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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 8-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koering (USPN 2780976).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Koering discloses a weed cutting apparatus/member, comprising: a handle (10); a head (12) coupled to a distal end of the handle, the head comprising; a first end proximal to the handle, a second end distal to the handle and comprising a plurality of tines (14) and a blade (22 couplable to the tines), wherein the blade extends between the plurality of tines (Figure 1), the bladed member comprising a first end, proximal to the handle; one or more channels (26, 28) configured to receive one or more of the plurality of tines, and a blade (34 - “cutting edge 34” – col. 1, lines 68-69), distal to the handle.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Koering discloses wherein the first end of the head comprises grooves configured to uproot roots of a severed weed (The head 12 comprises grooves defined as where the tines 14 meet at the base of the head to form V-shaped open grooves that are capable of uprooting roots of a severed weed).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Koering discloses wherein the blade is a straight back blade (the blade forms a straight back structure as is seen in figure 2) having a curving edge (the jagged cutting edge is curved) and a straight spine (elements 20 and 32 are straight spines that hold tine members, also the back edge of the blade forms a straight spine).
Regarding claim 5, Koering discloses wherein the blade further extends across each tine of the plurality of tines (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, Koering discloses wherein the one or more channels (26/28) are formed by bending sides of the bladed member inwards towards a center of the bladed member (Channels 26/28 form circles that surround tines of the rake).
Further applicants claim language “formed by bending sides of the bladed member inwards towards a center” does not further define any of the specific structure of the blade 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. 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, Koering discloses the same claimed structure although not necessarily assembled as claimed by bending. As such, the claim is considered to be anticipated by Koering as the same claimed structure has been taught.
Regarding claim 12, Koering discloses wherein the one or more channels (26/28) are cylindrical in shape and welded to a front of the bladed member. (Channels 26/28 form circles that surround tines of the rake).
Further applicants claim language “and welded to a front of the bladed member” does not further define any of the specific structure of the blade 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. 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, Koering discloses the same claimed structure although not necessarily assembled as claimed by welding. As such, the claim is considered to be anticipated by Koering as the same claimed structure has been taught.
Regarding claim 13, Koering discloses wherein the bladed member is couplable to the plurality of tines, such that the blade of the bladed member is positioned between the plurality of tines and the ground during use (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 14, Koering discloses a method of using a weed cutting apparatus, the method comprising: holding a handle; placing a plurality of tines substantially parallel to the ground; sliding the plurality of tines beneath a growth of a weed; and cutting a stem of the weed with a blade between the plurality of tines (Figures 1 or 4 allow a user to use the rake in the method claimed. Further column 2 lines 19-21 discloses cutting strips of sod from the ground which would also be capable with the claimed use of the tool).
Regarding claim 15, Koering discloses engaging grooves (Defined as open grooves between the tines 14 where they converge) on the weed cutting apparatus with either the root or a stem of the weed and maneuvering the handle as a lever to uproot the root and the stem from the ground (A user is capable of grabbing a weed with the defined groove and uprooting it).
Regarding claim 16, Koering discloses collecting the weed on a head of the weed cutting apparatus and disposing of the weed (Weeds may be collected on the head in a scooping operation and disposed of in a trash can, etc.).
Regarding claim 17, Koering discloses wherein the blade is coupled to the tines via a plurality of channels (26/28) and comprises engaging each of the plurality of channels with a respective tine of the plurality of tines, prior to cutting the stem of the weed.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-7 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henshaw (USPN 9681597).
Regarding claim 1, Henshaw discloses a weed cutting apparatus, comprising: a handle (portions 120 and 130 form a handle); a head (110) coupled to a distal end of the handle, the head comprising; a first end proximal to the handle, a second end distal to the handle and comprising a plurality of tines (115-1, 115-2) and a blade (perimeter of the V-shaped notch 140), wherein the blade extends between the plurality of tines.
Regarding claim 4, Henshaw discloses wherein the head is coupled to the handle at an angle between 15 and 75 degrees (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 6, Henshaw discloses wherein the plurality of tines and the head of the weed cutting apparatus comprise a flat surface (Figure 4 shows a flat bottom surface).
Regarding claim 7, Henshaw discloses wherein the plurality of tines is coupled to the head at an angle between 0 and 30 degrees, configured to prevent the plurality of tines from disrupting soil and distributing seeds during use (Figure 4 shows zero degrees).
Regarding claim 14, Henshaw discloses method of using a weed cutting apparatus, the method comprising: holding a handle; placing a plurality of tines substantially parallel to the ground; sliding the plurality of tines beneath a growth of a weed; and cutting a stem of the weed with a blade between the plurality of tines (Figure 4 shows this with weed 103).
Regarding claim 15, Henshaw discloses engaging grooves (V-shaped groove 140) on the weed cutting apparatus with either the root or a stem of the weed and maneuvering the handle as a lever to uproot the root and the stem from the ground (Column 3 lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 16, Henshaw discloses collecting the weed on a head of the weed cutting apparatus and disposing of the weed (Figure 6, the weeds may be lifted and transferred).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yanez (US 2022/0400605).
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