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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Species 1, Figs. 1-6 and 8-12 and claims 1-7 and 26-30, in the reply filed on 4/28/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-7, 26, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 4 and 26 recite “wherein the least two gears are operationally engaged to have an operational 1:1 ratio”. Applicant points to para. [0042] and [0045] for support in page 1 of the remarks, however, there are no details describing this ratio or the gears having the same number of teeth within these paragraphs or in the specification as a whole. Further, Applicant points to Figs. 3 and 6, but these figures do not explicitly show the gears having the same number of teeth; therefore, the figures do not show the gear ratio of 1:1.
Further, applicant’s specification para. [0037], line 1, states “It should be noted that the drawings are diagrammatic and not drawn to scale”. When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.").
It can be seen then that both claims 4 and 26 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor has possession of the claimed invention, and therefore, the claims are rejected.
Due to dependency on claims 4 and 26, claims 5-7 and 28-30 are rejected as well.
Claims 7 and 26 recite “wherein the at least two gears are operationally engaged to rotate in the same direction by the same amount”. Again, Applicant points to para. [0042] and [0045] for support in page 1 of the remarks, however, there are no details describing the gears rotating by the same amount in the given paragraphs or in the specification as a whole. As can be seen above, there is lack of support for a specific gear ratio; therefore, the speed or the rotation amount of the gears is not explicit.
It can be seen then that both claims 7 and 26 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor has possession of the claimed invention, and therefore, the claims are rejected.
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) 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over True (US 2771730 A) in view of Weiner (WO 9318638 A1) and gear-reducers.com (https://gear-reducers.com/lawn-mower-gearboxes/); hence forth, GearReducer.
Regarding claim 4, True discloses a trimmer system (see Fig. 2) for weeds and vegetation configured to be attached to a lawn maintenance apparatus [11], comprising:
a trimmer head [25] adapted to be positioned alternately in either a trimming configuration (see Fig. 2), with the cutting plane parallel to the ground to trim the weeds and the vegetation (see Col. 3, lines 57-63), and an edging configuration (see Fig. 1), with the cutting plane perpendicular to the ground to edge the weeds and the vegetation (see Col. 3, lines 31-37);
a trimmer arm [18] attached to the trimmer head configured to control a position of the trimmer head (controls vertical position, see Fig. 1; see Col. 3, lines 44-49); and
a trimmer base [33] configured to connect the trimmer to the lawn maintenance apparatus (see Fig. 2) and to control a position of the trimmer arm relative to the lawn maintenance apparatus (controls vertical tilt through housing [34] attached to the base, see Col. 2, lines 42-48);
wherein the trimmer arm comprises a parallelogram mechanism ([24, 73, and 74]; keeps sides of belt [74] parallel to each other) to maintain an angle (maintains angle between trimmer head and mower during use in both configurations and when the trimmer head is raised, see Fig. 1-2 and Col. 3, lines 39-44) of the trimmer head independent of a height of the trimmer head (height of trimmer head is adjusted through [34 and 90], see Col. 3, lines 44-51; angle is maintained due to the parallelogram mechanism never being disconnected to the trimmer head, see Col. 3, lines 39-44);
wherein the parallelogram mechanism uses at least two pulleys [24 and 73].
But True fails to disclose wherein the parallelogram mechanism uses at least two gears; and wherein the at least two gears are operationally engaged to have an operational 1:1 ratio (please see 112(a) rejection above).
Wiener discloses a similar trimmer system (see Fig. 17b) for a lawn maintenance apparatus [10] comprising a parallelogram mechanism ([2244, 2247, 2282, and 2285]; keeps sides of belt [2285] parallel to each other) using at least two gears (uses gears [2244, 2247, and 2282]; see page 21, lines 21-30); and wherein the least two gears are operationally engaged to have an operational gear ratio (has a 20:1 gear ratio, see page 4, lines 19-28, however, the gear ratio can change as different sized gears can be utilized, see page 23, lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the pulleys of True with the gears of Wiener since both are ways to transmit power from the motor to the trimming/edger system; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
However, Weiner discloses that different sized gears can be utilized (see page 23, lines 1-3), creating the ability to have different gear ratios, but fails to explicitly disclose an operational 1:1 ratio.
GearReducers teaches that a rotary cutter with a lower gear ratio maximizes torque for cutting through thick brush (see attached GearReducers NPL).
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 gear ratio of True and Weiner be 1:1 in order for the rotary cutter of the trimmer system to cut through thick vegetation (see attached GearReducers NPL).
Regarding claim 7, True, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the trimmer arm [18] is configured to fold upward (see Col. 3, lines 44-51) into a substantially vertical position (see dotted lines in Fig. 1), and wherein the at least two pulleys [24 and 73] are operationally engaged to rotate in the same direction (rotate in the same direction to bring power to the blade [22], see Col. 3, lines 9-17 and lines 63-66) (see 112(a) rejection above).
But True fails to explicitly disclose the at least two gears operationally engaged to rotate in the same direction by the same amount.
However, Weiner discloses the at least two gears (uses gears [2244, 2247, and 2282]; see page 21, lines 3-8) operationally engaged to rotate in the same direction (rotate in the same direction to provide power to axle [2218], see page 21, lines 24-29).
It can be seen then that when the gears of Weiner replace the pulleys of True that the at least two gears are operationally engaged to rotate in the same direction as disclosed by Weiner (see page 21, lines 24-29 and page 4, lines 19-28).
However, Weiner discloses that different sized gears can be utilized (see page 23, lines 1-3), creating the ability to have different gear ratios, but fails to explicitly disclose the two gears rotating by the same amount.
GearReducers teaches that a rotary cutter with a lower gear ratio maximizes torque for cutting through thick brush (see attached GearReducers NPL).
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 gear ratio of True and Weiner be 1:1 in order for the rotary cutter of the trimmer system to cut through thick vegetation (see attached GearReducers NPL); therefore, when the gear ratio is applied to the trimmer system of True and Weiner, the two gears rotate by the same amount.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over True (US 2771730 A), Wiener (WO 9318638 A1), and gear-reducers.com (https://gear-reducers.com/lawn-mower-gearboxes/); hence forth, GearReducer as applied to claims 4 and 7 above, and further in view of Hatfield (US 7219488 B2).
Regarding claim 5, the above combination discloses the trimmer system as applied, but the combination fails to disclose wherein the trimmer base comprises a suspension mechanism that facilitates the trimmer arm yielding in response to an applied force and returning in response to an absence of the applied force.
Hatfield discloses a similar trimmer system (see Fig. 2A) wherein the trimmer base [6B] comprises a suspension mechanism [9f and 9r] that facilitates the trimmer arm [220] yielding in response to an applied force (see Figs. 8 and 9, see Col. 4, lines 59-67) and returning in response to an absence of the applied force (see Col. 4, line 59-67 and Col. 5, lines 1-3).
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 suspension mechanism of Hatfield on the trimmer base of True and Weiner in order to absorb any shock impacts from the trimmer head being impacted from above or below (see Hatfield Col. 4, lines 59-67).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over True (US 2771730 A), Wiener (WO 9318638 A1), and gear-reducers.com (https://gear-reducers.com/lawn-mower-gearboxes/); hence forth, GearReducer as applied to claims 4 ad 7 above, and further in view of Rosa et al. (US 6263975 B1).
Regarding claim 6, True further discloses wherein the trimmer head [25] comprises a stand-off [27] configured to provide a distance (see Col. 3, lines 31-37) between the trimmer head and at least one of the ground or an obstacle, but fails to disclose the stand-off is adjustable configured to provide an adjustable distance.
Rosa et al. discloses a similar trimmer system (see Fig. 3) wherein the trimmer head [28] comprises an adjustable stand-off ([32], see Col. 3, lines 64-67 and Col. 4, lines 1-4) configured to provide an adjustable distance (adjusts the distance through [35], see Col. 4, lines 9-13) between the trimmer head and at least one of the ground or an obstacle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the stand-off of True with the stand-off of Rosa et al. since both are members configured to provide a physical directional for the user to guide the trimmer head against the ground for a controlled and precise cut; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
Claim(s) 26 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over True (US 2771730 A) in view of Rosa et al. (US 6263975 B1), Parker et al. (US 3782085 A), Wiener (WO 9318638 A1), and gear-reducers.com (https://gear-reducers.com/lawn-mower-gearboxes/); hence forth, GearReducer.
Regarding claim 26, True discloses a trimmer system (see Fig. 2) for weeds and vegetation, comprising:
a trimmer head [25] adapted to be positioned alternately in either a trimming configuration (see Fig. 2), with the cutting plane parallel to the ground (see Col. 3, lines 57-63) to trim the weeds and the vegetation, and an edging configuration (see Fig. 1), with the cutting plane perpendicular (see Col. 3, lines 31-37) to the ground to edge the weeds and the vegetation;
a trimmer arm [18] attached to the trimmer head configured to control a position (see Fig. 1; see Col. 3, lines 44-49) of the trimmer head;
wherein the trimmer head comprises a stand-off [27] configured to provide a distance (see Col. 3, lines 31-37) between the trimmer head and at least one of the ground or an obstacle;
and wherein the trimmer head is adapted to switch between the trimming configuration and the edging configuration (see switch in Figs. 1-2);
wherein the trimmer arm comprises a parallelogram mechanism ([24, 73, and 74]; keeps sides of belt [74] parallel to each other) to maintain an angle (maintains angle between trimmer head and mower during use in both configurations and when the trimmer head is raised, see Fig. 1-2 and Col. 3, lines 39-44) of the trimmer head independent of a height of the trimmer head (height of trimmer head is adjusted through [34 and 90], see Col. 3, lines 44-51; angle is maintained due to the parallelogram mechanism never being disconnected to the trimmer head, see Col. 3, lines 39-44);
wherein the parallelogram mechanism uses at least two pulleys [24 and 73]; and
wherein the pulleys rotate in the same direction (rotate in the same direction to bring power to the blade [22], see Col. 3, lines 9-17 and lines 63-66).
But True fails to disclose the stand-off being adjustable to provide an adjustable distance between the trimmer head and at least one of the ground or an obstacle, wherein the trimmer head is adapted to switch automatically between the trimming configuration and the edging configuration; and wherein the parallelogram mechanism uses at least two gears; wherein the at least two gears are operationally engaged to have an operational 1:1 ratio, and to rotate in the same direction by the same amount. (please see 112(a) rejection above).
Rosa et al. discloses a similar trimmer system (see Fig. 3) wherein the trimmer head [28] comprises an adjustable stand-off ([32], see Col. 3, lines 64-67 and Col. 4, lines 1-4) configured to provide an adjustable distance (adjusts the distance through [35], see Col. 4, lines 9-13) between the trimmer head and at least one of the ground or an obstacle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the stand-off of True with the stand-off of Rosa et al. since both are members configured to provide a physical directional for the user to guide the trimmer head against the ground for a controlled and precise cut; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
But Rosa et al. fails to disclose wherein the trimmer head is adapted to switch automatically between the trimming configuration and the edging configuration; and wherein the parallelogram mechanism uses at least two gears; wherein the at least two gears are operationally engaged to have an operational 1:1 ratio.
However, Parker et al. discloses a similar trimmer system (see Fig. 1) wherein the trimmer head [68] is adapted to switch automatically (switches after user moves rod [152]; see Col. 5, lines 30-42) between the trimming configuration (see Col. 5, lines 38-42 and Fig. 6) and the edging configuration (see Col. 5, lines 38-42 and Fig. 10).
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 switching system of Parker et al. on the trimmer system of True and Rosa et al. in order for the user to orient the configuration of the trimmer head through the use of a handle (see Parker et al. Col. 5, lines 30-42). As well as, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the manual trimmer head switching system of True be automatic, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
But Parker et al. fails to disclose wherein the parallelogram mechanism uses at least two gears; wherein the at least two gears are operationally engaged to have an operational 1:1 ratio.
However, Wiener discloses a similar trimmer system (see Fig. 17b) for a lawn maintenance apparatus [10] comprising a parallelogram mechanism ([2244, 2247, 2282, and 2285]; keeps sides of belt [2285] parallel to each other) using at least two gears (uses gears [2244, 2247, and 2282]; see page 21, lines 21-30); and wherein the least two gears are operationally engaged to have an operational gear ratio (has a 20:1 gear ratio, see page 4, lines 19-28; gear ratio can change as different sized gears can be utilized, see page 23, lines 1-3), and engaged to rotate in the same direction (rotate in the same direction to provide power to axle [2218], see page 21, lines 24-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the pulleys of True with the gears of Wiener since both are ways to transmit power from the motor to the trimming/edger system; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
However, Weiner discloses that different sized gears can be utilized (see page 23, lines 1-3), creating the ability to have different gear ratios, but fails to explicitly disclose an operational 1:1 ratio.
GearReducers teaches that a rotary cutter with a lower gear ratio maximizes torque for cutting through thick brush (see attached GearReducers NPL).
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 gear ratio of Weiner be 1:1 in order for the rotary cutter of the trimmer system to cut through thick vegetation (see attached GearReducers NPL); therefore, when the 1:1 gear ratio is applied to the trimmer system of True and Weiner, the two gears rotate by the same amount.
Regarding claim 28, True, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the trimmer arm [18] is configured to be attached (attached through [33], see Fig. 2) to a lawn maintenance apparatus [11].
Regarding claim 29, Rosa et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses at least one adjustment mechanism [35] for adjusting (see Col. 4, lines 4-8) the at least one adjustable stand-off [34].
Regarding claim 30, Rosa et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the at least one adjustable stand-off [34] comprises one or both of a first adjustable stand-off configured to be employed in connection with trimming or a second adjustable stand- off (adjustable stand-off [34] is configured with edging) configured to be employed in connection with edging (see Fig. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claim amendments are rejected due to the newly added limitations in claims 4, 7, and 26 lacking support within Applicant’s disclosure (please see 112(a) rejections above). Despite this, the 103 combination of True and Wiener still meets the added limitations.
While Wiener explicitly discloses a 20:1 step-up ratio, the specification further discloses that “different sized gears could be utilized” in page 23, lines 1-3, allowing for different gear ratios to be applied. Using a 1:1 gear ratio is well known in the art, and therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art could modify the gears of Wiener to create different gear ratios for specific cutting uses. Modifying the gears to have a 1:1 ratio allows the cutter to have more torque for cutting through denser vegetation (see attached GearReducer NPL). Further, Weiner’s gears rotate in the same direction to provide power to the axle of the leaf picker mechanism (see page 21, lines 24-29), and, when the 1:1 gear ratio is applied, both gears rotate by the same amount.
It is for these reasons that the newly added limitations are not persuasive.
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.
Reference US 3882615 discloses a similar lawn maintenance system (see Fig. 1) with an arm [17] having a parallelogram mechanism [50, 51, and 52] comprised of at least two gears [50 and 52].
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