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 .
Title of Invention Is Not Descriptive
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by an examiner’s amendment. See MPEP § 1302.04(a).
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 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones (USPN 10349576).
Regarding claim 1, Jones discloses a mower mountable to a travel machine body, comprising: a mower deck open downward; and at least one rotary cutter located inside the mower deck and configured to rotate about a vertical axis (Figure 6 shows the use of a riding lawnmower), and wherein the at least one rotary cutter is a string-like resin member (Figure 3A shows the cutting blades as string like members. Column 5 lines 50-55 discloses the use of string trimmer blades which are known in the art to be made from nylon or polymers which are resins).
Regarding claim 3, Jones discloses wherein: the at least one rotary cutter has a curved portion (Figure 3A, tube 385 of the rotary cutter is curved).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Becke (US 2009/0075724).
Regarding claim 1, Becke discloses a mower mountable to a travel machine body (Figure 1), comprising: a mower deck (64) open downward; and at least one rotary cutter located inside the mower deck and configured to rotate about a vertical axis, and wherein the at least one rotary cutter is a string-like resin member (¶0088 discloses that the one or more blade can be nylon rope which is a string-like resin member).
Regarding claim 2, Becke discloses the at least one rotary cutter comprises a plurality of rotary cutters spaced apart from each other inside the mower deck (Figure 5 shows a two blade deck), the mower deck comprises: a top plate covering an upper portion thereof; and a peripheral wall extending down along a peripheral edge of the top plate (Figure 5 shows a typical mower deck as claimed), and the peripheral wall includes a back peripheral wall located on a back side thereof and having a wavy shape extending along rotation loci of outer edges of the rotary cutters (Figure 5 shows that the rear of the deck is wavy to conform to the blades as is typical in riding mower decks).
Regarding claim 5, Becke discloses a work machine comprising: a travel machine body; a travel device (wheels); a mower mounted to the travel machine body, comprising: a mower deck (64) open downward; and at least one rotary cutter located inside the mower deck and configured to rotate about a vertical axis; a travel electric motor configured to drive the travel device; and a work electric motor configured to rotationally drive the at least one rotary cutter (¶0077 discloses the use of electric motors for the wheels and the blades), and wherein the at least one rotary cutter is a string-like resin member (¶0088 discloses that the one or more blade can be nylon rope which is a string-like resin member).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wadzinski (US 2025/0261586) in view of Nevels (US 2018/0199507).
Regarding claim 1, Wadzinski discloses a mower mountable to a travel machine body, comprising: a mower deck (200) open downward; and at least one rotary cutter (blades 204) located inside the mower deck (Figure 11) and configured to rotate about a vertical axis.
Wadzinski discloses typical cutting blades and is lacking the use of string-like resin blades.
Nevels teaches the replacement of normal cutting blades on all types of lawnmowers (¶0019) with rotary cutting blades formed as string-like resin members (Figure 1, ¶0020 discloses the use of any suitable known materials to include nylon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wadzinski to utilize the string-lie resin blades as taught by Nevels for the purpose of safer mowing over rough terrain.
Regarding claim 2, Wadzinski further discloses wherein: the at least one rotary cutter comprises a plurality of rotary cutters spaced apart from each other inside the mower deck (Figure 11 shows three blades ), the mower deck comprises: a top plate (212) covering an upper portion thereof; and a peripheral wall (214) extending down along a peripheral edge of the top plate, and the peripheral wall includes a back peripheral wall located on a back side thereof and having a wavy shape extending along rotation loci of outer edges of the rotary cutters (As shown in figure 11).
Regarding claim 3, the combination discloses wherein: the at least one rotary cutter has a curved portion (The blades of Nevels are round as shown in figure 1 with the cutting side of the bale being curved to form the round shape).
Regarding claim 4, the combination discloses wherein: the curved portion protrudes downstream in a rotation direction of the at least one rotary cutter (The cutting side of the blade of Nevels protrudes downstream ahead of the backside of the blade).
Regarding claim 5, Wadzinski discloses work machine (figure 1) comprising: a travel machine body (chasiss 102); a travel device (wheels 106); a mower mounted to the travel machine body, comprising: a mower deck (200) open downward; and at least one rotary cutter (blades 204) located inside the mower deck and configured to rotate about a vertical axis (Figure 11); a travel electric motor configured to drive the travel device; and a work electric motor configured to rotationally drive the at least one rotary cutter (¶0030).
Wadzinski discloses typical cutting blades and is lacking the use of string-like resin blades.
Nevels teaches the replacement of normal cutting blades on all types of lawnmowers (¶0019) with rotary cutting blades formed as string-like resin members (Figure 1, ¶0020 discloses the use of any suitable known materials to include nylon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wadzinski to utilize the string-lie resin blades as taught by Nevels for the purpose of safer mowing over rough terrain.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jones (USPN 4819416).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J BEHRENS whose telephone number is (303)297-4336. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-2pm MST.
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, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at (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 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.
/ADAM J BEHRENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671