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 it recites "for caring for care a turf" in line 1 (instead of "for caring for a turf" or "for care of a turf" or the like). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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. However, words used in the claims are defined in the specification as per MPEP § 2111.01(IV). In doing so, the specification recites:
"A 'cylindrical roller portion' is in particular understood to be a roller-shaped rolling element." (See Specification, para. 0039.)
"A 'piercing tool' is in particular understood to be a cylinder that narrows towards an outer end." (See Specification, para. 0044.)
"A 'punching tool' is in particular understood to be a hollow cylinder." (See Specification, para. 0046.)
"The 'cutting aperture' is understood to be an aperture of the punching tool which is guided into the turf for soil sampling or for removing alien growth and is disposed opposite the cylindrical rolling surface of a handheld turf care device according to the present invention and oriented orthogonally to the central axis." (See Specification, para. 0050.)
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 3 and 7 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 3 recites "the diameter of the punching tool is smaller than the diameter of the cylindrical roller portion by 20 mm to 22 mm." However, claim 2 (from which claim 3 depends) previously recites "the diameter of the punching tool is smaller than the diameter of the cylindrical roller portion by 8 mm to 10 mm." It is unclear how the diameter of the punching tool is smaller than the diameter of the cylindrical roller portion both by 8 mm to 10 mm and by 20 mm to 22 mm, as required by claim 3. Thus, the metes and bounds of the required difference in diameters cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 3 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. Claim 3 is being further examined as though it reads:
"The handheld turf care device as recited in claim 1, wherein,
the cylindrical roller portion has a diameter,
the punching tool has a diameter,
the diameter of the cylindrical roller portion is from 1 cm to 3 cm, and
the diameter of the punching tool is smaller than the diameter of the cylindrical roller portion by 20 mm to 22 mm."
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the solid cylinder" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since "a solid cylinder" set forth in claim 6 is not definitively required by claim 6 (as "at least one of" an alternative limitation can be met).
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the length of the cylindrical roller portion" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since the length set forth in claim 6 is not definitively required by claim 6 (as "at least one of" an alternative limitation can be met).
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.
Claims 1, 6-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langan (US 2012/0098282) in view of Killion (US 4,785,889).
Regarding claim 1, Langan discloses a handheld turf care device for caring for a turf on a golf course (as that disclosed includes a piercing tool, including 108 in Fig. 1a, which has use for caring for a turf on a golf course, as described by Applicant, e.g., see Specification, para. 0029), the handheld turf care device comprising:
a cylindrical roller portion (including or of 102) having a lateral surface capable of smoothing a section of the turf, the cylindrical roller portion being provided as a handrest (see para. 0034);
a piercing tool (including 108 in Fig. 1a) which is arranged at a first end of the cylindrical roller portion; and
a second tool (including 110) which is arranged at a second end of the cylindrical roller portion, the first end of the cylindrical roller portion being oriented opposite to the second end of the cylindrical roller portion (see Fig. 1a).
Although Langan discloses the second tool having various forms (see para. 0041), Langan does not explicitly disclose the second tool being a punching tool. However, Killion teaches a turf care device, comprising:
a cylindrical roller portion (including 11); and
a punching tool (including 15) which is arranged at an end (at 12 and/or 13) of the cylindrical roller portion.
Killion is analogous because Killion discloses a turf care device comprising a cylindrical roller portion and a punching tool. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with the punching tool as taught by Killion for turf coring. (See Killion, col. 1.)
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Langan discloses the cylindrical roller portion (including or of 102) being provided as a solid cylinder, and the solid cylinder of the cylindrical roller portion being a solid wood cylinder (see para. 0033).
Additionally regarding claims 6 and 7, neither Langan nor Killion explicitly discloses the cylindrical roller portion having a length of 15.7 cm. However, the value of the length of the cylindrical roller portion is a result-effective variable from which certain desired outcomes can be controlled. Such outcomes being weight and/or relative strength of the tool. Langan describes the diameter of a cylindrical roller portion being configured for weight and relative strength: "Bar 500 is preferably configured with a material, length, diameter, and number of recessed portions such that it preferably has a weight no greater than 2.5 lbs and a flexural strength (three point bending) of at least 42 psi." (See para. 0072.) One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the weight and strength of the tool are desirably controlled and optimized for use (i.e., for particular users and environments/situations). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed length based on routine optimization in order to achieve the desired weight and relative strength of the tool. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 1, Killion teaches the punching tool (including 15) being configured to punch out a section (core) of the turf (with 16).
Regarding claim 9, in view of the modification made in relation to claims 1 and 8, Killion teaches the punching tool (including 15) comprising a hollow cylinder (including 22) with a cutting aperture (at, within, and/or defined by 16) which is arranged opposite to the end (at 12 and/or 13) of the cylindrical roller portion (including 11), and the hollow cylinder with the cutting aperture being used to punch out the section (core) of the turf.
Regarding claim 10, in view of the modification made in relation to claims 1 and 8, Killion teaches the punching tool (including 15) being configured to release a punched-out turf section (in at least that the tool is re-usable).
Regarding claim 13, Langan and Killion disclose the handheld turf care device with respect to claim 1, as set forth above. Langan discloses a method for producing such a device, the method comprising:
providing the cylindrical roller portion (including or of 102), the piercing tool (including 108 in Fig. 1a), and the second tool (including 110; see Fig. 1a);
establishing a fixed connection between the piercing tool and the first end of the cylindrical roller portion (see para. 0039); and
establishing a fixed connection between the second tool and the second end of the cylindrical roller portion which is arranged opposite to the first end of the cylindrical roller portion (see para. 0041; see Fig. 1a).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langan in view of Killion as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moore (US 2,439,524).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Langan discloses the cylindrical roller portion having a diameter (see Fig. 1a; also, see para. 0072, wherein Langan discusses the diameter of 500). In view of the modification made in relation to claim 1, Killion teaches the punching tool (including 15) having a diameter (as 22 is tubular, such that a horizontal distance thereof in Fig. 1 or Fig. 2 is a diameter). Neither Langan nor Killion explicitly discloses the difference in diameters having particular lengths as claimed. However, the values of the diameter of the cylindrical roller portion and the diameter of the punching tool are result-effective variables from which certain desired outcomes can be controlled.
Such outcomes for the diameter of the cylindrical roller portion being weight and/or relative strength of the tool. Langan describes the diameter of a cylindrical roller portion being configured for weight and relative strength: "Bar 500 is preferably configured with a material, length, diameter, and number of recessed portions such that it preferably has a weight no greater than 2.5 lbs and a flexural strength (three point bending) of at least 42 psi." (See para. 0072.)
Such outcomes for the diameter of the punching tool being for engaging different sized plants. Moore describes a larger diameter for use with large weeds and a smaller diameter for use with small weeds: "The inserter 4 is shown somewhat larger in diameter than the inserter 5 and the reason for this is that for removing very large weeds or for transplanting, etc., a larger bored inserter is pre-ferred, for instance, an inserter wherein the bore is of a size in the neighborhood of one and a quarter inches or so, but when the tool is to be used on ordinary lawns for removing small weeds, the smaller bored inserter 5 may be used, the bore of which may be only a half to three-quarter inches in diameter." (See col. 3, lines 30-40.) Moore is analogous because Moore discloses a handheld turf care device comprising a cylindrical portion (including or of 1) and a punching tool (including 4 and/or 5).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the weight, strength, and plant engaging capability of the tool are desirably controlled and optimized for use (i.e., for particular users, environments/situations, and plants). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed ranges of difference in diameters based on routine optimization in order to achieve the desired weight and relative strength and desired cutting nature of the tool. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langan in view of Killion as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hall (US 2003/0159841).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Langan discloses the piercing tool (including 108) having a diameter (in at least that 106 has a diameter about the socket for receiving 104), a first end (at 106), and a second end (opposite 106) which is oriented opposite to the first end, and the piercing tool being configured to taper towards the second end (see Fig. 1a). Langan does not explicitly disclose the diameter of the piercing tool being from 0.25 cm to 1 cm (or from 0.25 cm to 0.7 cm). However, Hall teaches a handheld turf care device comprising a piercing tool (including 11) having a diameter, wherein the diameter of the piercing tool is one-fourth (1/4) of an inch (see para. 0031, wherein 0.25 in. equates to 0.635 cm). Additionally, Hall states: "Of course, numerous other dimensions and combinations of dimensions may be used for the present invention depending upon the conditions in which it is to be used and the preferences of the user." (See para. 0031.)
Hall is analogous because Hall discloses a handheld turf care device comprising a piercing tool. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with the diameter as taught by Hall in order to utilize readily available stock. Additionally, providing the above combination with the piercing tool diameter of Hall is a combination of prior art elements (i.e., the device of the above combination and the piercing tool diameter of Hall) according to known methods to yield predictable results (as taught by Hall). See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langan in view of Killion as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Johnson (US 2,194,597).
Regarding claim 11, neither Langan nor Killion explicitly discloses the punching tool comprising an elliptical aperture as claimed. However, Johnson teaches a handheld turf care device comprising a punching tool (4) including an elliptical aperture (14; see col. 1, lines 33-40), and the punching tool being configured to release a punched-out turf section at the elliptical aperture (also, see col. 2, lines 14-25).
Johnson is analogous because Johnson discloses a handheld turf care device comprising a punching tool. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with the apertured means as taught by Johnson so that the core of earth cut by the punching tool may readily pass outward. (See Johnson, col. 1, lines 33-40.)
Regarding claim 12, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 11, Johnson teaches the elliptical aperture (14) being arranged on a lateral surface of the punching tool (of 4; see Figs 1-3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Edwards et al. (US 7,033,288) discloses the handheld turf care device comprising a cylindrical roller portion (including or of 14), a tined tool (including 62) at a first end, and a punching tool (including 52) at a second end. Barry (US 828,452), Ceretti et al. (US 3,011,563), Indzeoski (US 3,522,965), and Wakefield (US 2001/0004019) each teach a handheld turf care device comprising a punching tool.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joel F. Mitchell whose telephone number is (571)272-7689. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:00.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at (571)272-0547. 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.
/JFM/7/11/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights