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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2-14 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 2, 8, 9, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McConnell (US 3146831).
With respect to claim 2, McConnell discloses a rake (in the title, McConnell discloses a rake) comprising:
a rake head including a rectangular grating (in figure 1, McConnell discloses a rake head 10 which is shown in the figure as being a rectangular grating) connected to a base portion at a first long side of the rectangular grating (in figure 1, straps 15, 17, and 16 make a base portion to which the rake head 10 is attached – in figure 1, the top portions of straps 15 and 17 are attached to one of the long sides of the rectangular grate – note that the straps 15 and 17 are welded to V-shaped brace 18, as disclosed in lines 68-72 of column 1, strongly suggesting that the straps are metal), wherein:
the rectangular grating includes a plurality of metal strands that define a plurality of openings (in figure 1, McConnell discloses a rake head that comprises a number of elongated pieces of material – taught as metal in lines 60-62 of column 1 – that intertwine to make the rake head, forming openings between the elongated pieces),
a first strand of the plurality of metal strands extends from the base portion in a first direction and a second strand of the plurality of metal strands extends from the base portion in a second direction that intersects the first direction (in figure 1, McConnell discloses numerous strands extending from the base portion and intersecting other strands that extend in a second direction; in the annotated figure from McConnell, a first strand is highlighted in yellow and a second strand is highlighted in red – as shown, they follow different directions),
PNG
media_image1.png
237
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the first and second strands are connected at a bond location disposed proximate a second long side of the rectangular grating opposite the first long side (in figure 1, McConnell discloses that different strands intersect at numerous bond locations – for example, the two strands marked above meet at the bond location marked in green), and
a portion of the first strand extends from the bond location in the first direction defining a first tip and a portion of the second strand extends from the bond location in the second direction defining a second tip (in figure 1, McConnell discloses tips 14 that extend from the strands that make up the rake head and define the openings throughout the rake head); and
a subassembly configured to connect the rake head to a handle (in figure 1, McConnell discloses that the rake head 10 is attached to handle 11 – the components that connect the handle to the rake head comprise the subassembly and include V-shaped brace 19, braces 18, 21, and 22, handle support plate 20, U-bolt 24 and nuts 25);
wherein the plurality of openings are configured to (i) allow material smaller than one of the openings to pass through the openings and (ii) prevent material larger than the openings from passing through the openings (in figure 1, McConnell discloses a grate that has openings that are largely uniformly sized and will allow smaller materials through while preventing larger materials from passing through).
With respect to claim 8, McConnell discloses the limitations of claim 2. McConnell further discloses the rectangular grating includes a two-dimensional piece of metal (in lines 58-64 of column 1, McConnell discloses the body portion 12 of the rake head 10 can be made from basket type expanded metal, rolled to shape, which makes it a three-dimensional metal object which necessarily includes two dimensions).
With respect to claim 9, McConnell discloses the limitations of claim 2. McConnell further discloses the rectangular grating includes a piece of expanded metal ((in lines 58-64 of column 1, McConnell discloses the body portion 12 of the rake head 10 can be made from basket type expanded metal).
With respect to claim 11, McConnell discloses the limitations of claim 2. McConnell further discloses the openings include diamond-shaped configurations (in figure 1, McConnell discloses that the openings formed in the rake head 10 are diamond-shaped).
With respect to claim 16, McConnell discloses the limitations of claim 2. McConnell further discloses the subassembly includes:
a first rod coupled to a first terminal end of the base portion (in figure 3, McConnell discloses the rake head being connected to the handle via brace 22 which connects to the head at a bottom region that reads on a terminal end);
a second rod coupled to a second terminal end of the base portion opposite the first terminal end (in figure 3, McConnell discloses the rake head being connected to the handle via brace 21, which connects to the rake head at a top region that is opposite to the first terminal end); and
a socket coupled to the first and second rods (in lines 11-13 of column 2, McConnell discloses socket 23 receiving brace 22; as shown in figure 3, socket 23 is coupled to brace 21), and
the socket is configured to receive a shaft (in lines 11-13 of column 2, McConnell discloses socket 23 receiving brace 22 which is described as a standard metal rod – or shaft – in lines 9-11 of column 2).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McConnell in view of Moody et al. (US 2008/0006568 hereinafter Moody).
With respect to claim 3, McConnell discloses the limitations of claim 2. McConnell does not disclose the grating has openings with an internal diameter of approximately 1.5 inches.
However, Moody discloses a grating [that] has openings with an internal diameter of approximately 1.5 inches (in paragraph 4, Moody discloses grating with diamond-shaped apertures with a length of 1.75 inches, which is approximately 1.5 inches).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute the 1.5-inch aperture grating of Moody for the grating of McConnnell because the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The predictable result of the substitution would be grating that consistently allowed elements that are below 1.5 inches in diameter to pass through while catching larger elements (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Claims 4, 7, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McConnell.
With respect to claim 4, McConnell discloses the limitations of claim 2. McConnell further discloses that the dimensions of the rake head can be four and a half inches high, thirty inches wide in lines 60-63 of column 2. McConnell does not discloses that the rectangular grating has openings of approximately 1 inch.
However, applying the dimensions of the rake head given by McConnell to figure 1 in McConnell discloses that the rectangular grating has openings of approximately 1 inch (in figure 1, there are four and an half diamond-shaped openings from the top to the bottom of the rake, which makes the height of each opening 1 inch given the suggested dimension of McConnell’s rake head).
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 specific dimensions suggested by McConnell to the diagram provided by McConnell because each element would merely perform the same function as it does separately. The predictable result of the combination would be a rake that caught material that had a diameter greater than 1 inch while allowing smaller material, like sand, to pass through unimpeded (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
With respect to claim 7, McConnell discloses the limitations of claim 2. McConnell further discloses that the rectangular grating is connected to the base portion (McConnell discloses the straps, which read on the base, are fixed “in any suitable manner” to the rake head in lines 65-69 of column 1). McConnell does not disclose the rectangular grating is connected to the base portion via welding.
However, McConnell discloses connection via welding (in lines 69 of column 1 through line 1 of column 2, McConnell discloses welding the straps to the braces – that is, the straps provide a connection between the braces and the rake head, and McConnell explicitly teaches welding the straps to one of those elements – the braces - while being general about the connection to the other).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute the welding taught by McConnell with respect to one of the elements that connects with the straps for the “suitable manner” of connection generally suggested for connecting the straps to the rake head because the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The predictable result of the substitution would be a bond that can be made by the same device the connects the braces to the strap (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
With respect to claim 15, McConnell discloses the limitations of claim 2. McConnell further discloses that the base portion includes a rod (in figures 1-3, McConnell discloses the straps 15 and 17 as pieces of material that are thin and straight and thus read on a rod). McConnell does not disclose that the base portion includes a metal rod.
However, McConnell discloses a metal rod (in lines 9-11 of column 2, McConnell discloses using metal as the material for other rods – the braces – in the rake).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute metal for the material of the straps as used in McConnell for other rods, like the braces, because the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The predictable result of the substitution would be a common material used throughout the rake giving ease of use for things like welding pieces together (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein in view of Gray (US 2016/0066513).
With respect to claim 5, McConnell discloses the limitations of claim 2. McConnell does not disclose that the grating has openings with an internal diameter of approximately 0.5 inch.
However, Gray, which is directed to a landscaping device that includes a grate and raking tines as disclosed in its abstract, discloses grating [that] has openings with an internal diameter of approximately 0.5 inch (in paragraph 42, Gray discloses that the grating of figure 3 can be arranged – in a more preferred embodiment - so that the distance between opposite vertices for each full grate section is about 1 centimeter – rounding to the tenth, there are 2.5 centimeters per inch, meaning that 1 centimeter is approximately half an inch, as required by the claim).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute the half-inch aperture grating of Gray for the grating of McConnell because the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The predictable result of the substitution would be grating that consistently allowed elements that are below an half inch in diameter to pass through while catching larger elements (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McConnell in view of Gullotti (US 2002/0129594).
With respect to claim 6, Stein discloses the limitations of clam 2. McConnell does not disclose the grating is composed of metal in a range of 20 gauge up to 10 gauge.
However, Gullotti discloses the grating is composed of metal in a range of 20 gauge up to 10 gauge (in paragraph 18, Gullotti discloses making a rake head from a light gauge steel; steel is a metal, and light gauge steel runs between about 16 and 24 gauge which overlaps with – and thus renders obvious – 20 to 10 gauge; in McConnell, the grating is part of the head, so making the head out of, say, 20 gauge steel would mean that the grate was made of 20 gauge steel).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute the light gauge steel rake head material of Gullotti for the material of McConnell because the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The predictable result of the substitution would be a metal rake (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable McConnell in view of Rutter (6207294).
With respect to claim 10, McConnell discloses the limitations of claim 9. McConnell does not disclose the rectangular grating includes a piece of sheet metal that is stamped in a third direction and pulled in at least one of a fourth direction or a fifth direction, and the fourth and fifth directions are orthogonal to the third direction.
However, Rutter discloses a rectangular grating includes a piece of sheet metal that is stamped in a third direction and pulled in at least one of a fourth direction or a fifth direction, and the fourth and fifth directions are orthogonal to the third direction (in lines 57-65 of column 4, Rutter discloses an expanded metal process will stamp a sheet of metal and then pull it along two axes; this technique will cause the sheet metal to not be perfectly flat – the stamping is in the third direction while the pulling along two axes gives the fourth and fifth directions that are orthogonal to the third direction).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute stamped and stretched metal as taught by Rutter for the rake head material taught by McConnell because the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The predictable result of the substitution would be forming the rake head by a well-known process (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
With respect to claim 12, McConnell in view of Rutter discloses the limitations of claim 10. McConnell in view of Rutter further discloses the rectangular grating further includes closed tips at the second long side (in figures 1, 3, and 4, McConnell discloses that the tips of the rake end in single points, which read on closed tips).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McConnell in view of Grutter as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Iaizzo et al. (US 2006/0196162 hereinafter Iaizzo).
With respect to claim 13, McConnell in view of Rutter discloses the limitations of claim 10. McConnell in view of Rutter further discloses the grating further comprises tips at a second long side of the rectangular grating (in figure 1 of McConnell, tips of the tines are shown to the opposite side of the grate than what had been referred to as the first long side aligned toward the base portion). McConnell in view of Rutter does not disclose that the rectangular grating includes open tips at the second long side.
However, Iaizzo discloses open tips of a rake (in figure 7, Iaizzo discloses rake ends that bifurcate into first tip 71 and second tip 72, making them open tips – see also paragraph 23).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute bifurcated or open tips as taught by Iaizzo for the closed tips of McConnell in view of Rutter because the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The predictable result of the substitution would be different rake tine tips that would provide a different raking mode for the rake (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McConnell in view of Geremia (2003/0188523).
With respect to claim 14, McConnell discloses the limitations of clam 2. McConnell does not disclose the rectangular grating is connected to the base portion to create an angle of approximately 140 to 145 degrees between the rectangular grating and the handle.
However, Geremia discloses a lower frame section is connected to the base portion to create an angle of approximately 140 to 145 degrees between the grating and the handle (in figure 6, Geremia discloses an upper frame section 9 and a lower section frame 11 of a rake head that are hingedly connected; the lower frame is in the same location relative to the tines as the grate section is in Stein; as shown in figure 7, the frame sections can pivot so that they create a wide array of angles; as described in the abstract, any angle is possible between the pull-rake mode – 180 degrees – and the push-rake mode – slightly more than 90 degrees as shown in figure 7).
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 McConnell by including an hinge that allows for an angle between the rake head and handle of 140 to 145 degrees as taught by Geremia with the motivation that “gathering . . . debris of [sic] the like will require much less energy and less dexterity” (Geremia, abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Speier (5383696) discloses a grated shovel like tool that has its distal end terminate in points formed from different strands of material, as shown in figure 1. Eash (5848697) discloses a sifter that has an head formed from strands of material arranged to provide gaps between the strands.
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