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 Objections
Claim 6 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 2 recites “a horizontal placement state”, should read – the horizontal placement state – due to earlier mention of the horizontal placement state in claim 1, line 27.
Claim 6, line 3 recites “a rotation center line of the cutter blade extends along a vertical direction”, should read – the rotation center line of the cutter blade extends along the vertical direction – due to mention of the rotation center line and the vertical direction in claim 1, line 28.
Claim 13, line 35 recites “a horizontal placement state”, should read – the horizontal placement state – due to earlier mention of the horizontal placement state in line 16.
Claim 13, line 36 recites “a rotation center line of the cutter blade extends along a vertical direction”, should read – the rotation center line of the cutter blade extends along the vertical direction – due to mention of the rotation center line and the vertical direction in line 17.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-8, 10-13, 16-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilpatrick et al. (US 9888626 B2) in view of Bovee (US 2760327 A).
Regarding claim 1, Gilpatrick et al. discloses a cutter blade [110] configured to be rotated by a rotary shaft (not shown but inherently present to rotate the blade, see Col. 3, lines 4-7) provided in a lawn mower [50], the cutter blade comprising:
an attachment portion (see below) attached to the rotary shaft;
a first arm portion (see below) and a second arm portion (see below) each extending from the attachment portion in a radially outward direction (see below),
wherein a wing portion [123] is provided only on the first arm portion among the first arm portion and the second arm portion, the wing portion being inclined upward (see Fig. 3), toward a reverse rotation direction (inclines backwards, against the blade rotation direction; therefore, inclines in a counter-clockwise direction, see Fig. 3) opposite to a blade rotation direction (blade rotates clockwise, see Col. 3, lines 37-38) which is a rotation direction of the cutter blade,
wherein the second arm portion is formed with an upward extending portion [120] that extends fully non-linearly upward, toward the radially outward direction (see Fig. 5),
the first arm portion and the second arm portion extend in directions opposite to each other with the attachment portion being centered therebetween (see below),
the wing portion is formed on a portion (see below) including an end portion of the first arm portion (see below) in the radially outward direction,
the attachment portion, the first arm portion, and the second arm portion are provided on the same blade member (see below),
in a horizontal placement (see Fig. 3) in which the cutter blade is placed in a manner so that a rotation center line [113] of the cutter blade extends along a vertical direction (see Fig. 3), an upper surface (see below) of a portion (see below) of the first arm portion is positioned more radially inward than the wing portion [123], and an upper surface (see below) of an end portion (see below) of the second arm portion is in the radially outward direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
357
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
539
763
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
535
763
media_image3.png
Greyscale
But Gilpatrick fails to disclose a lower blade member and an upper blade member arranged so as to overlap each other in a thickness direction, the attachment portion, the first arm portion, and the second arm portion are provided on the lower blade member, the upper blade member includes: an upper attachment portion attached to the rotary shaft in a state of being superimposed on the attachment portion; and a third arm portion and a fourth arm portion each extending from the upper attachment portion in the radially outward direction, the third arm portion overlaps the first arm portion in plan view, the fourth arm portion overlaps the second arm portion in plan view, in a horizontal placement state in which the cutter blade is placed in a manner so that a rotation center line of the cutter blade extends along a vertical direction, a position in the vertical direction of a lower surface of an end portion of the third arm portion in the radially outward direction is higher, by a first distance, than a position in the vertical direction of an upper surface of a portion of the first arm portion that is positioned more radially inward than the wing portion, in the horizontal placement state, a position in the vertical direction of a lower surface of an end portion of the fourth arm portion in the radially outward direction is higher, by a second distance, than a position in the vertical direction of an upper surface of an end portion of the second arm portion in the radially outward direction, and the first distance is greater than the second distance.
Bovee discloses a similar cutter blade [30 and 31] configured to be rotated by a rotary shaft [28] provided in a lawn mower (see Fig. 1), wherein the cutter blade comprises:
a lower blade member [30] and an upper blade member [31] arranged so as to overlap each other in a thickness direction (see Fig. 5), the upper blade member includes:
an upper attachment portion (see below) attached to the rotary shaft in a state of being superimposed on the attachment portion (the upper attachment portion is placed on top of the attachment portion through [33 and 34]; therefore, being superimposed on each other, see Fig. 4 and Col. 4, lines 15-19); and
a third arm portion (see below) and a fourth arm portion (see below) each extending from the upper attachment portion in the radially outward direction, the third arm portion overlaps the first arm portion (see below) in plan view (see Fig. 5), the fourth arm portion overlaps the second arm portion (see below) in plan view,
in a horizontal placement state (see Fig. 4) in which the cutter blade is placed in a manner so that a rotation center line (see below) of the cutter blade extends along a vertical direction (see below), a position in the vertical direction of a lower surface of an end portion of the third arm portion (see below) in the radially outward direction is higher, by a first distance (see below), than a position in the vertical direction of an upper surface of a portion of the first arm portion (see below),
in the horizontal placement state, a position in the vertical direction of a lower surface of an end portion of the fourth arm portion (see below)in the radially outward direction is higher, by a second distance (see below), than a position in the vertical direction of an upper surface of an end portion of the second arm portion (see below) in the radially outward direction.
PNG
media_image4.png
384
702
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
353
1004
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 lower blade member of Bovee with the blade member of Gilpatrick et al. since both are blades used to cut vegetation when rotated about a rotary shaft; therefore, yielding the same predictable result. It can be seen then that when the blade member of Gilpatrick et al. is applied as the lower blade member of Bovee that the attachment portion, the first arm portion, and the second arm portion of Gilpatrick et al. are provided on the lower blade member.
Further, it can be seen then that the first and second arm portions of Gilpatrick et al. are lower on the rotary shaft than the third and fourth arm portions of the upper blade member of Bovee due to the placement of the blades and the spacing between them (see Bovee Fig. 4 and Col. 4, lines 13-27). The second arm portion of Gilpatrick et al. comprises the upwardly extending portion; therefore, when the blade of Gilpatrick et al. is applied as the lower blade of Bovee, the first distance is greater than the second distance due to the second arm portion upwardly extending more than the first arm portion (see annotated Gilpatrick et al. figure above and Fig. 5).
Examiner's Note: the limitation "portion" has been given the broadest reasonable interpretation as being "an often limited part of a whole" through the definition given by Merriam-Webster (see previously attached NPL on 3/9/26).
Regarding claim 5, Gilpatrick et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the upward extending portion [120] extends over an entire width (see above) of the second arm portion (see above).
Regarding claim 6, Gilpatrick et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses the cutter blade as applied above, as well as a horizontal placement state (see Fig. 3) in which the cutter blade [110] is placed in a manner so that a rotation center line [113] of the cutter blade extends along a vertical direction (see Fig. 3), and a position in the vertical direction of an outer portion (see below), of the second arm portion (see above), that extends from the upward extending portion [120] in the radially outward direction and a position in the vertical direction of an uppermost end (see below) of the wing portion [123].
PNG
media_image6.png
536
715
media_image6.png
Greyscale
But Gilpatrick et al. fails to explicitly disclose that the position in the vertical direction of the outer portion, of the second arm portion, that extends from the upward extending portion in the radially outward direction is lower than the position in the vertical direction of the uppermost end of the wing portion.
However, Gilpatrick et al. discloses that the upward extending portion generates lift within the cutting chamber to cause the grass to stand or raise for a better cut (see Col. 4, lines 5-10), but reducing the lift reduces the noise production. Various embodiments within Gilpatrick et al. are shown, emphasizing either reducing noise production or improving the cutting effect through the lifting of the grass (see Col. 8, lines 1-7); therefore, the position of the upward extending portion being lower than the wing portion is a result effective variable for the user to emphasize reducing noise production.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the upward extending portion lower than the wing portion in the vertical direction in order to reduce noise production while mowing. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Gilpatrick et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein in the horizontal placement state (see Fig. 3), the first arm portion (see above) is inclined upward (inclined upwards through wing [123]), toward the radially outward direction.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Gilpatrick et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein in the horizontal placement state (see Fig. 3), the wing portion [123] of the first arm portion (see above) is inclined upward (see Fig. 3), toward the radially outward direction.
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Gilpatrick et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein a total weight (first arm portion acts as a counterweight to balance blade about the axis of rotation, see Col. 4, lines 45-51; therefore, the weight of the two portions are equal) of the first arm portion (see above) is equal to a total weight of the second arm portion (see above).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Gilpatrick et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein an outer dimension (see below; total length of all outside edges due to curvature of the wing) of the first arm portion (see below) in plan view and an outer dimension (see below) of the second arm portion (see below) in plan view are approximate to each other (see below).
PNG
media_image7.png
368
584
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 12 and 21, Gilpatrick et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses teaches a lawn mower [50] comprising the cutter blade according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 13, Gilpatrick et al. teaches a cutter blade [110] configured to be rotated by a rotary shaft (not shown but inherently present to rotate the blade, see Col. 3, lines 4-7) provided in a lawn mower [50], the cutter blade comprising:
an attachment portion (see below) attached to the rotary shaft;
a first arm portion (see below) and a second arm portion (see below) each extending from the attachment portion in a radially outward direction (see below),
wherein a wing portion [123] is provided only on the first arm portion among the first arm portion and the second arm portion, the wing portion being inclined upward (see Fig. 3), toward a reverse rotation direction (inclines backwards, against the blade rotation direction; therefore, inclines in a counter-clockwise direction, see Fig. 3) opposite to a blade rotation direction (blade rotates clockwise, see Col. 3, lines 37-38) which is a rotation direction of the cutter blade,
wherein the second arm portion is formed with an upward extending portion [120] that extends fully non-linearly upward, toward the radially outward direction (see Fig. 5),
wherein the upward extending portion extends over an entire width (see below) of the second arm portion, and
a horizontal placement state (see Fig. 3) in which the cutter blade is placed in a manner so that a rotation center line [113] of the cutter blade extends along a vertical direction (see Fig. 3), and a position in the vertical direction of an outer portion (see below), of the second arm portion, that extends from the upward extending portion in the radially outward direction and a position in the vertical direction of an uppermost end (see below) of the wing portion,
the first arm portion and the second arm portion extend in directions opposite to each other with the attachment portion being centered therebetween (see below),
the wing portion is formed on a portion including an end portion of the first arm portion (see below) in the radially outward direction,
wherein the attachment portion, the first arm portion, and the second arm portion are provided on the same blade member (see below),
an upper surface (see below) of a portion (see below) of the first arm portion is positioned more radially inward than the wing portion [123], and an upper surface (see below) of an end portion (see below) of the second arm portion is in the radially outward direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
357
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
539
763
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
535
763
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
536
715
media_image6.png
Greyscale
But Gilpatrick et al. fails to explicitly disclose that a lower blade member and an upper blade member arranged so as to overlap each other in a thickness direction, the position in the vertical direction of the outer portion, of the second arm portion, that extends from the upward extending portion in the radially outward direction is lower than the position in the vertical direction of the uppermost end of the wing portion, wherein the attachment portion, the first arm portion, and the second arm portion are provided on the lower blade member, the upper blade member includes: an upper attachment portion attached to the rotary shaft in a state of being superimposed on the attachment portion; and a third arm portion and a fourth arm portion each extending from the upper attachment portion in the radially outward direction, the third arm portion overlaps the first arm portion in plan view, the fourth arm portion overlaps the second arm portion in plan view, in a horizontal placement state in which the cutter blade is placed in a manner so that a rotation center line of the cutter blade extends along a vertical direction, a position in the vertical direction of a lower surface of an end portion of the third arm portion in the radially outward direction is higher, by a first distance, than a position in the vertical direction of an upper surface of a portion of the first arm portion that is positioned more radially inward than the wing portion, in the horizontal placement state, a position in the vertical direction of a lower surface of an end portion of the fourth arm portion in the radially outward direction is higher, by a second distance, than a position in the vertical direction of an upper surface of an end portion of the second arm portion in the radially outward direction, and the first distance is greater than the second distance.
However, Gilpatrick et al. discloses that the upward extending portion generates lift within the cutting chamber to cause the grass to stand or raise for a better cut (see Col. 4, lines 5-10), but reducing the lift reduces the noise production. Various embodiments within Gilpatrick et al. are shown, emphasizing either reducing noise production or improving the cutting effect through the lifting of the grass (see Col. 8, lines 1-7); therefore, the position of the upward extending portion being lower than the wing portion is a result effective variable for the user to emphasize reducing noise production.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the upward extending portion lower than the wing portion in the vertical direction in order to reduce noise production while mowing. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Gilpatrick et al. still fails to disclose a lower blade member and an upper blade member arranged so as to overlap each other in a thickness direction wherein the attachment portion, the first arm portion, and the second arm portion are provided on the lower blade member, the upper blade member includes: an upper attachment portion attached to the rotary shaft in a state of being superimposed on the attachment portion; and a third arm portion and a fourth arm portion each extending from the upper attachment portion in the radially outward direction, the third arm portion overlaps the first arm portion in plan view, the fourth arm portion overlaps the second arm portion in plan view, in a horizontal placement state in which the cutter blade is placed in a manner so that a rotation center line of the cutter blade extends along a vertical direction, a position in the vertical direction of a lower surface of an end portion of the third arm portion in the radially outward direction is higher, by a first distance, than a position in the vertical direction of an upper surface of a portion of the first arm portion that is positioned more radially inward than the wing portion, in the horizontal placement state, a position in the vertical direction of a lower surface of an end portion of the fourth arm portion in the radially outward direction is higher, by a second distance, than a position in the vertical direction of an upper surface of an end portion of the second arm portion in the radially outward direction, and the first distance is greater than the second distance.
Bovee discloses a similar cutter blade [30 and 31] configured to be rotated by a rotary shaft [28] provided in a lawn mower (see Fig. 1), wherein the cutter blade comprises:
a lower blade member [30] and an upper blade member [31] arranged so as to overlap each other in a thickness direction (see Fig. 5), the upper blade member includes:
an upper attachment portion (see below) attached to the rotary shaft in a state of being superimposed on the attachment portion (the upper attachment portion is placed on top of the attachment portion through [33 and 34]; therefore, being superimposed on each other, see Fig. 4 and Col. 4, lines 15-19); and
a third arm portion (see below) and a fourth arm portion (see below) each extending from the upper attachment portion in the radially outward direction, the third arm portion overlaps the first arm portion (see below) in plan view (see Fig. 5), the fourth arm portion overlaps the second arm portion (see below) in plan view,
in a horizontal placement state (see Fig. 4) in which the cutter blade is placed in a manner so that a rotation center line (see below) of the cutter blade extends along a vertical direction (see below), a position in the vertical direction of a lower surface of an end portion of the third arm portion (see below) in the radially outward direction is higher, by a first distance (see below), than a position in the vertical direction of an upper surface of a portion of the first arm portion (see below),
in the horizontal placement state, a position in the vertical direction of a lower surface of an end portion of the fourth arm portion (see below)in the radially outward direction is higher, by a second distance (see below), than a position in the vertical direction of an upper surface of an end portion of the second arm portion (see below) in the radially outward direction.
PNG
media_image4.png
384
702
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
353
1004
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 lower blade member of Bovee with the blade member of Gilpatrick et al. since both are blades used to cut vegetation when rotated about a rotary shaft; therefore, yielding the same predictable result. It can be seen then that when the blade member of Gilpatrick et al. is applied as the lower blade member of Bovee that the attachment portion, the first arm portion, and the second arm portion of Gilpatrick et al. are provided on the lower blade member.
Further, it can be seen then that the first and second arm portions of Gilpatrick et al. are lower on the rotary shaft than the third and fourth arm portions of the upper blade member of Bovee due to the placement of the blades and the spacing between them (see Bovee Fig. 4 and Col. 4, lines 13-27). The second arm portion of Gilpatrick et al. comprises the upwardly extending portion; therefore, when the blade of Gilpatrick et al. is applied as the lower blade of Bovee, the first distance is greater than the second distance due to the second arm portion upwardly extending more than the first arm portion (see annotated Gilpatrick et al. figure above and Fig. 5).
Examiner's Note: the limitation "portion" has been given the broadest reasonable interpretation as being "an often limited part of a whole" through the definition given by Merriam-Webster (see previously attached NPL on 3/9/26).
Response to Arguments
Please see updated art rejections above in response to applicant’s claim amendments, now including Bovee (US 2760327 A).
Applicant’s argument in page 4 of the remarks sets forth that the previously applied 103 combination of Gilpatrick et al. (US 9888626 B2) and Kurioka (US 9468144 A) would not be obvious to one skilled in the art due to the lift feature [120] of Gilpatrick et al. interfering with proper attachment of the two blades. Examiner agrees with this argument.
Newly applied art Bovee teaches a lower and upper cutter blade [30 and 31] attached to the rotary shaft but spaced apart by a yoke [33] having U-shaped arms [34]. This arrangement provides a vertical spacing and angular displacement between the two blades (see Bovee Col. 4, lines 13-27) while keeping both blade attachment portions superimposed on each other with an overlap between the blades.
It can be seen then that when the blade of Gilpatrick et al. is applied as the lower cutter blade of Bovee that the blade of Gilpatrick et al. and the upper cutter blade of Bovee are vertically spaced apart and have an angular displacement between them through the use of [33 and 34]. This arrangement would allow for the blade of Gilpatrick et al. to be applied as the lift feature [120] would not interfere with the upper blade of Bovee due to the vertical and angular space between them; therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the lower blade of Bovee with the blade of Gilpatrick et al.
Further, another argument in page 4 sets forth that the previous 103 rejection of Gilpatrick et al. and Kurioka wouldn’t work as the lower blade of Kurioka is a double wing configuration. As set forth in claims 1 and 13, the blade of Gilpatrick, comprised of one wing portion on the first arm portion, replaces the bottom blade of the previous combination of Kurioka and the new combination using Bovee. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive, as the lower blade of the 103 combination is the blade of Gilpatrick.
Lastly, in pages 4-5, Applicant sets forth “it is noted that neither Gilpatrick nor Kurioka teaches or suggests that the first distance is greater than the second distance”. Examiner disagrees with this argument.
As set forth in claims 1 and 13, the first distance is defined by the distance between the lower surface of the end portion of the third arm portion and the upper surface of the portion of the first arm portion that is positioned more radially inward than the wing portion. The second distance is defined by the distance between the lower surface of the end portion of the fourth arm portion and the upper surface of the end portion of the second arm portion.
As shown in the annotated drawings of Gilpatrick et al. above, the upper surface of the portion of the first arm portion is the portion before the wing portion due to being more radially inward than the wing portion; therefore, is a portion located on the flat, middle part of the blade before the wing portion begins. Whereas the upper surface of the end portion of the second arm portion is a portion of the upwardly extending portion; therefore, is a portion located higher than the flat, middle part of the blade.
It can be seen then that when the blade of Gilpatrick et al. replaces the lower blade member of Bovee, the first distance is greater than the second distance due to the upper surface of the end portion of the second arm portion being located higher than the upper surface of the portion of the first arm portion that is positioned more radially inward than the wing portion. It is noted that the blade of Gilpatrick et al. does not change whether it is in combination with Kurioka or Bovee; therefore, this argument is 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 5293735 A discloses a similar cutter blade [10] configured to be rotated by a rotary shaft (through [26]) in a mower.
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
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights