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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
This application is claiming the benefit of prior-filed application No. 15/596539 under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). Copendency between the current application and the prior application is required. Since the applications are not copending, the benefit claim to the prior-filed application is improper. Applicant is required to delete the claim to the benefit of the prior-filed application, unless applicant can establish copendency between the applications.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Reference number 120 in Figure 1A. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Reference is made to “the wheels” in line 5. This is a reference back to “a pair of wheels” introduced in line 4, and the examiner suggests maintaining language consistency and it is suggested that applicant amend the phrase to recite “the pair of wheels”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Reference is made to “the weight of the carpet cutting apparatus” in line 5. This appears to be the first reference to any weight of the carpet cutting apparatus. Although the phrase might appear to have implicit or inherent antecedent basis, it is the first reference to this feature and it is suggested that applicant amend the phrase to recite “a weight of the carpet cutting apparatus”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 12 recites “a vertical or slanting line.” and thus ends with a period, but claim appears to continue for another six lines. The examiner suggests replacing the period at the end of line 12 with a semicolon. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Reference is made to “the top of the carpet cutting blade” in line 13. This appears to be the first reference to any top of the carpet cutting blade. Although the phrase might appear to have implicit or inherent antecedent basis, it is the first reference to this feature and it is suggested that applicant amend the phrase to recite “a weight of the carpet cutting apparatus”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Reference is made to “for the engagement of the carpet cutting blade” in line 2. This appears to be the first reference to any engagement of the carpet cutting blade. Although the phrase might appear to have implicit or inherent antecedent basis, it is the first reference to this feature and it is suggested that applicant amend the phrase to recite “for an engagement of the carpet cutting blade”.
Alternative language that avoids the usage of the phrase “the engagement” would also be appropriate, such as “to engage the carpet cutting blade” or “for engagement with the carpet cutting blade”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Reference is made to “the blade” in line 8. This is a reference back to “a carpet cutting blade” introduced in line 6, and the examiner suggests maintaining language consistency and it is suggested that applicant amend the phrase to recite “the carpet cutting blade”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Reference is made to “the rotation of the wheels” in line 10. This appears to be the first reference to any rotation, and additionally appears to be a reference to “a pair of wheels” in line 9. The phrase “the rotation” might appear to have implicit or inherent antecedent basis as a function of the wheels, it is the first reference to this feature and it is suggested that applicant delete the word “the” in front of “rotation”. Additionally, the examiner suggests maintaining language consistency with respect to wheels and it is suggested that applicant amend the phrase to recite “the pair of wheels”
Therefore, the examiner suggests amending the phrase to recite “rotation of the pair of wheels”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Reference is made to “the weight of the carpet cutting apparatus” in line 10-11. This appears to be the first reference to any weight of the carpet cutting apparatus. Although the phrase might appear to have implicit or inherent antecedent basis, it is the first reference to this feature and it is suggested that applicant amend the phrase to recite “a weight of the carpet cutting apparatus”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 11 recites “the carpet cutting apparatus.” and thus ends with a period, but claim appears to continue for another two lines on the next page of the claims. The examiner suggests replacing the period at the end of line 11 with a semicolon. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Reference is made to “for the engagement of the carpet cutting blade” in line 2. This appears to be the first reference to any engagement of the carpet cutting blade. Although the phrase might appear to have implicit or inherent antecedent basis, it is the first reference to this feature and it is suggested that applicant amend the phrase to recite “for an engagement of the carpet cutting blade”.
Alternative language that avoids the usage of the phrase “the engagement” would also be appropriate, such as “to engage the carpet cutting blade” or “for engagement with the carpet cutting blade”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are therefore being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses the word “means” that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“means for attaching a carpet cutting blade” in claim 1 and “means to attach a carpet cutting blade” in claim 14. The specification discloses that the means for attaching a carpet cutting blade in paragraphs 0011-12, which discloses “[0011] In one embodiment, the carpet cutting apparatus further comprises grooves along the vertical plane or slanting line for the engagement of the carpet cutting blade within a blade holder by using a plurality of screws. [0012] In one embodiment, the engagement of the carpet cutting blade within a blade holder is accomplished without the use of screws, utilizing a push and fit mechanism.”
“engagement means” in claim 4. The corresponding structure for the engagement means is unclear. See the rejections under section 112 below.
“front attachment means” in claim 9. The corresponding structure for the front attachment means is unclear, but the specification seems to suggest that the front attachment means is related to or the same structure as the “means for attaching a carpet cutting blade” in claim 1. See the rejections under section 112 below.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "an axle or shaft" in line 4. Claim 1 later further recites at line 7 that “the axle carries the pair of wheels at both ends, aiding in maintaining an optimal cutting angle and adjusting a tip angle”, but does not further define or limit the shaft. It is unclear if the term shaft is to be interpreted as an alternative structure to the axle, or as an alternative name for the same underlying structure that is also called the axle and therefore also requires the limitations beginning at line 7.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a vertical or slanting line" in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This appears to be the same vertical or slanting line introduced earlier in lines 11-12, and should be amended to recite “the vertical or slanting line”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the flat top triangular portion" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This appears to be the first instance of any flat top triangular portion of the anterior raised portion, and should be amended to recite “a flat top triangular portion”.
Claims 2-11 are further rejected based on their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the vertical plane or slanting line" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This appears to be the same feature as a vertical or slanting line introduced earlier in claim 1, lines 11-12 and repeated again at claim 1, lines 14-15, and should be amended to recite “the vertical or slanting line”.
Claim 3 is further rejected based on their dependency from claim 2.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a blade holder" in lines 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This appears to be the same feature as a blade holder introduced earlier in claim 2. It should be noted that claim 3 has also been rejected under 35 USC 112(d) or failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends and the examiner suggests reviewing the recommendations below to rewrite the subject matter of claim 3 to depend directly from claim 1 and to not depend from claim 2.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the top" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This appears to be the first instance of any top of the posterior raised portion, and should be amended to recite “a top of the posterior raised portion”.
Claim limitation “an engagement means” in claim 4 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The structure of the engagement means is unclear and unspecified, except to somehow interact with a screw on the top (see paragraph 0031 of the specification). Additionally, no reference number for the engagement means is given, so it is unclear where the engagement means is located in the figures.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "a front cutting blade" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear how the phrase “a front cutting blade” in claim 9 relates to “a carpet cutting blade” in claim 1. It appears that these are the same structures and it is suggested that applicant amend the claims to further clarify the relationship between these claim elements.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "front attachment means" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear how the phrase “front attachment means” in claim 9 relates to “means for attaching” in claim 1. It appears that these are the same or related structures and it is suggested that applicant amend the claims to further clarify the relationship between these claim elements.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the anchor hook" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 is an independent claim, and this appears to be the first recitation of any anchor hook in the claim, and the examiner suggests that claim 12 be amended to recite “an anchor hook”.
Claim 13 is rejected based on its dependency from claim 12.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "an anterior raised portion" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This appears to be the same anterior raised portion that was introduced in line 3, and the examiner suggests that line 5 be amended to recite “the anterior raised portion”.
Claims 15-20 are rejected based on their dependency from claim 14.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the anchor hook" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This appears to be the first recitation of any anchor hook in either the claim or parent claims 17 and 14, and the examiner suggests that claim 18 be amended to recite “an anchor hook”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the vertical plane or slanting line" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This appears to be the first recitation of any vertical plane or slanting in either the claim or parent claim 14, and the examiner suggests that claim 18 be amended to recite “a vertical plane or a slanting line”.
Claim 20 is rejected based on its dependency from claim 19.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "a blade holder" in lines 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This appears to be the same feature as a blade holder introduced earlier in claim 19. It should be noted that claim 20 has also been rejected under 35 USC 112(d) or failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends and the examiner suggests reviewing the recommendations below to rewrite the subject matter of claim 20 to depend directly from claim 14 and to not depend from claim 19.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In parent claim 2, applicant requires the limitation of “by using a plurality of screws”; in claim 3, applicant then recites “without the use of screws”, which removes the limitation of claim 2 and thus fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
The examiner suggests rewriting the subject matter of claim 3 to depend directly from claim 1 and to not depend from claim 2.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In parent claim 19, applicant requires the limitation of “by using a plurality of screws”; in claim 3, applicant then recites “without the use of screws”, which removes the limitation of claim 2 and thus fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
The examiner suggests rewriting the subject matter of claim 20 to depend directly from claim 14 and to not depend from claim 19.
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) 1-2, 4-6, 9, 14-16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hishida (JP 2009144459 A), Elliott (US 20100307295 A1) and Peppett (US 20160008991 A1).
As to claim 1, Hishida discloses a carpet cutting apparatus comprising:
a main body having a flat portion (top of the cutting blade 3a), an anterior raised portion (front and top of shielding member 5 and cutting blade 3a) and a posterior raised portion (rear top of shielding member 5 and rear of cutting blade 3a);
wherein the anterior raised portion having:
a front (visible in Figure 5) and means for attaching a carpet cutting blade, the carpet cutting blade (rising blade 2) is mounted on either a vertical or slanting line (See marked up Figure 8 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
192
352
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
a carpet strand guard (shielding members 5 and 5, with portions 5a and 5b) located on the top of the carpet cutting blade to retain carpet strands until cut, the carpet cutting blade is mounted on either a vertical or slanting line (Hishida discloses that “the connecting plate portions 5b and 5b of the shielding members 5 and 5 are disposed so as to protrude forward from the lower end position Q of the cutting edge 2a of the upright blade 2”, and therefore connecting plate portions function as a carpet strand guard as claimed); and
an anchor hook is configured on the anterior raised portion to engage a cable hook for securing the carpet cutting apparatus during use. See Figures 1-2 below; see also Figure 3-5 below, focusing on elements 7, 7a, 7b and 11:
PNG
media_image2.png
298
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See also Figures 1-4 below.
PNG
media_image3.png
560
789
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hishida does not disclose that the front is a conical pointed front. Hishida also does not disclose a pair of wheels attached to an axle or shaft at a posterior bottom end of the main body, enabling the rotation of the wheels and supporting the weight of the carpet cutting apparatus, the axle carries the pair of wheels at both ends, aiding in maintaining an optimal cutting angle and adjusting a tip angle. Hishida also does not disclose the full limitation or arrangement of an anchor hook is configured on the flat top triangular portion of the anterior raised portion or the arrangement of a main body having a flat portion positioned between an anterior raised portion and a posterior raised portion;
However, Elliott discloses and makes obvious the use of a conical pointed front for carpet cutting. Paragraph 0001 discloses that “[0001] The invention relates to tools for removing material that has been nailed in place, such as asphalt shingles and roofing materials of all types, and flooring materials such as tile, carpet and wood strips. It is also useful in removing siding, panels, and moldings.”. Paragraph 0019 discloses that “However, if the material being lifted is at all flexible, such as an asphalt shingle, the tool will be operating in a space under the lifted material that is semi-conical.” See especially paragraph 0029, disclosing:
[0029] The curved outline has beneficial effects. Until the last nail in a shingle is reached, the shingle under which the leading edge is slipped will be held close to the roof by one or more nails on at least one side of the lifting head. When the lifting head grips a nail and raises the nail and the shingle together, the shingle will bend down on the side where there is another nail, and in the direction ahead of the tool. The shingle will tend to a semi-conical shape, curved with its highest point at the centre line of the lifting head. The curved front and sides of the lifting head are a better fit to the curving bottom surface of the lifted shingle than straight sides would be. If the leading edge were straight, the lifted shingle would have to lift equally across the width of the lifting head and then fall away at the sides. Such a design tends to encourage breaking of the shingle, which is less efficient because a smaller section is lifted and more broken sections of shingles remain to be dealt with individually. Straight sides and a straight leading edge would tend to cut into and break the shingles more than the curved sides and curved leading edge.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized a conical pointed front as taught by Elliott because the curved front and sides of the lifting head are a better fit to the curving bottom surface of the lifted shingle than straight sides would be.
Peppett discloses and makes obvious a pair of wheels (wheels 15 and 16) attached to an axle or shaft (axle 21) at a posterior bottom end of the main body, enabling the rotation of the wheels and supporting the weight of the carpet cutting apparatus (“the knife blade (20) is centered between and in line with the axle (21) of the wheels (15) and (16)”), the axle carries the pair of wheels at both ends, aiding in maintaining an optimal cutting angle and adjusting a tip angle (“facilitating cutting of a lamina material within an acute radius”). See especially paragraph 0048, disclosing:
[0048] Reference to FIG. 1 through FIG. 10, a pair of wheels (15) and (16) is rotatably attached to/mounted on the either side of the front substantially triangular portion (29) via an axle (21). In some embodiments, the two wheels (15) and (16) can be mounted on two separate axles positioned on either side of the body (17). The axle (21) is preferably positioned in such a way that the cutting edge (22) of the knife blade (20) is centered between and in line with the axle (21) of the wheels (15) and (16). The pair of wheels (15, 16) enables the hand driven cutting device (100) to become turned on a vertical axis thereby facilitating cutting of a lamina material within an acute radius.
See also Figures 1-10, and especially Figure 6, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image4.png
546
848
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized a pair of wheels attached to an axle or shaft at a posterior bottom end of the main body, enabling the rotation of the wheels and supporting the weight of the carpet cutting apparatus, the axle carries the pair of wheels at both ends, aiding in maintaining an optimal cutting angle and adjusting a tip angle as taught by Peppett in order to facilitate cutting of a lamina material within an acute radius
Additionally, making parts integral or separable is obvious. MPEP 2144.04. Additionally, rearrangement of parts is obvious. MPEP 2144.04. Changes in size and shape is obvious. MPEP 2144.04. In this case, modifying the structural attachments and portions to utilize the arrangement of arrangement of an anchor hook is configured on the flat top triangular portion of the anterior raised portion or the arrangement of a main body having a flat portion positioned between an anterior raised portion and a posterior raised portion would have an obvious making parts integral or separable and an obvious rearrangement of parts and change in size and shape. Such an integration, separation, rearrangement of the parts and changes in size and shape would still be able to perform the same functions as claimed and as disclosed in Hishida in the same manner to achieve the same results
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized the arrangement of an anchor hook is configured on the flat top triangular portion of the anterior raised portion and the arrangement of a main body having a flat portion positioned between an anterior raised portion and a posterior raised portion as an obvious making parts integral or separable and an obvious rearrangement of parts and an obvious change in size and shape that would still be able to perform the same functions as claimed and as disclosed in Hishida in the same manner to achieve the same results.
As to claim 2, Hishida does not disclose further comprising grooves along the vertical plane or slanting line for the engagement of the carpet cutting blade within a blade holder by using a plurality of screws.
However, Peppett discloses further comprising grooves along the vertical plane or slanting line for the engagement of the carpet cutting blade within a blade holder by using a plurality of screws. See especially paragraph 0053, disclosing:
[0053] FIG. 6 shows the pre-assembly view of the hand driven cutting device (100). The opposing sides (10) and (11) are shown separately. An interior cavity is defined by the opposing sides (10, 11) when combined and this cavity extends through the bottom surface (32) of the substantially triangular portion (29). The blade (20) with a forward cutting edge (22) and a rear dull edge is received in said cavity wherein a portion of said cutting edge (22) extends outward from the bottom edge (32) of the substantially triangular portion (29) of the body (17) and into the said space so that this portion of the cutting edge remains exposed. FIG. 6 shows how the opposing sides (10) and (11) are coupled together. The first of the opposing sides (10) has holes (23), (24) and (25) to receive jointing screws (12), (13) and (14). Similarly, the second of the opposing sides (11) has corresponding holes (26), (27) and (28). The holes are made at similar locations in both parts of the opposing sides (10) and (11). The vertical fin (31) of the wedge member (19) also has a hole (28) through which jointing screw (13) is passed in order to hold it firmly in position. When the two opposing sides (10) and (11) are coupled, the knife blade (20) and the vertical fin (31) of the wedge member (19) are clamped between the first and second opposing sides (10) and (11). At the time of coupling, the screw (12) is tightened in the holes (24) and (27), screw (13) is tightened in the holes (25) and (28) and the screw (14) is tightened in the holes (23) and (26). When screws (12, 13) and (14) are tightened, the knife blade (20) is firmly clamped in a protruding position to the underside (32) of the opposing sides (10) and (11).
See also Figures 1-10, and especially Figure 6, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image4.png
546
848
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized further comprising grooves along the vertical plane or slanting line for the engagement of the carpet cutting blade within a blade holder by using a plurality of screws as taught by Peppett in order to facilitate cutting of a lamina material within an acute radius.
As to claim 4, Hishida discloses using a screw for releasing the blade elements from the shielding and handle elements. See the translation, disclosing “In this assembled state, the bolt 9a is inserted into the bolt insertion holes 5c, 2b, 5c so that the one shielding member 5, the upper end of the upright blade 2 and the other shielding member 5 are sequentially communicated, and then the bolt 9a Both the shielding members 5 and 5 are connected and fixed to the upper end portion of the upright blade 2 by screwing and tightening the nut 9b.”
Hishida does not disclose the full limitation of wherein the posterior raised portion includes a screw on the top for releasing an engagement means.
Additionally, making parts integral or separable is obvious. MPEP 2144.04. Additionally, rearrangement of parts is obvious. MPEP 2144.04. Changes in size and shape is obvious. MPEP 2144.04. In this case, modifying the structural attachments and portions to utilize the full arrangement of wherein the posterior raised portion includes a screw on the top for releasing an engagement means would have an obvious making parts integral or separable and an obvious rearrangement of parts and change in size and shape. Such an integration, separation, rearrangement of the parts and changes in size and shape would still be able to perform the same functions as claimed and as disclosed in Hishida in the same manner to achieve the same results
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized the full arrangement of wherein the posterior raised portion includes a screw on the top for releasing an engagement means as an obvious making parts integral or separable and an obvious rearrangement of parts and an obvious change in size and shape that would still be able to perform the same functions as claimed and as disclosed in Hishida in the same manner to achieve the same results.
As to claim 5, Hishida does not disclose wherein the wheels are removable, facilitating easy replacement or maintenance.
However, making structures separable is often obvious. MPEP 2144.04 V C (In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.").).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized wherein the wheels are removable, facilitating easy replacement or maintenance, as an example of making structures separable, in order to facilitate easy replacement or maintenance.
As to claim 6, Hishida does not disclose wherein the main body having a flat portion includes a handle mounting panel for attaching a removable handle using screws.
Hishida does disclose that the handle portion is separable from the blade portion. See the translation, disclosing “As shown in FIG. 1, a pair of left and right shielding members 5, 5 extending in the front-rear direction on the left and right sides of the upright blade 2 are provided at the upper end of the upright blade 2, and the front portion of the upright blade 2 is a cutting blade 2 a of the upright blade 2. It is connected and fixed at two locations by bolts 9a and nuts 9b in a state of projecting straight forward from the lower end position Q of (see FIG. 5).” See later in the translation, disclosing “That is, the lower end of the push rod portion 8 is fixed in a fixed state by being fixed to the rear portions of the shielding plate portions 5a and 5a of the shielding members 5 and 5 by welding or the like. Then, as described above, the rear portions of the connecting plate portions 5b and 5b of the both shielding members 5 and 5 are connected and fixed to the upper end portion of the upright blade 2 by the bolts 9a and nuts 9a, so that the push rod portion 8 becomes the both shielding members. 5 and 5, the upper end portion of the upright blade 2 protrudes obliquely upward and is connected and fixed to the rear portion.”
Additionally, making structures separable is often obvious. MPEP 2144.04 V C (In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.").).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized wherein the main body having a flat portion includes a handle mounting panel for attaching a removable handle using screws as an example of making structures separable, in order to facilitate fixing or separation from the blade.
As to claim 9, Hishida does not disclose wherein the anterior raised portion of the main body includes a front cutting blade and a front attachment means with a pointed and slanted tip for puncturing the carpet during cutting.
However, Elliott discloses and makes obvious wherein the anterior raised portion of the main body includes a front cutting blade and a front attachment means with a pointed and slanted tip for puncturing the carpet during cutting. Paragraph 0001 discloses that “[0001] The invention relates to tools for removing material that has been nailed in place, such as asphalt shingles and roofing materials of all types, and flooring materials such as tile, carpet and wood strips. It is also useful in removing siding, panels, and moldings.”. Paragraph 0019 discloses that “However, if the material being lifted is at all flexible, such as an asphalt shingle, the tool will be operating in a space under the lifted material that is semi-conical.” See especially paragraph 0029, disclosing:
[0029] The curved outline has beneficial effects. Until the last nail in a shingle is reached, the shingle under which the leading edge is slipped will be held close to the roof by one or more nails on at least one side of the lifting head. When the lifting head grips a nail and raises the nail and the shingle together, the shingle will bend down on the side where there is another nail, and in the direction ahead of the tool. The shingle will tend to a semi-conical shape, curved with its highest point at the centre line of the lifting head. The curved front and sides of the lifting head are a better fit to the curving bottom surface of the lifted shingle than straight sides would be. If the leading edge were straight, the lifted shingle would have to lift equally across the width of the lifting head and then fall away at the sides. Such a design tends to encourage breaking of the shingle, which is less efficient because a smaller section is lifted and more broken sections of shingles remain to be dealt with individually. Straight sides and a straight leading edge would tend to cut into and break the shingles more than the curved sides and curved leading edge.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized wherein the anterior raised portion of the main body includes a front cutting blade and a front attachment means with a pointed and slanted tip for puncturing the carpet during cutting as taught by Elliott because the curved front and sides of the lifting head are a better fit to the curving bottom surface of the lifted shingle than straight sides would be.
As to claim 14, Hishida discloses a system for carpet removal, the system comprising:
a carpet cutting apparatus (Figures 1-5) including:
a main body having a flat portion (top of the cutting blade 3a), an anterior raised portion (front and top of shielding member 5 and cutting blade 3a) and a posterior raised portion (rear top of shielding member 5 and rear of cutting blade 3a);
an anterior raised portion with a front (visible in figure 5) providing means to attach a carpet cutting blade (blade 5) (See marked up Figure 8 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
192
352
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
a carpet strand guard (shielding members 5 and 5, with portions 5a and 5b) positioned on top of the carpet cutting blade, the carpet strand guard designed to retain carpet strands on the blade until cut (Hishida discloses that “the connecting plate portions 5b and 5b of the shielding members 5 and 5 are disposed so as to protrude forward from the lower end position Q of the cutting edge 2a of the upright blade 2”, and therefore connecting plate portions function as a carpet strand guard as claimed);
a handle (push bar portion 8) for guiding the cutting during carpet removal (see the translation, disclosing “Further, the push bar portion 8 also functions as a steering member that adjusts the traveling direction of the upright blade 2. That is, as shown in FIGS. 3 and 4, the operator 25 grasps the push bar portion 8 with both hands from the rear side of the standing blade 2, and the cutting blade 2 a of the standing blade 2 cuts the waterproof layer 21 when the standing blade 2 is pulled. The operator 25 can adjust the traveling direction of the upright blade 2 to a desired direction by operating the push bar portion 8 with the force of the arm so that the worker 25 proceeds along the planned line 16 (indicated by a two-dot chain line). It has been made”),
the handle attached to a handle mounting panel on a flat portion of the main body (see the translation, disclosing “the lower end of the push rod portion 8 is fixed in a fixed state by being fixed to the rear portions of the shielding plate portions 5a and 5a of the shielding members 5 and 5 by welding or the like”).
See Figures 1-2 below; see also Figure 3-5 below, focusing on elements 7, 7a, 7b and 11:
PNG
media_image2.png
298
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See also Figures 1-4 below.
PNG
media_image3.png
560
789
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hishida does not disclose the full limitation of a main body having a flat portion between an anterior raised portion and a posterior raised portion; the full limitation of an anterior raised portion with a conical pointed front providing means to attach a carpet cutting blade, or a pair of wheels attached to an axle or shaft at the posterior bottom end of the main body, enabling the rotation of the wheels and supporting the weight of the carpet cutting apparatus,
However, Elliott discloses and makes obvious the use of a conical pointed front for carpet cutting. Paragraph 0001 discloses that “[0001] The invention relates to tools for removing material that has been nailed in place, such as asphalt shingles and roofing materials of all types, and flooring materials such as tile, carpet and wood strips. It is also useful in removing siding, panels, and moldings.”. Paragraph 0019 discloses that “However, if the material being lifted is at all flexible, such as an asphalt shingle, the tool will be operating in a space under the lifted material that is semi-conical.” See especially paragraph 0029, disclosing:
[0029] The curved outline has beneficial effects. Until the last nail in a shingle is reached, the shingle under which the leading edge is slipped will be held close to the roof by one or more nails on at least one side of the lifting head. When the lifting head grips a nail and raises the nail and the shingle together, the shingle will bend down on the side where there is another nail, and in the direction ahead of the tool. The shingle will tend to a semi-conical shape, curved with its highest point at the centre line of the lifting head. The curved front and sides of the lifting head are a better fit to the curving bottom surface of the lifted shingle than straight sides would be. If the leading edge were straight, the lifted shingle would have to lift equally across the width of the lifting head and then fall away at the sides. Such a design tends to encourage breaking of the shingle, which is less efficient because a smaller section is lifted and more broken sections of shingles remain to be dealt with individually. Straight sides and a straight leading edge would tend to cut into and break the shingles more than the curved sides and curved leading edge.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized the full limitation of an anterior raised portion with a conical pointed front prov