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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 lines 2-3 disclose “a plant body mainly including a plant, a lawn, and a weed.” It is unclear what “mainly including” means, whether it includes plant, lawn, and weed or a combination of the three. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bendig (US 4796416).
Regarding claim 1, Bendig discloses a work machine comprising:
a power source [12];
a rotation shaft [30] that is rotated by power of the power source [12];
a cutter blade [45] that is rotated by the rotation shaft [30] to cut a plant on the ground;
and a housing [17, 18, 19] that houses the cutter blade [45] and has an opening through which the cutter blade [45] is exposed to the ground, wherein the housing has a charging port [21] through which an object to be cut is charged to the cutter blade [45].
Regarding claim 2, Bendig discloses the work machine according to claim 1, further comprising a lid [13A] portion that covers the charging port [21].
Regarding claim 3, Bendig discloses the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the housing [17, 18, 19] has a side surface [18] and an upper surface [17], and the charging port [21] is provided on the upper surface [17] of the housing.
Regarding claim 8, The work machine according to claim 1, further comprising a hopper [13] connected to the charging port [21].
Regarding claim 10, Bendig discloses the work machine according to claim 1, further comprising a wheel [11].
Regarding claim 11, Bendig discloses the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the object to be cut is a plant body mainly including a plant, a lawn, and a weed (Column 2 lines 28-30 disclose the object to be cut is garden refuse i.e. grass clippings, weeds, etc.).
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendig (US 4796416) in view of Pellenc (US 2018/0310471).
Regarding claim 4, Bendig discloses the work machine according to claim 1.
However, Bendig does not further disclose an input unit to which an instruction to switch a magnitude of an output of the power source is input;
and a power control unit configured to control the output of the power source based on an input result input to the input unit.
Pellenc discloses a work machine comprising:
a power source [44];
a rotation shaft [32a] that is rotated by power of the power source [104];
a cutter blade [24a, 24b] that is rotated by the rotation shaft [32a] to cut a plant on the ground;
further comprising an input unit [40] to which an instruction to switch a magnitude of an output of the power source is input (Page 4 section 0085 discloses the input unit [40] controls the voltage output from power source [40]);
and a power control unit [42] configured to control the output of the power source based on an input result input to the input unit (Page 4 section 0085 discloses the electronic card or power control unit is capable of managing the output of the power source [44].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Pellenc’s teaching of using an input unit capable of processing instruction to switch a magnitude of an output of power source and a power control unit to control the output of the power source to Bendig’s work machine and power source in order to control the rotation speed of the motor and therefore the blades and cutting speed (Page 4 section 0085).
Regarding claim 5, Bendig and Pellenc disclose the work machine according to claim 4, further comprising a height control unit [16, Pellenc] configured to control a height from the ground to the cutter blade [45, Bendig] based on the input result input to the input unit [40, Pellenc] (Pellenc’s page 4 section 0081 lines 7-8 disclose an electric jack or height control unit [16] used to control a height from the ground to the cutter blade.),
wherein the height control unit [16, Pellenc] performs control to raise the height from the ground to the cutter blade in a case where the input result includes selection of increasing the output of the power source [12] (The height control unit [16] which has been applied to Bendig’s height adjustment mechanism, as disclosed in Bendig’s, requires electricity and therefore the input result of the cutting height will include an increase in the output of the power source.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Pellenc’s electric height control unit to Bendig’s cutting height adjustment mechanism in order to be able to select which height the operator would like the grass to be cut to and to be able to control the height from the handle.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendig (US 4796416) in view of Uchiumi (US 2020/0305344 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Bendig discloses the work machine according to claim 1.
However, Bendig does not further disclose
a body portion having a passage through which a plant cut by the cutter blade is carried out from the housing;
and a container removably attached to the body portion and containing the plant.
Uchiumi discloses a lawn mower comprising a housing;
a cutting blade [50];
a body portion [10] having a passage [12] through which a plant cut by the cutter blade is carried out from the housing [11];
and a container [60] removably attached to the body portion and containing the plant (Grass trimmings).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Uchiumi’s passage for carrying out the plant trimmed by the mower into a removable container to Bendig’s work machine in order to be able not leave grass trimmings on the ground after the work machine has mowed the area.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Brokaw (US 4057952) discloses a rotary mower and shredder device. McWilliams (US 3,808,782) discloses a shredder adapter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY A KAERCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0128. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (7-11 AM).
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.
/ASHLEY A KAERCHER/Examiner, Art Unit 3671 2/12/2026
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671