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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 8, 12-17 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 3, 8, 12, 15-17, the idea of a lawn grooming device is well known in the art. For example, Sprinkmann, Michel, Helmeczi, and Greenhoe (prior art of record) all present various designs of similar lawn grooming devices with a brushes and similar clamp designs. However, neither of these references, nor any other reference, teaches the shroud accommodating a plurality of widths of the roller drums (claim 3), the brush arms being pivotally connected to the cover about the axles of the machine (claim 8), clamp inserts with varying interior bores (claims 12, 15-16), or movable clip and outer shell with mating teeth (claims 16-17). In view of the prior art, it cannot be considered obvious to further modify the lawn grooming machines of the prior art to include the noted structures. In addition, any obvious combination to further modify the noted structures would require improper hindsight reasoning and render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. For these reasons, the claims are allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/3/2026, with respect to the 102 rejections of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102 rejections of claim 1 as anticipated by Sprinkmann (US 20090255228) and Sprinkmann (US 20150096278) has been withdrawn. However, claim 1 only broadly requires the at least one clamp “adjustably conform to a cross-section of a handle”. Sprinkmann (‘228) states the analogous clamp be “dimensioned to conformably receive and mate, at least in part, with a portion of the operator’s handle” (para [0033], lines 9-12) and Sprinkmann (‘278) states its analogous clamp “may take a variety of forms to allow for attachment to different models of walk behind mowers” (para [0051], lines 7-9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to broadly make the respective clamps “adjustable”, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprinkmann (US 20090255228).
Regarding claim 1, Sprinkmann (‘228) discloses a grooming device for striping lawns, the grooming device comprising:
a cover (52);
a roller drum rotatably connected to the cover (56);
a frame connected to the cover and extending away from the cover (13); and
at least one clamp configured to conform to a cross-section of a handle of a lawn mower to secure the frame to the handle of a lawn mower (clamp 70a/70b).
Though Sprinkmann (‘228) discloses the clamps “dimensioned to conformably receive and mate, at least in part, with a portion of the operator’s handle” (para [0033], lines 9-12), the examiner understands this does not mean “adjustably”. However, it clearly would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to broadly make the clamps “adjustable”, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprinkmann (US 20150096278).
Regarding claim 1, Sprinkmann (‘278) discloses a grooming device for striping lawns, the grooming device comprising:
a cover (18);
a roller drum rotatably connected to the cover (12);
a frame connected to the cover and extending away from the cover (16); and
at least one clamp configured to adjustably conform to a cross-section of a handle of a lawn mower to secure the frame to the handle of a lawn mower (claim language is broad; element 78 is considered to be a clamp as it clamps on the mower to secure the frame to the handle of the mower through other elements; Figs 12-13A).
Though Sprinkmann (‘278) discloses the clamps “may take a variety of forms to allow for attachment to different models of walk behind mowers” (para [0051], lines 7-9), the examiner understands this does not mean “adjustably”. However, it clearly would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to broadly make the clamps “adjustable”, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 2, Sprinkmann (‘278) discloses the grooming device wherein the cover comprises a shroud, a first end, and a second end, wherein the first end and the second end are fittingly secured about the shroud (first and second ends 48 secure to shroud 50).
Regarding claim 4, Sprinkmann (‘278) discloses the grooming device further comprising a brush secured to the cover (brush 14).
Regarding claim 10, Sprinkmann (‘278) discloses the grooming device further comprising:
a hitch receiver on the cover (34); and
a connector on a shank, wherein the shank is received within the hitch receiver and the connector secures to the frame (claim language is broad; shank 76 with connector 80/100; shank is considered to fit within the hitch received and the connector secures to the frame).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprinkmann (‘278) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Michel (US 20120186214).
Regarding claim 5, Sprinkmann (‘278) discloses the grooming device wherein the cover comprises a leading edge facing in a normal direction of travel and comprises a trailing side opposite the leading edge (Fig 3 depicts leading and trailing edges normal to the direction of travel) with a brush 14, but fails to specifically disclose the brush secured at the trailing side of the cover.
However, Michel discloses a similar turf treatment device with multiple rollers and multiple brushes (Fig 3; brushes 44 and 46; rollers 20; cover 14). Michel teaches brush 46 being secured to the trailing edge of cover 14 of the machine by way of adjustable arms connecting the brush 46 to bracket 42. These arms are considered to be pivotable and indirectly adjusted by the height adjustment assembly 28.
Sprinkmann (‘278) and Michel are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of turf treatment apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sprinkmann (‘278) to incorporate the teachings of Michel and located the brush of the machine on the trailing edge of the cover with the arms being adjustable. One would have made this combination to thoroughly smooth the turf behind the roller units in order for a golf ball to roll freely (Michel; para [0004]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sprinkmann (‘278) and Michel discloses the grooming device wherein the brush is movably connected to the cover such that a position of the brush relative to the cover is adjustable in the vertical dimension (the trailing brush is considered to be pivotable and vertically adjusted by a height adjustment assembly based on the teachings of Michel).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sprinkmann (‘278) and Michel discloses the grooming device further comprising a mounting bar to which the brush is secured and arms extend from the mounting bar, the arms pivotally connected to the cover (the brush of the combination is considered to be mounted to a mounting bar 30 to secure the bristles of the brush as disclosed in Sprinkmann (‘278); Michel teaches the brush connection being adjustable arms).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprinkmann (‘278) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Helmeczi et al. (US 20200361257).
Regarding claim 9, Sprinkmann (‘278) fails to specifically disclose the grooming device further comprising a ball-and-socket joint that movably connects the cover to the frame. Sprinkmann (‘278) does disclose the use of a hook through an aperture which allows the implement to move in a plurality of planes, up and down, left and right (para [0057], lines 19-24).
Further, Helmeczi discloses a similar hitch for a towed implement (Fig 3) and teaches this hitch with multiple ball and socket joints to connect parts of the implement to the frame of the machine (Fig 3; 120; 132; 114).
Sprinkmann (‘278) and Helmeczi are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of pulling implements behind a machine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hook hitch of Sprinkmann (‘278) to incorporate the teachings of Helmeczi and replaced the hook hitch with a ball and socket hitch. One would have made this replacement to allow the implement and machine to have a higher degree of articulation for use in highly varied terrain to prevent damage to the joint or machine (Helmeczi; para [0003]-[0004]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprinkmann (‘278) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Greenhoe (US 20040182056).
Regarding claim 11, Sprinkmann (‘278) is silent of the roller drum comprises a plurality of ridges extending across the outer surface of the roller drum in an axial length dimension.
However, Greenhoe discloses a similar roller assembly (Fig 2; roller drum 74) and teaches the use of a plurality of ridges extending across the outer surface of the roller drum in an axial length dimension (Fig 2 clearly depicts multiple ridges extending axially across the roller).
Sprinkmann (‘278) and Greenhoe are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of lawn striping. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the roller drum of Sprinkmann (‘278) with the roller drum of Greenhoe including a plurality of axially extending ridges. One would have made this combination as a simple substitution for the roller drum.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Vanderipe (US 20020152734) discloses a similar roller assembly for lawn striping.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE SCOVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30-6 (ET).
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at (571) 272-0547. 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.
/BLAKE E SCOVILLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights