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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 8 recites “a rear surface”, should read – the rear surface – from previous mention of the rear surface in line 3.
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)(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, 6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Congable (US 1500441 A).
Regarding claim 1, Congable teaches a rake apparatus (see Fig. 1) for moving debris positioned on a ground surface, the apparatus comprising:
a body [1] being elongated from a first end (see below) to a second end (see below) of the body;
a plurality of tines [2] being coupled to and extending away from the first end of the body (see below); and
a handle [5] being coupled to a rear surface (see Fig. 2) of the body adjacent to the second end of the body (coupled at [15], adjacent to second end), wherein the handle includes a grip (entire surface of handle is the grip, see Fig. 1), the grip being parallel and spaced over a rear surface of the body such that the grip overlaps the body (see Fig. 2), wherein the grip is elongated and is oriented such that a longitudinal axis of the grip (see below) is parallel to and coplanar with a central longitudinal axis of the body (see below) extending between the first end of the body and the second end of the body.
PNG
media_image1.png
408
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Congable teaches wherein the body [1] has a planar front surface (body is a flat surface, see Fig. 2) extending from the first end (see above) to the second end (see above) of the body, the plurality of tines [2] being coplanar with the planar front surface of the body (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Congable teaches wherein the plurality of tines [2] are coplanar with each other (see Fig. 2), each tine of the plurality of tines extending radially away (see Fig. 1) from the body [1].
Regarding claim 6, Congable teaches wherein the grip (entire surface of handle is the grip, see Fig. 1) has a cylindrical outer surface (see outer surface in Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 9, Congable teaches further comprising a plurality of teeth [23], each tooth of the plurality of teeth being coupled to a respective tine [2] of the plurality of tines (see Fig. 2), each tooth of the plurality of teeth being positioned on a distal end (see below) of the respective tine relative to the body [1], each tooth of the plurality of teeth extending forwardly (see Fig. 2) with respect to the respective tine.
PNG
media_image2.png
144
865
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Congable teaches further comprising a brace [4] being coupled to a rear side of each tine (see Fig. 2) of the plurality of tines [2] for limiting deflection of the plurality of tines relative to each other (see page 1, lines 86-87), the brace being positioned between a proximal end (see below) of each tine of the plurality of tines with respect to the body and the distal end (see below) of each tine of the plurality of tines.
PNG
media_image3.png
436
527
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Congable (US 1500441 A) in view of Clark (US 4866922 A).
Regarding claim 7, Congable discloses the rake apparatus as applied above, as well as a second end (see below; portion of handle not connected to the base) of the handle [5], but fails to disclose a loop being coupled to a second end of the handle, the loop having a size such that the loop is configured for receiving an arm of a user.
PNG
media_image4.png
408
820
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Clark discloses a similar rake apparatus [10] comprising of a loop [40] coupled to the second end of the base ([12]; coupled through bolts [48]), the loop having a size (see Fig. 3) such that the loop is configured for receiving an arm of a user ([52, see Fig. 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 loop of Clark on the rake apparatus of Congable in order to provide a large amount of leverage and control in lifting and maneuvering the rake (see Clark Col. 2, lines 46-55); therefore, when the loop of Clark is provided to the rake of Congable, the loop is coupled to a second end of the handle of Congable through being coupled to the second end of the base.
Claim(s) 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Congable (US 1500441 A) and Clark (US 4866922 A) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of McKittrick (US 5937627 A).
Regarding claim 8, the above combination discloses the rake as applied, but fails to disclose wherein the loop comprises a flexible fabric material such that said loop is configured for conforming to a shape of the arm.
McKittrick discloses a similar rake apparatus [10] comprising of a strap [44] made of a flexible fabric material (see Fig. 1 and see Col. 4, lines 19-21).
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 flexible fabric material of McKittrick on the loop of Congable and Clark in order to cushion the user's arm against reactive torque or force (see McKittrick Col. 4, lines 19-21); therefore, allowing the loop to conform to the shape of the user's arm.
Regarding claim 11, Congable teaches a rake apparatus (see Fig. 1) for moving debris positioned on a ground surface, the apparatus comprising:
a body [1] being elongated from a first end (see below) to a second end (see below) of the body, the body having a planar front surface (body is a flat surface, see Fig. 2) extending from the first end to the second end of the body;
a plurality of tines [2] being coupled to and extending away from the first end of the body (see Fig. 1), the plurality of tines being coplanar with each other (see Fig. 2), each tine of the plurality of tines extending radially away from the body (see Fig. 1), the plurality of tines being coplanar with the planar front surface of the body (see Fig. 2);
a handle [5] being coupled to a rear surface (see Fig. 2) of the body adjacent to the second end of the body (coupled at [15], adjacent to second end), wherein the handle includes a grip (entire surface of handle is the grip, see Fig. 1), the grip being parallel and spaced over a rear surface of the body such that the grip overlaps the body (see Fig. 2), wherein the grip is elongated and is oriented such that a longitudinal axis of the grip (see below) is parallel to and coplanar with a central longitudinal axis of the body (see below) extending between the first end of the body and the second end of the body.
a plurality of teeth [23], each tooth of the plurality of teeth being coupled to a respective tine [2] of the plurality of tines (see Fig. 2), each tooth of the plurality of teeth being positioned on a distal end (see below) of the respective tine relative to the body [1], each tooth of the plurality of teeth extending forwardly (see Fig. 2) with respect to the respective tine;
a brace [4] being coupled to a rear side of each tine (see Fig. 2) of the plurality of tines [2] for limiting deflection of the plurality of tines relative to each other (see page 1, lines 86-87), the brace being positioned between a proximal end (see below) of each tine of the plurality of tines with respect to the body and the distal end (see below) of each tine of the plurality of tines.
PNG
media_image1.png
408
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
144
865
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
436
527
media_image3.png
Greyscale
But Congable fails to disclose a loop being coupled to a second end of the handle, the loop having a size such that the loop is configured for receiving an arm of a user, the loop comprising a flexible fabric material such that said loop is configured for conforming to a shape of the arm.
Clark discloses a similar rake apparatus [10] comprising of a loop [40] coupled to the second end of the base ([12]; coupled through bolts [48]), the loop having a size (see Fig. 3) such that the loop is configured for receiving an arm of a user ([52, see Fig. 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 loop of Clark on the rake apparatus of Congable in order to provide a large amount of leverage and control in lifting and maneuvering the rake (see Clark Col. 2, lines 46-55); therefore, when the loop of Clark is provided to the rake of Congable, the loop is coupled to a second end of the handle of Congable through being coupled to the second end of the base.
But Clark fails to disclose the loop comprising a flexible fabric material such that said loop is configured for conforming to a shape of the arm.
However, McKittrick discloses a similar rake apparatus [10] comprising of a strap [44] made of a flexible fabric material (see Fig. 1 and see Col. 4, lines 19-21).
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 flexible fabric material of McKittrick on the loop of Congable and Clark in order to cushion the user's arm against reactive torque or force (see McKittrick Col. 4, lines 19-21); therefore, allowing the loop to conform to the shape of the user's arm.
Response to Arguments
Please see updated art rejections above in response to applicant’s claim amendments, now including Congable (US 1500441 A).
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