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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The independent claims recite that each lifting device is “not being configured to cut the grass”. There is no support in the original disclosure for this negative limitation. See MPEP 2173.05(i)- Negative limitations. Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1019, 194 USPQ 187, 196 (CCPA 1977) ("[the] specification, having described the whole, necessarily described the part remaining."). See also Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983), aff’d mem., 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In describing alternative features, the applicant need not articulate advantages or disadvantages of each feature in order to later exclude the alternative features. See Inphi Corporation v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1356-57, 116 USPQ2d 2006, 2010-11 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. However, a lack of literal basis in the specification for a negative limitation may not be sufficient to establish a prima facie case for lack of descriptive support. Ex parte Parks, 30 USPQ2d 1234, 1236 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). "Rather, as with positive limitations, the disclosure must only 'reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.' ... While silence will not generally suffice to support a negative claim limitation, there may be circumstances in which it can be established that a skilled artisan would understand a negative limitation to necessarily be present in a disclosure." Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 2022 USPQ2d 569 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 589 F.3d 1336, 1351, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1172). Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
It is noted that lifting device 140 of the instant application is depicted in the figures as planar at 140a with trailing edge 140b. Given sufficient speeds, leading edge 140a is capable of cutting blades of grass- therefore, it cannot be determined that the original disclosure supports the negative limitation excluding cutting.
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, 8-12, 14-15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Getz US5715663.
Regarding claim 1, Getz teaches a cutting unit (Figures 21-22) for a mower 10 comprising:
a disk 65;
at least one blade 76 that is secured to the disk 65 and that extends outwardly (Figure 21 shows radially outward extension) beyond the disk 65, each blade being configured to cut grass as the disk 65 is spun; and
at least one lifting device 90 (which is an angled crop mover as described in Column 11: 4-5, with flange 95 that provides lifting due to the planar surface 90 and the flange 95) that is secured to the disk 65, each lifting device 90 being positioned rotationally in front of a respective blade 76 of the at least one blade (wherein lifting device 90 on the left is rotationally in front of the blade 76 on the right side as the disk 65 rotates counter clockwise), each lifting device 90 being configured to create lift (due to the planar surface 90 and flange 95), but not being configured to cut the grass (Column 11: 26-28 “The crop mover 90 is specifically configured as to not interfere with the action of the cutting edge of the knife 67”. This indicates that the crop mover moves crop, rather than cuts the crop), as the disk 65 is spun to thereby cause the grass to stand up (the “transfer crop material….away from the knife 67” Column 11: 7-8) before the corresponding blade reaches the grass (during rotation, to provide the above described preventing restricting the ability of the knife 67 to sever the crop on the next pass).
Regarding claim 3, Getz teaches the at least one blade 76 comprises a plurality of blades (two are shown in Figure 21) and the at least one lifting device 90 comprises a corresponding plurality of lifting devices 90 (two are shown) such that one of the lifting device 90 s is positioned rotationally in front of one of the blades (as described above).
Regarding claim 4, Getz teaches the at least one blade 76 and the at least one lifting device 90 are bolted 68 to the disk 65.
Regarding claim 5, Getz teaches each of the at least one lifting device 90 is positioned rotationally in front of the respective blade 76 by at least 10 degrees (Figure 21 shows 180 degrees, which is greater than the claimed “at least 10 degrees).
Regarding claim 8, Getz teaches each of the at least one lifting device 90 has a trailing edge that forms a fin (with the tab 95).
Regarding claim 9, Getz teaches the disk 65 is configured to allow the at least one lifting device 90 to be positioned rotationally in front of the respective blade 76 at multiple different positions (in which the two different bolt locations can be chosen for each lifting device, and in which the angle for the lifting device 90 can change due to swinging, thus providing different positions. Column 11: 21-25 “The crop mover 90 must be mounted to swing freely about its pivotal mounting on the bolt 68 to prevent damage thereto upon impact with an obstacle, and, optionally have a protective surface (not shown) for the mounting bolt 68”).
Regarding claim 10, Getz teaches the disk 65 includes an arrangement of openings (the corresponding holes for bolts 68, shown in Figure 22) for receiving bolts that secure the at least one lifting device 90 to the disk 65.
Regarding claim 11, Getz teaches the arrangement of openings is circular (when 65 is rotated, the openings form a circular path).
Regarding claim 12, Getz teaches a mower 10 comprising:
one or more cutting unit (Figures 21-22)s, each cutting unit (Figures 21-22) comprising:
a first disk 65;
a plurality of blades 76 (two shown) that are secured to the first disk 65 and that extend outwardly (as recited above) beyond the first disk 65, each blade 76 being configured to cut grass as the first disk 65 is spun;
a plurality of lifting devices 90 (two shown) that are secured to the first disk 65, each lifting device 90 being positioned rotationally in front of a respective blade 76 of the plurality of blades, each lifting device 90 being configured to create lift, but not being configured to cut the grass (as recited above), as the first disk 65 is spun to thereby cause the grass to stand up before the corresponding blade 76 reaches the grass.
Regarding claim 14, Getz teaches the rotational position of each lifting device 90 relative to the respective blade 76 is customizable (as recited above).
Regarding claim 15, Getz teaches a cutting unit (Figures 21-22) for a mower 10 comprising:
a plurality of blades 76 (two shown) coupled to at least one disk 65, each blade 76 being configured to cut grass as the at least one disk 65 is spun; and
a plurality of lifting devices 90 (two shown) separate from the blades that are coupled to the at least one disk 65, each lifting device 90 being positioned rotationally in front of and spaced from a respective one of the blades (as recited above), each lifting device 90 being configured to create lift, but not being configured to cut the grass (as recited above), as the at least one disk 65 is spun to thereby cause the grass to stand up before the corresponding blade reaches the grass (as recited above).
Regarding claim 19, Getz teaches wherein the rotational position of each lifting device 90 relative to the respective blade 76 is customizable (as recited above).
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) 2, 13, 17, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Getz in view of Zhang, et al. CN103843516 (a copy of which has been previously included).
Regarding claims 2, 17, 18, Getz teaches the claim, as described above, but does not teach the disk 65 is a bottom disk 65, further comprising: a top disk, wherein the at least one blade and the at least one lifting device 90 are positioned between the top disk and the bottom disk.
Zhang, et al. teaches a cutter with a bottom disk 55 and a top disk 51 with blade 33a/b and lifting device 33c positioned between the top and bottom disks, as a known means for securing blades and lifting devices.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Getz’s disk to include a top disk as taught by Zhang, et al. such that Getz’s blade and lifting device are positioned between top and bottom disks, to provide the predictable results of providing a sandwiched securing means for the blades and lifting devices. Doing so would protect at least part of the top portion of the lifting device and at least a bottom portion of the blade from damage.
Regarding claim 13, Zhang, et al. teaches a second disk 21, wherein the plurality of blades 33a/b and the plurality of lifting devices 33c are positioned between the first and second disks (as shown in exploded view in Figure 5).
Regarding claim 20, Getz teaches the claim, as described above, but does not teach wherein the plurality of blades comprises at least four blades and the plurality of lifting devices 90 comprises at least four lifting devices 90.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Getz in view of Schreiner US2015/0047308.
Regarding claim 7, Getz teaches the claim, as described above, but does not teach each of the at least one lifting device 90 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 Getz to include 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 Getz’s lifting device during rotation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Secord US5373687 teaches a mower 10 with blades 250 and lifter/separators 248 (Figure 5).
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 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 2/18/2026