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
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8, filed 1/29/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 under 35 USC 102(a)(1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Johnston (708,147), Inmon (1510321), and Mayer (DE 10246558 A1).
The 112 (b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 9 recites “between the guide bushing the upper cutting knife.” The claim should read “between the guide bushing and the upper cutting knife.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 9-11, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston (708,147), hereinafter Johnston in view of Inmon (1510321), hereinafter Inmon and further in view of Mayer (DE 10246558 A1), hereinafter Mayer.
Regarding claim 1, Johnston discloses a mower knife device comprising:
a knife bar (a, fig. 1-2, col. 1 line 34); and
wherein an upper knife (a’, col. 1, line 35) is connected to the knife bar by means of an upper retaining device (g, fig. 1-3, col. 1 line 50);
the upper retaining device is mounted on the knife bar by means of a guide bushing (h+h’, fig. 1-2 and 4, col. 1 lines 49-50);
a preloaded tension spring (m, fig. 2, col. 2 lines 72-99); and
the tensile force of the tension spring is configured to apply a contact pressure of the upper cutting knife to the lower cutting knife via the upper retaining device (fig. 1-2 and 4, col. 2 lines 80-87).
However, Johnston fails to explicitly disclose wherein the preloaded tension spring is arranged inside the guide bushing. Inmon teaches a similar device in the same field of mower devices wherein a preloaded tension spring (30, fig. 3 and 7, col. 2 lines 91-106) is arranged inside the guide bushing (32, fig. 3 and 7, col. 2 lines 91-106). 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 h+h’ of Johnston to be a separate piece that surrounds the spring of Inmon in order to protect the spring from debris (col. 2 lines 91-106 of Inmon).
However, Johnston in view of Inmon fails to explicitly disclose a dual knife cutting system comprising an upper cutting knife and a lower cutting knife arranged to move relative to each other. Mayer teaches a similar device in the same field of mower cutters wherein a dual knife cutting system (fig. 1-2, par. 0025), comprising an upper cutting knife (3, fig. 1-2, par. 0025) and a lower cutting knife (4, fig. 1-2, par. 0025) arranged to move relative to each other (par. 0025); and the lower cutting knife (4, fig. 1-2, par. 0025) is connected to the knife bar by means of a lower retaining device (2, fig. 1-2, par. 0025). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the single knife arrangement of Johnston with the dual knife cutting system of Mayer to yield the predictable result of cutting the grass (col. 1 lines 2-22 of Johnston).
Regarding claim 9, Johnston in view of Inmon and Mayer teaches wherein the upper retaining device (g, fig. 2 of Johnston) comprises a kinking (see annotated fig. 2 of Johnston) which is arranged between the guide bushing (32 of Inmon; h+h’, fig. 2 of Johnston) the upper cutting knife (3, fig. 1 of Mayer; a’, fig. 2 of Johnston).
PNG
media_image1.png
532
1164
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Johnston in view of Inmon and Mayer teaches wherein the upper cutting knife is configured to be guided in a cutting knife bearing of the upper retaining device (k, fig. 2, col. 2 lines 59-62 of Johnston).
Regarding claim 11, Johnston in view of Inmon and Mayer teaches wherein the lower retaining device (2, fig. 1-2, par. 0025 of Mayer) is mounted on the knife bar (a, fig. 1-2, col. 1 line 34 of Johnston) by means of a guide bushing (32 of Inmon; h+h’, fig. 2 of Johnston, wherein 2 of Mayer connects to “a” of Johnston through 32 of Inmon).
Regarding claim 15, Johnston in view of Inmon and Mayer teaches wherein:
the upper cutting knife (3, fig. 1 of Mayer; a’, fig. 2 of Johnston) comprises a plurality of blade elements (fig. 29 of Mayer); and
an upper retaining device associated with each third of the plurality of blade elements (see annotated fig. 2 of Mayer).
PNG
media_image2.png
562
816
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Johnston in view of Inmon and Mayer teaches wherein the preloaded tension spring is connected at a first end to the upper retaining device (fig. 2 of Johnston).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 12-14, and 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Johnston in view of Inmon and Mayer is considered the closest prior art, but fails to teach the recited the limitation of “wherein the guide bushing is configured to be retained in a threaded bushing.” While the current modification teaches a guide bushing with a spring within, there is no obvious reason to further modify Johnston to include a threaded bushing around the guide bushing without undo hindsight, when taken in conjunction with the other limitations from the claims that 2 and 12 depend from. Neither was any prior art found that teaches a threaded bushing around the guide bushing, DE 202020106869 U1 was considered, but the date excludes it from prior art along with DE 202020106869 U1 being from the same assignee.
Claims 3-8 and 13 are objected to for depending on claims 2 and 12 receptively.
Regarding claim 14, Johnston in view of Inmon and Mayer is considered the closest prior art, but fails to teach the recited the limitation of “the screw is arranged to extend completely through the guide bushing.” There is no obvious reason to further modify Johnston, when taken in conjunction with the other limitations from the claim, without undo hindsight.
Regarding claim 17, Johnston in view of Inmon and Mayer is considered the closest prior art, but fails to teach the recited the limitation of “wherein the preloaded tension spring is connected at a second end to a bushing cover.” There is no obvious reason to further modify Johnston to include a bushing cover, when taken in conjunction with the other limitations from the claim, without undo hindsight
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights