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 .
Response to Arguments and Amendments
The rejections of claims 1 and 3-12 are withdrawn.
The argument and amendment concerning claim 13 is unpersuasive. It is believed that the previously used reference does teach a U-shaped protrusion, see below.
The 35 USC § 112(b) rejection regarding claims 5-6 and 8-9 are withdrawn because the antecedent basis issue of “the connection point” has been corrected in claim 1.
The 35 USC § 112(b) rejection regarding claim 9 that concerned the metes and bounds of “circumvent” is withdrawn with the understanding that the suggested interpretation of the examiner has been adopted.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the “U-shaped protrusion” are not mentioned within the specification. However, they appear to be included within the drawings. The specification should be amended to include details about the “U-shaped protrusion” that are now claimed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Spring element in claim 1, 7, 8, and 10.
Noted as “helical spring” in par. 0024 of the specification.
First spring element holder in claim 7 and 8.
Noted as “retainer ring” in par. 0024 of the specification.
Second spring element holder in claim 7 and 8. Noted as “retainer ring” in par. 0024 of the specification.
Noted as “connection portion” in par. 0024 of the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bjorn (US 2022/0000020 A1), hereinafter Bjorn.
Regarding claim 13, Bjorn discloses a cutting disc (160, fig. 2A-2B and 4A-4B, par. 0053) adapted to be mounted to a lawn mower (100, fig. 1, 4A and 4B, par. 0052), wherein the cutting disc comprises a connection portion (173+164, fig. 2a, par. 0053) that comprises an aperture (170a, 170b, 171a, 171b, 172, fig. 4B, 5B, and 6B, par. 0055-0057) and at least two engagement recesses (174a, 174b, 175a, 175b, 176a, 176b, fig. 2A and 2B, par. 0055-0057) which are formed in the aperture and extend to at last two mutually different depths parallel to a common rotation axis (mounting positions 167, 168, and 169, fig. 2A and 2B, par. 0054-0055), wherein the depth of each of the at least two engagement recesses is limited by a corresponding heel (179, fig. 2a, par. 0063), wherein the corresponding heel is defined by a base of a U-shaped protrusion that extends inwardly toward the common rotation axis from a wall of the aperture that faces the common rotation axis (see annotated fig. 2a).
PNG
media_image1.png
1164
1131
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3 - 12 are allowed.
Reasons for indicating allowability:
Claim 1 now includes the subject matter of claim 2 that was previously indicated as allowable. The reason for allowance of claim 2 is copied below for convenience:
Claim 2 – The knob does not compromise “a coupling protrusion that extends away from the common rotation axis” when taken in combination with the other limitations of claim 1. There is no obvious reason to modify the knob to include ““a coupling protrusion that extends away from the common rotation axis,” without undo hindsight.
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 Jennifer A Railey whose telephone number is (571)270-7353. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-4).
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/JENNIFER A RAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/Nicole Coy/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672