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 .
Application Status
Claims 1 and 3-14 are currently pending in this application. Applicant has amended claims 1, 3-9, and 11-14 in the amendment filed 25 November 2025 and cancelled claim 2 in the same filing. All pending claims are eligible for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-14 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.
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, 3-5, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baumann et al. (US 5133176 hereinafter Baumann – note that Baumann is the US reference that corresponds to JP 2799771 cited by applicant in the 27 January 2023 IDS).
With respect to claim 1, Baumann discloses a lawn mower (in the title, Baumann discloses a mower) comprising:
a drive source provided with a rotation shaft (in lines 24-26 of column 3, Baumann discloses that mower blades 6 are “driven in any suitable manner as is well known in the art”, which anticipates a drive source with a rotation shaft – the portion of the shaft closest to the ground is shown in, for example, figure 5 at the center of any one of the blades 6);
a cutter blade extending in a direction intersecting the rotation shaft (in figure 1, Baumann discloses blades 6, either of which reads on a cutter blade – as shown well in figure 5, the blade intersects the rotation shaft); and
a housing provided with a peripheral wall configured to surround the cutter blade (in figure 1, Baumann discloses a circular shroud 14 encircling a cutting blade 6, where the shroud reads on an housing wall surrounding a cutter blade; figure 2 shows how the shroud extends perpendicularly from the mower deck, making the shroud a wall),
wherein the cutter blade is provided with a cutting portion, the cutting portion being provided at least at a portion of the cutter blade that faces the peripheral wall (in figure 1, Baumann discloses cutter blade 6, which is a blade which anticipates a cutting portion; as shown in figure 1, cutting edge 20 extends to the end of cutter blade 6 which means that the cutting edge is provided at a portion of the cutter blade that faces the shroud or peripheral wall), and
the peripheral wall is provided with a protrusion plurality of protrusions protruding toward the rotation shaft from a surface of the peripheral wall that faces a direction of the rotation shaft (in figure 1, Baumann discloses “kickers” 24a-d which extend from the shroud/peripheral wall towards the shaft that rotates the cutter blade 6; the kickers read on protrusions because they protrude from the shroud), and
an interval between each adjacent pair of the plurality of protrusions in a rotation direction of the cutter blade is greater than a length of the cutter blade in the rotation direction (in figure 1, Baumann discloses large gaps, ranging from 70 degrees to 104 degrees, between kickers, all of which are drawn to be larger than the smaller of the rectangular dimensions of the cutting blade 6 – basically, the blade’s width).
With respect to claim 3, Baumann discloses the limitations of claim 1. Baumann further discloses the plurality of protrusions are disposed in a manner so that a direction from the rotation shaft toward each of the plurality of protrusions intersects a width direction that is a direction orthogonal to a front-rear direction in a traveling direction of the lawn mower (in figure 1, Baumann discloses all four of the protrusions are offset from the midline – basically the x-axis if we let the point about which the blade rotates be the origin and the line extending left and right therefrom be the x-axis; because the lines from this origin to the four kickers are askew or perpendicular to the x-axis, these lines to the kickers intersect width directions that are orthogonal to the line of travel; for reference, the line of travel is along the y-axis or parallel thereto).
With respect to claim 4, Baumann discloses the limitations of claim 3. Baumann further discloses, in the embodiment of the mower shown in figure 4, a distance in the width direction between a distal end of each of the plurality of protrusions and a center line that extends in the front-rear direction in the traveling direction of the lawn mower and passes through the rotation shaft is 90 % or less of a distance between the rotation shaft and the peripheral wall (in the right-side shroud of figure 4 and lines 12-22 of column 5, Baumann discloses a plurality of protrusions that have been rotated by 45 degrees clockwise relative to the kickers in the right-side mowing shroud in figure 1; the reference angles of the kickers in the right-side shroud of figure 4 are, clockwise from the upper right, 52, 35, 45, and 58 degrees, all of which are greater than 25.8 degrees; for what it’s worth, to meet the conditions of this claim, the protrusions need to have reference angles that are greater than ~25.8 degrees – arccos(0.9)).
Note that the rejection of this claim 4 relies on a different embodiment of Baumann. As shown in the preceding paragraph, the embodiment shown in figure 4 of Baumann reads on the limitations that are specific to claim 4; the embodiment shown in figure 4 further reads on all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3 (from which claim 4 depends) because the change in embodiments is merely a rotation of the kickers about the shroud by 45 degrees (and shortening the kickers, which is not relevant to this claim chain). Rotating the kickers by 45 degrees does not nullify the applicability of the embodiment shown in figure 4 of Baumann to the limitations of claims 1 and 3.
With respect to claim 5, Baumann discloses the limitations of claim 1. Baumann further discloses at least one of the plurality of protrusions includes an inclined portion inclined with respect to a protruding direction of the protrusion (in figures 1, Baumann discloses that the kickers are roughly tetrahedrons with the faces that face the axis of rotation being inclined with respect to the direction of the protrusion towards the axis of rotation – although it is not the embodiment relied upon for this rejection, the isometric perspective of figure 4 provides a better image of how the tetrahedron kickers of figure 1 look in three dimensions).
With respect to claim 11, Baumann discloses the limitations of claim 1. Baumann further discloses at least one of the plurality of protrusions is located forward of the rotation shaft in a front-rear direction in a traveling direction of the lawn mower (in figure 1, Baumann discloses kicker 24b disposed forward the axis of rotation in the direction of the mower’s travel).
With respect to claim 12, Baumann discloses the limitations of claim 11. Baumann further discloses at least one of the plurality of protrusions is located on a center line that extends in the front-rear direction in the traveling direction of the lawn mower and passes through the rotation shaft (in figure 1, Baumann discloses kicker 24d, which is on the y-axis directly below the origin or axis of rotation of the cutter blade).
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 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann in view of Graham et al. (US 2022/0095535 hereinafter Graham).
With respect to claim 7, Baumann discloses limitations of claim 1. Baumann further discloses a first blade member and at least one of the plurality of protrusions are disposed at positions overlapping each other in the extending direction (in figure 1, Baumann discloses that the rotational path of cutter blades 6 clearly go over kickers 24).
Baumann does not disclose the cutter blade includes a first blade member and a second blade disposed to overlap each other in an extending direction of the rotation shaft.
However, Graham discloses blade members disposed to overlap each other in an extending direction of the rotation shaft (in figure 2, Graham discloses clade 110 and blade 120 disposed one above the other; at the very least, the blades overlap each other in their areas close to the rotation shaft).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to modify Baumann to use two vertically separated the blades as taught by Graham with the motivation to “reduc[e] power consumption, while also minimizing impact on the quality of the cut” (Graham, paragraph 6).
With respect to claim 8, Baumann in view of Graham discloses the limitations of claim 7. Baumann in view of Graham further discloses the first blade member and the second blade member, and the protrusion are disposed at positions overlapping each other in the extending direction (in figure 1, Baumann discloses blade 6 – which includes all of the blades when combined with Graham – above and thus overlapping the kickers 24).
With respect to claim 9, Baumann in view of Graham discloses the limitations of claim 8. Baumann in view of Graham further discloses the first blade member and the second blade member are provided so as to be non-rotatable relative to each other (in paragraph 31 and figure 4, Graham discloses the blades being secured together so that they rotate together),
at least one of the plurality of protrusions includes an inclined portion inclined with respect to a protruding direction of the at least one of the plurality of protrusions (in figure 1, Baumann discloses that the kickers are angled relative to the vertical and horizontal),
in a rotation direction of the cutter blade, a distal end of the first blade member in the rotation direction is rearward of a distal end of the second blade member in the rotation direction (in paragraph 33 and figure 7, Graham discloses a lag angle between the blades), and
the cutting portion is provided at least at a portion of the first blade member that faces the peripheral wall (in figure 1, Baumann discloses cutter 6 extending to include a portion of the blade that faces the shroud).
With respect to claim 10, Baumann in view of Graham discloses the limitations of claim 9. The modification of Baumann in view of Graham has yet to disclose the first blade member is provided with a wing portion, and the wing portion includes a surface extending from the first blade member in an upward direction of the lawn mower that intersects a longitudinal direction of the first blade member.
However, Graham discloses a first blade member is provided with a wing portion, and the wing portion includes a surface extending from the first blade member in an upward direction of the lawn mower that intersects a longitudinal direction of the first blade member (in paragraph 26 and figure 2, Graham discloses blade 120 having a winged design; as shown in figure 2, the wing extends upwardly along the longitudinal axis of blade 120).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to modify the upper blade of the cutting apparatus of Baumann in view of Graham as applied to claim 9 to add a wing portion as taught by Graham with the motivation to “generate a relatively high amount of airflow . . . [with] increased capability for driving the flow of clippings” (Graham, paragraph 26).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann in view of Takeishi et al. (US 2006/0042219 hereinafter Takeishi).
With respect to claim 13, Baumann discloses the limitations of claim 1. Baumann does not disclose the protrusion is made of resin.
However, Takeishi discloses a lawnmower cutter housing made of resin (in the abstract, Takeishi discloses a lawnmower cutter housing made of resin).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the cutter housing of Baumann with the resin used for a cutter housing described by Takeishi because each element merely performs the same function as it does individually. The predictable result of the combination is a cutter housing that is made of resin and includes noise suppression architecture; because Baumann discloses the protruding portions as connected to the walls of the cutter housing in figures 1, this combination would result in the projecting portions, which are attached to the housing, being made of resin (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann in view of YesterdayTractors.com (https://www.yesterdaystractors.com/cgi-bin/viewit.cgi?bd=gardent&th=64529).
With respect to claim 14, Baumann discloses the limitations of claim 1. Baumann further discloses the protrusion includes a distal end in a protruding direction of the protrusion (in figure 1, Baumann discloses protrusions that have ends – the end of the protrusion that is closest to the center can read on a distal end of a protruding portion),
the cutter blade includes a distal end in a longitudinal direction of the cutter blade (in figure 1, Baumann discloses a cutter 6 that has a longitudinal direction running horizontally across the page; either end of the cutter blade can read on a distal end of the cutter blade), and
a distance in the protruding direction between the distal end of the protrusion and the distal end of the cutter blade when a position of the distal end of the protrusion and a position of the distal end of the cutter blade match each other in a rotation direction of the cutter blade (in lines 3-5 of column 4, Baumann discloses that the blade and kicker are set a “suitable” distance apart and gives 0.625 inches as an example, which is about 16 mm). Baumann does not disclose that this distance is in a range of 2 mm to 5 mm.
However, Holmes discloses a distance between a cutter blade’s distal end and the wall of a cutter housing is in a range of 2 mm to 5 mm (in the note from Boyd in Mn at 22:05:44, YesterdaysTractors.com discloses that the gap between the tip of a mower blade and the round sides that shroud the blades should be at least 1/8”, which translates to about 3 mm; 3 mm clearly falls within the range of 2-5 mm).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the 3 mm gap between the mower blade and the interior surface of YesterdaysTractors.com with the mower blade and projecting portions of Baumann because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The predictable result of the combination would be a mower that achieved a good vacuum channel with the projecting portions of Yamamoto while maintaining a gap that prevented small deformations of the sides of the cutter housing from causing jams (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the limitations of claim 6 require that a first protrusion protrude farther than a second protrusion protrudes; the claim also requires that the spacing of the first and second protrusions must be such that the first protrusion has a greater reference angle than the second protrusion. (A reference angle is the angle above or below horizontal or x-axis that a point makes with the origin; a reference angle is always positive or zero and has a maximum of 90 degrees.) To relate this to the claim language, the greater a reference angle, the less the distance in a width direction between a distal end of a first protrusion and a center line that extends in a front-rear direction in a traveling direction of the lawn mower and passes through the rotation shaft (the rotation shaft is at the origin). While Baumann does disclose different sizes for the kickers, these differences are between different embodiments – see the difference between figures 1 and 4 for how far the kickers extend towards the cutter blade’s axis of rotation. So in the context of the limitations of claim 1, the varying length of protrusions distinguishes over the prior art.
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 DOUGLAS JAMES MEISLAHN whose telephone number is (703)756-1925. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 EST M-Th, M-F.
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.
/DOUGLAS J MEISLAHN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights