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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 11 recites “extends fully non-linearly upwards”. However, it is unclear what is meant by the limitation “fully non-linearly”. Specifically, it is unclear how the upward extending portion is extending fully upwards. Further, it is unclear how the second portion extends non-linearly as it appears in applicant’s Fig. 4 that the upward extending portion (58) is a straight, slanted portion; therefore, is a linear portion. For these reasons, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “extends upwards”.
Due to dependency on claim 1, claims 2-12 are rejected as well.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the stepped portion” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean the upward extending portion of claim 1, line 10.
Due to dependency on claim 6, claims 7-8 are rejected as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gilpatrick et al. (US 9888626 B2).
Regarding claim 1, 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; and
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 and
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) (please see 112(b) rejection above).
PNG
media_image1.png
488
930
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 attached NPL for ‘portion’).
Regarding claim 2, Gilpatrick et al. teaches wherein the first arm portion (see above) and the second arm portion (see above) extend in directions opposite to each other (see above) with the attachment portion (see above) being centered there between.
Regarding claim 3, Gilpatrick et al. teaches wherein the wing portion [123] is formed on a portion (see below) including an end portion (see below) of the first arm portion (see above) in the radially outward direction.
PNG
media_image2.png
623
921
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Gilpatrick et al. teaches wherein the upward extending portion [120] extends over an entire width (see above) of the second arm portion (see above).
Regarding claim 10, Gilpatrick et al. teaches 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 claim 11, Gilpatrick et al. teaches wherein an outer dimension (see below) 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 (are approximate to each other due to being on the same blade).
PNG
media_image3.png
485
799
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Gilpatrick et al. teaches a lawn mower [50] comprising the cutter blade according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
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) 6-8, 13-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilpatrick et al. (US 9888626 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Gilpatrick et al. 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] (please see 112(b) rejection above).
PNG
media_image4.png
625
722
media_image4.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. 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. 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 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; and
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 and
wherein the second arm portion is formed with an upward extending portion [120] extending upward (see Fig. 5), toward the radially outward direction,
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 stepped portion [120] in the radially outward direction and a position in the vertical direction of an uppermost end (see below) of the wing portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
488
930
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
625
722
media_image4.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 claim 14, Gilpatrick et al. teaches wherein the first arm portion (see above) and the second arm portion (see above) extend in directions opposite to each other (see above) with the attachment portion (see above) being centered there between.
Regarding claim 15, Gilpatrick et al. teaches wherein the wing portion [123] is formed on a portion (see below) including an end portion (see below) of the first arm portion (see above) in the radially outward direction.
Regarding claim 19, Gilpatrick et al. teaches 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 claim 20, Gilpatrick et al. teaches wherein an outer dimension (see below) 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 (are approximate to each other due to being on the same blade).
PNG
media_image3.png
485
799
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Gilpatrick et al. teaches a lawn mower [50] comprising the cutter blade according to claim 13 (see claim 13 above).
Claim(s) 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilpatrick et al. (US 9888626 B2) in view of Kurioke et al. (US 9468144 B2).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Gilpatrick et al. discloses the cutter blade as applied above, as well as wherein the attachment portion (see above), the first arm portion (see above), and the second arm portion (see above) are provided on the same blade [110], an upper surface (see below) of a portion (see below) of the first arm portion that 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 in the radially outward direction.
PNG
media_image5.png
708
1024
media_image5.png
Greyscale
But Gilpatrick et al. fails to disclose a lower blade member and an upper blade member arranged so as to overlap each other in a thickness direction, 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.
Kurioke et al. discloses a similar cutting blade [14 and 15] comprising:
a lower blade member [15] and an upper blade member [14] arranged so as to overlap each other in a thickness direction (see Fig. 4c),
wherein the attachment portion (see below), the first arm portion (see below; portion of the blade spaced from the attachment and second arm portions), and the second arm portion (see below; portion of the blade spaced from the attachment and first arm portions) are provided on the lower blade member, the upper blade member includes:
an upper attachment portion (see below) attached to the rotary shaft [16a] in a state of being superimposed on the attachment portion (see Fig. 4b); 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 in plan view (see Fig. 4b),
the fourth arm portion overlaps the second arm portion in plan view (see Fig. 4b),
in a horizontal placement state (see Fig. 4c) in which the cutter blade is placed in a manner so that a rotation center line [SC] of the cutter blade extends along a vertical direction, a position in the vertical direction of a lower surface (see below) of an end portion (see below) of the third arm portion in the radially outward direction is higher, by a first distance (see below), than a position in the vertical direction of an upper surface (see below) of a portion of the first arm portion that is positioned more radially inward than the wing portion [44],
in the horizontal placement state, a position in the vertical direction of a lower surface (see below) of an end portion (see below) of the fourth arm portion in the radially outward direction is higher, by a second distance (see below), than a position in the vertical direction of an upper surface (see below) of an end portion (see below) of the second arm portion in the radially outward direction.
PNG
media_image6.png
252
570
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
275
558
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
243
570
media_image8.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 arm of Kurioke et al. with the cutter blade of Gilpatrick et al. since both are blades configured to cut material when rotated; therefore, yielding the same predictable result. It can be seen then that when the cutter blade of Gilpatrick et al. is applied as the lower blade of Kurioke et al. that the first distance is greater than the second distance due to the upper surface of the end portion of the second arm portion of Gilpatrick et al. being lower in a vertical direction than the upper surface of the portion of the first arm (see annotated Gilpatrick et al. figure above and Fig. 5).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-21 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 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