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 .
Title of Invention Is Not Descriptive
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by an examiner’s amendment. See MPEP § 1302.04(a).
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references provided in the case file have not properly been listed on an information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office. Therefore, unless the references have been properly provided on an information disclosure statement or cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-8 are replete with minor antecedent informalities. For example: claim 1 line 2-3: “the bottom of the lawn mower body”, line 5: “the front side”, line 13: “the orthographic projection” Claim 3 line 1: “the extension direction”, Claim 5 lines 1: “the thickness”. These examples are not exhaustive and the claims must be reviewed and revised.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3 and 4 in lines 1 and 2 refer to: “the first grass inlet channel”. However claim 1 refers to a plurality. It is unclear if applicant is switching to a singularity or intends to maintain the plurality. The claim must maintain the plurality or properly transition to a singularity for clarity purposes.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer (DE 19947934).
Regarding claim 1, Bauer discloses a lawn mower, comprising: a lawn mower body (body top plate pointed to by indicator 3 in figure 2 to which the elements are connected), wherein a cutting chamber (15) is arranged at the bottom of the lawn mower body, a blade (8) is rotatably connected to the middle of the cutting chamber, and a plurality of first grass inlet channels communicated with the cutting chamber are arranged on the front side of the bottom of the lawn mower body (Figure 2 shows comb 12 with extensions 13), wherein the plurality of first grass inlet channels are provided with a supporting mechanism (base plate 16 of figure 1) for improving the total bending resistance of the grass in the cutting process, and the supporting mechanism comprises a base (rear portion of base plate element 16) arranged on the plurality of first grass inlet channels (tines of the base plate are arranged with the comb 12 as shown in figure 1) and a plurality of supporting pieces (tines of the base plate) arranged side by side on the base and extending to the lower portion the cutting chamber (The tines extend forwardly of the comb and rearwardly under the blade), wherein the base is provided with a plurality of second grass inlet channels respectively communicated with the plurality of first grass inlet channels (The tines of the base plate form second channels that align with the combs channels 13), wherein the orthographic projection of the rotation range of the blade overlaps with the orthographic projections of the plurality of supporting pieces (The projections of the tines overlap under the blade).
Bauer discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the base is detachable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to make the base detachable for the purposes of cleaning the cutting chamber between operations, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 2, Bauer discloses wherein the lengths of the plurality of supporting pieces extending toward the cutting chamber are different (Figure 1), wherein the connecting line of the end points of the plurality of support pieces close to one end of the cutting chamber is configured to be arc-shaped, and its center is located on the rotation center line of the blade (Figure 1 shows that the tines extend rearwardly and form an arc-shape where they connect to the base).
Regarding claim 3, Bauer discloses wherein along the extension direction of the first grass inlet channel (channels formed by comb 12 and projections 13), the length that the orthographic projection of the rotation range of the blade overlaps with the orthographic projection of the plurality of supporting pieces (blade overlaps with tines as shown in figure 2) is not less than the ratio of the distance S meters travelled by the lawn mower body per second to n revolutions per second of the blade (From a review of the drawings of Bauer in comparison to applicants, the projections appear to be the same or greater than applicant’s. Therefore a similar claimed structure with similar overlapping is considered to be met; the functional ratio limitations of distance and speed of the blade are functional variables, distance is a clear variable dependent on the operator, and the speed of the blade is also considered a variable known in the art depending on motor speed, as the claimed structure is considered to be met the claimed functional ratio is considered to be met or obvious to be met depending on the known changing or the variables).
Regarding claim 4, Bauer discloses overlapping of the projections with the blade but is lacking a specific distance of overlap.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Bauer to include the range of 10-30mm of overlap distance since applicant has not claimed that these ranges solve any particular problem or purpose and it appears other similar ranges would work equally well. Furthermore, routine experimentation would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to these ranges.
Regarding claim 5, the supporting pieces of Bauer clearly comprise a thickness and distance between them, however Bauer is lacking specific measurements.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Bauer to include the range of 4-6 mm of thickness and 30-40mm of spaced distance since applicant has not claimed that these ranges solve any particular problem or purpose and it appears other similar ranges would work equally well. Furthermore, routine experimentation would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to these ranges.
Regarding claim 6, the supporting pieces of Bauer clearly comprise a height, however Bauer is lacking specific measurements.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Bauer to include the range of 10-15mm of height of the supporting pieces since applicant has not claimed that these ranges solve any particular problem or purpose and it appears other similar ranges would work equally well. Furthermore, routine experimentation would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to these ranges.
Regarding claim 7, the supporting pieces of Bauer clearly comprise a space between them and the blade, however Bauer is lacking specific measurements.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Bauer to include the range of 4-6 mm of space between the supporting pieces and the blade since applicant has not claimed that these ranges solve any particular problem or purpose and it appears other similar ranges would work equally well. Furthermore, routine experimentation would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to these ranges.
Regarding claim 8, as provided in claim 1, the defined base of Bauer could obviously be removed for the purpose of cleaning the mowers cutting chamber. Figures 1 and 2 further show that the base and comb 12 of Bauer align for operation.
Applicant’s claim language “wherein the base is fixedly connected to the plurality of first grass inlet channels through a plurality of bolts” does not further define any of the specific structure of the mower that distinguishes it from the prior art. This claim limitation is directed to a product-by-process limitation. It is noted wherein the patentability of a product does not necessarily depend on its method of production or assembly. See MPEP section 2113 Product-by-Process, which states, if the product in the claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In the instant case, Bauer discloses the same claimed structure although not necessarily assembled as claimed by a connection of the two elements through bolts. As such, the claim is considered to be anticipated by Bauer as the same claimed structure has been taught and the connection of elements working together by bolts would be obvious to secure them together with the possibility of allowing removal for cleaning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fischier (USPN 6269621)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J BEHRENS whose telephone number is (303)297-4336. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-2pm MST.
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, Chris 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.
/ADAM J BEHRENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671