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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/20/2026 has been entered.
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, 9-15, 17-19, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heesters, et al. US3469378.
Regarding claim 1, Heesters, et al. teaches a cutting unit (Figure 4) for a mower (mowing machine in Column 1: 25) comprising:
a disk 6 (including 51 and 58) configured to spin in a direction of rotation 42;
at least one blade 35/36 that is secured to the disk and that extends outwardly beyond the disk, each blade 35/36 being configured to cut grass (via edges 48/49) as the disk is spun; and
at least one lifting device 62/63 that is secured to the disk and that is separate from (as shown in Figure 4) the at least one blade 35/36, each lifting device 62/63 being positioned rotationally in front of and circumferentially spaced from (wherein 62 is rotationally in front of 35 and 63 is rotationally in front of 36) a respective blade 35/36 of the at least one blade 35/36 in the direction of rotation 42, each lifting device 62/63 being configured to create lift (Column 5: 36-38 “The blades 62, 63 act as a fan which causes air flow to lift the stalks before they are cut”), as the disk is spun to thereby cause a portion of uncut grass to stand up (the airflow lifting the stalks) before the respective blade 35/36 reaches and cuts the portion of grass (wherein the blade is rotationally behind the respective lifting device as described above).
Regarding claim 2, Heesters, et al. teaches the cutting unit of claim 1, wherein the disk is a bottom disk 51 , further comprising:
a top disk 58, wherein the at least one blade 35/36 and the at least one lifting device 62/63 are positioned between (wherein 35/36 and 62/63 are axially between the two disks) the top disk 58 and the bottom disk 51.
Regarding claim 3, Heesters, et al. teaches the cutting unit of claim 1, wherein the at least one blade 35/36 comprises a plurality of blades 35/36 (two shown) and the at least one lifting device 62/63 comprises a corresponding plurality of lifting devices 62/63 such that one of the lifting devices 62/63 is positioned rotationally in front of one of the blades 35/36 (as recited above).
Regarding claim 9, Heesters, et al. teaches The cutting unit of claim 1, wherein the disk is configured to allow the at least one lifting device 62/63 to be selectably secured in any one of multiple fixed rotational positions (two positions are shown, which are considered “multiple fixed rotational positions”, oppositely arranged from each other) relative to the respective blade 35/36, each of the multiple fixed rotational positions being rotationally in front of the respective blade 35/36 in the direction of rotation 42.
Regarding claim 10, Heesters, et al. teaches. The cutting unit of claim 9, wherein the disk includes an arrangement of discrete openings (to accommodate the shown dots in Figure 4) for receiving bolts (capable of receiving bolts) that secure the at least one lifting device 62/63 to the disk in a selected one of the multiple fixed rotational positions (the two positions shown for 62 and 63).
Regarding claim 11, Heesters, et al. teaches The cutting unit of claim 10, wherein the arrangement of openings comprises a plurality of discrete openings distributed in a circle (when the disk is rotated, the openings will operate in a circle) about an axis of rotation of the disk.
Regarding claim 12, Heesters, et al. teaches A mower (mowing machine in Column 1: 25) comprising:
one or more cutting units (Figure 4), each cutting unit comprising:
a first disk 51 configured to spin in a direction of rotation 42;
a plurality of blades 35/36 that are secured to the first disk and that extend outwardly beyond the first disk, each blade 35/36 being configured to cut grass as the first disk is spun;
a plurality of lifting devices 62/63 that are secured to the first disk and that are separate from the plurality of blades 35/36, each lifting device 62/63 being positioned rotationally in front of and circumferentially spaced from a respective blade 35/36 of the plurality of blades 35/36 in the direction of rotation 42, each lifting device 62/63 being configured to create lift (Column 5: 36-38), but not being configured to cut the grass, as the first disk is spun to thereby cause a portion of uncut grass to stand up (as recited above) before the respective blade 35/36 reaches and cuts the portion of grass. corresponding blade 35/36 reaches the grass.
Regarding claim 13, Heesters, et al. teaches The mower of claim 12, further comprising:
a second disk 58, wherein the plurality of blades 35/36 and the plurality of lifting devices 62/63 are positioned between (wherein 35/36 and 62/63 are axially between the two disks) the first and second disks.
Regarding claim 14, Heesters, et al. teaches The mower of claim 12, wherein the rotational position of each lifting device 62/63 relative to the respective blade 35/36 is customizable (by selecting which positions to place 62 and 63. For example, 62 can be selected to be placed near 35 or near 36 when assembled) by securing each lifting device 62/63 in a selected one of a plurality of fixed rotational positions (two positions are shown in Figure 4) relative to the respective blade 35/36.
Regarding claim 15, Heesters, et al. teaches A cutting unit (Figure 4) for a mower (mowing machine in Column 1: 25) comprising:
a plurality of blades 35/36 coupled to at least one disk 51, each blade 35/36 being configured to cut grass as the at least one disk is spun in a direction of rotation 42; and
a plurality of lifting devices 62/63 that are separate from the blades 35/36 and that are coupled to the at least one disk, each lifting device 62/63 being positioned rotationally in front of and circumferentially spaced from (as recited above) a respective one of the blades 35/36 in the direction of rotation 42, each lifting device 62/63 being configured to create lift (Column 5: 36-38), as the at least one disk is spun to thereby cause a portion of uncut grass to stand up (as recited above) before the respective one of the blades 35/36 reaches and cuts the portion of grass, wherein each lifting device 62/63 is configured to create lift (Column 5: 36-38) on the portion of uncut grass before any blade 35/36 of the cutting unit cuts the portion of uncut grass.
Regarding claim 17, Heesters, et al. teaches The cutting unit of claim 15, wherein the at least one disk comprises a top disk 58 and a bottom disk 51.
Regarding claim 18, Heesters, et al. teaches The cutting unit of claim 17, wherein the plurality of blades 35/36 and the plurality of lifting devices 62/63 are positioned between (wherein 35/36 and 62/63 are axially between the two disks) the top and bottom disks.
Regarding claim 19, Heesters, et al. teaches The cutting unit of claim 15, wherein the rotational position of each lifting device 62/63 relative to the respective blade 35/36 is customizable by securing each lifting device 62/63 in a selected one of a plurality of fixed rotational positions (as recited above) relative to the respective blade 35/36.
Regarding claim 21, Heesters, et al. teaches The cutting unit of claim 1, wherein each lifting device 62/63 is configured to create lift (Column 5: 36-38) on the portion of uncut grass before any blade 35/36 of the cutting unit cuts the portion of uncut grass.
Regarding claim 22, Heesters, et al. teaches The cutting unit of claim 15, wherein the plurality of blades 35/36 are evenly angularly spaced (by 180 degrees) about an axis of rotation of the at least one disk and a respective lifting device 62/63 is positioned rotationally in front of each blade 35/36.
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) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heesters, et al. in view of Getz US5715663.
Regarding claim 4, Heesters, et al. teaches the claim, as described above, but does not teach each blade 35/36 is bolted to the disk by at least one blade 35/36 bolt, and each lifting device 62/63 is fixedly bolted to the disk by at least one lifting-device bolt that is separate from the at least one blade 35/36 bolt securing the respective blade 35/36 to the disk, such that the lifting device 62/63 remains in a fixed angular relationship relative to the respective blade 35/36 as the disk is spun. The at least one blade 35/36 and the at least one lifting device 62/63 are bolted to the disk.
Getz teaches that it is well-known in the art for a lawn mower blade 76 and the at least one lifting device 90 are bolted 68 to the disk 65.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Heesters, et al.’s fastener to use Getz’s bolt to provide removable attachment for the lifting devices and for the blades.
Regarding claim 8, Heesters, et al. teaches the claim, as described above, but does not teach each of the at least one lifting device 62/63 has a trailing edge that forms a fin.
Getz teaches each of the at least one lifting device 90 has a trailing edge that forms a fin (with the tab 95) that moves crop away (Column 1119-20 “ vertically oriented portion 95 to act aggressively in the moving of severed crop away “).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Heesters, et al.’s lifting device to have a trailing edge that forms a fin as taught by Getz to move crop/grass away.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heesters, et al. in view of Schreiner US2015/0047308.
Regarding claim 7, Heesters, et al. teaches The cutting unit of claim 1, wherein each of the at least one lifting device 62/63 forms an airfoil.
Schreiner teaches that it is known in the art for a lifting device 90 to have an airfoil/teardrop shape 82 to provide lift ¶0025 “each of the lift portions 82, 86 has a generally teardrop-shaped profile. That is, the lift portions 82, 86 are generally teardrop in shape when the cutting blade 58 is viewed along the longitudinal axis 106 of the body 70 from either the first end 98 (as viewed in FIG. 6) or the second end 102. The teardrop-shaped profile is defined by an upper curved surface 150 and a lower curved surface 154 of each lift portion 82, 86. The upper curved surface 150 is the surface of each lift portion 82, 86 that faces the cutting deck 34 (FIG. 2). The lower curved surface 154 is the surface of each lift portion 82, 86 that faces away from the cutting deck 34 (i.e., toward the ground)”. ¶0033 “The teardrop -shaped profiles of the lift portions 82, 86 reduce the pressure drag, or wake, behind the cutting blade 58 as the cutting blade 58 rotates.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the lifting device of Heesters, et al. to form the lifting device as a teardrop or airfoil profile in view of Schreiner to provide additional lifting for the grass blades when rotating, thus reducing drag or wake behind Heesters, et al.’s lifting device during rotation.
Claim(s) 5 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heesters, et al. alone.
Regarding claim 5, Heesters, et al. teaches The cutting unit of claim 1, wherein each of the at least one lifting device 62/63 I s positioned rotationally in front of the respective blade 35/36 by approximately 20 degrees in the direction of rotation 42.
It is noted that Heesters, et al. shows the rotationally rear portion of the lifting device at a position less than 45 degrees from the blade, however, does not specifically recite the degree of separation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the rotational separation limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 20, Heesters, et al. teaches The cutting unit of claim 15, wherein the plurality of blades 35/36 comprises at least four blades 35/36 and the plurality of lifting devices 62/63 comprises at least four lifting devices 62/63.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to duplicate the number of blades and lifting devices such that there are at least four of each, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skilled the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Doing so would provide additional cutting and lifting capabilities for thicker grass. In the case above, it was found that while the addition of multiple plies to the concept of the Poppe had undoubtedly made it stronger, it is not the type of innovation for which a patent monopoly is to be granted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments, see claims and remarks, filed 5/20/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112 rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments, filed 5/20/2026 have been fully considered, and are persuasive. While Getz does teach the lifting device being separate from and circumferentially spaced from a blade that is located on the opposite side of the disk from the lifting device, Getz does not teach that the lifting device is configured to create lift to thereby cause a portion of uncut grass to stand up before the respective blade reaches and cuts the portion of grass. Instead, Getz’s lifting devices are disposed axially above a blade, thus all of the grass would be cut.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cathleen Hutchins whose telephone number is (571)270-3651. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11am-9:30PM EST.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/CATHLEEN R HUTCHINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672 7/23/2026
Prosecution Insights