bracketing pair and central set.
England teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a hand tool with a shaft, a base with tines and S-curves. However England does not teach combination of S-curves, bracketing pair and central set as claimed.
PNG
media_image4.png
632
434
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 9-10 would be allowable due to dependency on allowable claim 8.
The closest prior art to the claimed invention of claim 11 are Crippen, Gidney and Joseph (US 1724026 A).
Regarding claim 11, combination of Crippen and Gidney does not teach combination of claimed bends, bracketing pair and central set.
Joseph teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a garden tool with a shaft, a base with tines (31) and a set of bends. However England does not teach combination of bends, bracketing pair and central set as claimed.
PNG
media_image5.png
734
494
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 12-14 would be allowable due to dependency on allowable claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hazzard (US 0870955 A) teaches a combination of fork and rake (reproduced and annotated Figs. below), having: a shaft, a grip, tapered tines (4) and extension plates (extensions 8) for “foot pressure” (col. 2, lines 57-71).
PNG
media_image6.png
898
573
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Withington (US 1706507 A) teaches a rake with twisted tines (18).
PNG
media_image7.png
672
482
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHDI H NEJAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-4pm EST.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
MAHDI H. NEJAD
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MAHDI H NEJAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723