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 § 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 2-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurioka et al. (US 20150271997 A1) in view of Schrock et al. (US 4265018 A).
Regarding independent claim 2, Kurioka discloses a mower (10, Fig. 1), comprising:
a housing with an open bottom (“downwardly-opening housing 11”, para. [0029]);
a rotary shaft (16a) supported in a vertical direction inside the housing (Fig. 1); and
a cutter blade (15) which is housed inside the housing to be rotatable with the rotary shaft as a rotation center (SC) and extends from the rotary shaft to both of opposing sides of the housing in a radial direction (Fig. 3);
wherein the cutter blade has
a wing portion (44) which overhangs upward and rearward that is an opposite side in a rotational direction (Ra) of the cutter blade from a rear end portion located on the opposite side in the rotational direction of the cutter blade (as seen in Fig. 3), at both of end portions of the cutter blade in a longitudinal direction (“longitudinally-opposite end sections 41”, para. [0041]).
Kurioka fails to teach wherein a wing chamfered portion at which a wing outer end portion located on an outer side in the radial direction of the wing portion is chamfered to be inclined from an upper surface to a lower surface toward the outer side in the radial direction and is chamfered in tapered cross section to decrease in thickness.
Schrock discloses a grass trimmer device comprising a blade (28) including outer end portions (54, 55) which taper and decrease in thickness from a center portion (50, 58, 60) to a smaller thickness at the outer end portions such that the outer end portions are inclined from an upper surface to a lower surface toward the outer side in the radial direction to decrease in thickness (see Figs. 3 and 5, col. 5 lines 6-11)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to chamfer the radial outermost edge of Kurioka (circled below), as taught by Schrock, in order to enhance the cutting action of the blade (Schrock at col. 5 line 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
342
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Kurioka in view of Schrock discloses the mower according to claim 2.
Kurioka further discloses wherein the cutter blade (15) has a blade outer end portion (radial outermost portion of the cutter blade extending from front edge 43 toward the wing portion) which extends rearward from an outer edge (42) in the radial direction at a front end portion located on a front side in the rotational direction (Ra) to the wing outer end portion and continuous with the wing outer end portion (blade outer end portion is continuous with wing outer end portion, as circled above), at both of the end portions of the cutter blade, and wherein the blade outer end portion and the front end portion intersect to form a corner portion (Fig. 3, circled below).
PNG
media_image2.png
364
675
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Kurioka in view of Schrock discloses the mower according to claim 3, wherein the cutter blade (15) has a blade chamfered portion at which the blade outer end portion is chamfered to be inclined from the upper surface to the lower surface toward the outer side in the radial direction and is chamfered in tapered cross section to decrease in thickness (inherent from combination, chamfer extends along entire outer end portion of blade).
Regarding claim 5, Kurioka in view of Schrock discloses the mower according to claim 2. Kurioka further discloses wherein the rotary shaft is provided with the cutter blade (15) and an upper cutter blade (14) located above the cutter blade.
Regarding claim 8, Kurioka in view of Schrock discloses the mower according to claim 4, wherein the blade chamfered portion is provided so as to be continuous with the wing chamfered portion in the rotational direction (inherent from combination, chamfer extends along entire outer end portion of blade).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 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.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7 of Applicant’s remarks, filed 05-12-2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 2-7 under Kurioka in view of Nelson have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made with Kurioka in view of Schrock.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Joesph Rocca, can be reached on (571) 272-8971. 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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights