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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 5, “gather” should be changed to –gatherer—. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 19 depends from cancelled claim 2. For purposes of examination, claim 19 is taken to depend from claim 1, into which claim 2 has been incorporated by applicant’s amendment. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawing amendment of Fig. 1 submitted 02/19/2026 has mislabeled what appears to be the power head with reference numeral “84”. Reference numeral “84” is used in the specification to refer to the “two upright plates” of angle guide “82”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: power head 94. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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 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 15-16, 18 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 15 sets forth “a drive motor” in line 1 (see also line 2 of claim 16). However, it is unclear how this drive motor is related to the “power head” already set forth in independent claim 14, lines 1-2, from which claims 15-16 depend. In light of the disclosure, it appears these are one and the same and will be interpreted this way. However, correction is required.
Claim 18, line 2, sets forth “a drive motor”. However, it is unclear how this drive motor is related to the “power head” already set forth in line 2. In light of the disclosure, it appears these are one and the same and will be interpreted this way. However, correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li CN 105493729 A in view of Pinomaki 3,889,729 and Park KR 950008288 Y1.
Independent Claim 1: Li discloses a device adapted for gathering and cutting vegetation, comprising:
a support (1, 3);
a vegetation cutter (4) carried on the support;
a vegetation gatherer (5) carried on the support and adapted to (a) gather vegetation and (b) direct the gathered vegetation into the vegetation cutter for cutting, the vegetation gatherer including a first arm (say, the top arm of 5) and a second arm (the other, bottom arm of 5) defining a feed channel having an inlet end (at the outer ends of the arms) and a cutter end (at the inner ends of the arms) adjacent the vegetation cutter; and
Wherein (a) a cutter housing (7) is carried on the support about at least a portion of the vegetation cutter (seen in Fig. 2), as per claim 1.
However, Li fails to disclose an angle guide carried on the cutter housing and adapted for adjusting the included angle between the first arm and the second arm wherein (b) a first pivot pin pivotally connects a proximal end of the first arm to the cutter housing, (c) a second pivot pin pivotally connects a proximal end of the second arm to the cutter housing, and (d) the angle guide includes a first arcuate slot formed in a wall of the cutter housing, a second arcuate slot formed in the wall of the cutter housing, a first fastener releasably connecting the first arm to the cutter housing at the first arcuate slot, and a second fastener releasably connecting the second arm to the cutter housing at the second arcuate slot, as per claim 1.
Pinomaki discloses a similar device comprising an angle guide (the inner surfaces of 26, see Fig. 3) carried on the cutter housing (26) and adapted for adjusting the included angle between the first arm (21) and the second arm (21a) wherein (b) a first pivot pin (27, Fig. 4) pivotally connects a proximal end of the first arm (the inner end of arm 21) to the cutter housing (26), (c) a second pivot pin (27) pivotally connecting a proximal end of the second arm (the inner end of arm 21a) to the cutter housing, as per claim 1.
Park discloses a similar device wherein (d) the angle guide includes a first arcuate slot (11) formed in a wall of the housing, a second arcuate slot (11’) formed in the wall of the cutter housing, a first fastener (5) releasably connecting to the housing at the first arcuate slot, and a second fastener (5’) releasably connecting the housing at the second arcuate slot, as per claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pivot pins of Pinomaki for the arms of Li in order to allow the device to accommodate different sizes and amounts of vegetation for cutting.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the mechanical, manual angular adjusting means of Park for the angular adjustment of the arms of Li and Pinomaki in order to provide a fixed angular adjustment of the arms for accommodation of varying sizes and amounts of agriculture.
Dependent Claims 3-4, 17, 19: Li further discloses wherein the vegetation gatherer (5) includes a first arm (say, the top arm of 5) and a second arm (the other, bottom arm of 5) defining a feed channel having an inlet end (at the outer ends of the arms) and a cutter end (at the inner ends of the arms) adjacent the vegetation cutter (4), as per claim 2;
wherein the feed channel converges from the inlet end to the cutter end (as seen in the figures, the feed channel converges from the inlet end at the outer ends of arms 5 toward the cutter end at cutter 4), as per claim 3;
wherein the first arm (upper arm 5) and the second arm (lower arm 5) define an included angle of between about 5 and about 80 degrees (as seen in the figures), as per claim 4;
wherein the vegetation cutter (4) includes a rotary blade (also 4) partially enclosed by a cutter housing (7), as per claim 17.
However, Li fails to disclose wherein the first arm and the second arm are adapted for angular adjustment, as per claim 19.
Pinomaki discloses a similar device wherein the first arm (21) and the second arm (21a) are adapted for angular adjustment (via cylinder 22), as per claim 19.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pivot pins of Pinomaki for the arms of Li in order to allow the device to accommodate different sizes and amounts of vegetation for cutting.
Claim(s) 8, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Pinomaki and Park as applied to claims 1, 17 and 19 above, and further in view of Blanc FR 2563689 A.
Dependent Claim 8: The device is disclosed as applied above. However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the first arm and the second arm are length adjustable, as per claim 8.
Blanc discloses a similar device wherein the arm (31) is length adjustable (at 30), as per claim 8.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the adjustability of Blanc on the arms of Li, Pinomaki and Park in order to provide arm adjustment of the orientation and projection according to conditions of use and characteristics of the vegetation to be cut.
Dependent Claims 18, 20: The device is disclosed as applied above. Li further discloses wherein the vegetation cutter (4) further includes a power head (2) adapted for driving the rotary blade (also 4) and wherein a drive motor (also 2) is carried on an end of an extension arm (3) opposite the rotary blade (as seen in the figures), as per claim 18.
However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the extension arm is a telescoping extension arm, as per claim 18;
wherein the first arm and the second arm are adapted for length adjustment, as per claim 20.
Blanc discloses a similar device wherein the arm (31) is a telescoping arm adapted for length adjustment (at 30), as per claims 18, 20.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the adjustability of Blanc on the arms of Li, Pinomaki and Park in order to provide arm adjustment of the orientation and projection according to conditions of use and characteristics of the vegetation to be cut.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Pinomaki, Park and Blanc as applied to claim8 above, and further in view of Stapley et al. 5,713,193.
Dependent Claims 9-10: The device is disclosed as applied above. However, the combination fails to disclose wherein (a) a first plurality of length adjustment apertures are provided in the first arm and (b) a second plurality of length adjustment apertures are provided in the second arm, as per claim 9;
including (a) a cutter housing carried on the support about at least a portion of the vegetation cutter, said cutter housing including a first locking pin receiver and a second locking pin receiver, (b) a first locking pin received through one of the first plurality of length adjustment apertures in the first arm and the first locking pin receiver and (c) a second locking pin received through one of the second plurality of length adjustment apertures in the second arm and the second locking pin receiver, as per claim 10.
Stapley discloses a similar device wherein a plurality of length adjustment apertures (30) are provided in the arm (12), as per claim 9.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the length adjustment apertures of Stapley for the adjustment device of the arms of Li, Pinomaki, Park and Blanc since the references disclose length adjustment means for the arms of agricultural devices and such a predictable result would be achieved.
In the resultant combination it can be seen that one of ordinary skill would provide Li’s cutter housing (4) which is carried on the support (1) about at least a portion of the vegetation cutter (4) would include a first locking pin receiver (30 of 12) and a second locking pin receiver (30 of 12), (b) a first locking pin (32) received through one of the first plurality of length adjustment apertures (30 of 18) in the first arm (18) and the first locking pin receiver and (c) a second locking pin (another 32) received through one of the second plurality of length adjustment apertures (30 of 18) in the second arm (18) and the second locking pin receiver, as per claim 10.
Claim(s) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Pinomaki and Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bloodworth 6,986,238.
Dependent Claims 11-16: The device is disclosed as applied above. Li further discloses wherein the vegetation cutter (4) includes a rotary blade (also 4) partially enclosed by a cutter housing (7), as per claim 13;
wherein the vegetation cutter (4) further includes a power head (2) adapted for driving the rotary blade (also 4), as per claim 14;
wherein a drive motor (2) is carried on an end of an extension arm (3) opposite the rotary blade (4, as seen in the figures), as per claim 15;
wherein a flexible drive shaft (the “transmission shaft” through arm 3, not shown) extends through the extension arm between (3) the drive motor (2) and the rotary blade (4), as per claim 16.
However, Li fails to disclose wherein the support includes a base, a post carried on the base, a telescoping extension arm and an angle adjuster adapted to connect the telescoping extension arm to the post at a selected angle, as per claim 11;
wherein the angle adjuster further includes an angle guide including a plurality of pin receivers, an angle pin receiver in the telescoping extension arm and an angle pin received in one of the plurality of pin receivers and the angle pin receiver, as per claim 12;
wherein the extension arm is a telescoping extension arm, as per claim 15.
Bloodworth discloses a similar cutter device wherein the support includes a base (40), a post (44) carried on the base, a telescoping extension arm (32) and an angle adjuster (48, 49) adapted to connect the telescoping extension arm to the post at a selected angle, as per claim 11;
wherein the angle adjuster further includes an angle guide (the portion of 44 including holes 48) including a plurality of pin receivers (48), an angle pin receiver (the lower surface of 50) in the telescoping extension arm (32) and an angle pin (49) received in one of the plurality of pin receivers and the angle pin receiver, as per claim 12.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the angle adjuster of Bloodworth on the device of Li, Pinomaki and Park in order to provide pivoting and angular adjustment of the vegetation cutter for improved reach.
Regarding claim 15, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a telescoping extension arm since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant's argument that Park’s slots 11, 11’ are formed in mowing blades and not in any cutter housing, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, primary reference Li and secondary reference Pinomaki disclose all elements of the claimed invention except for the manual angular adjustment mechanism of Park. Park is used solely to show that arcuate slots in angle guides are old and known in the art. It is only these slots that is taken from Park. In the combination, Park’s adjustment mechanism would provide an operator with a light-duty, easy to operate, manual angular adjustment of the vegetation gatherer’s arms instead of the heavy-duty hydraulic adjustment mechanism of Pinomaki. The rejection is therefore maintained.
Conclusion
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 Alicia M. Torres whose telephone number is 571-272-6997. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-6997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph M. Rocca, can be reached at (571) 272-8971.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the group receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-3600. The fax number for this Group is 571-273-8300.
/Alicia Torres/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 March 7, 2026