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 "the aerator" in line 2 (instead of "the hollow tine aerator" as recited elsewhere throughout the claims). Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 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.
The claims are replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device.
Claim 1 recites "a bevel tip" in line 4. However, claim 1 previously recites "a bevel tip" in line 3. It is unclear if these are the same bevel tip or if another bevel tip is being introduced. Thus, the metes and bounds of "a bevel tip" in claim 1 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. Additionally, claims 2-6 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 is being further examined as though it reads:
"A hollow tine aerator comprising:
a handle for pushing the hollow tine aerator through the ground; and
a plurality of tines, each respective tine of the plurality of tines having a bevel tip and a bevel ejection system."
The above reading includes "each respective tine of the plurality of tines" in order to provide proper antecedent bases for limitations in the dependent claims.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the bevel ejection system" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since each of the plurality of tines has a bevel ejection system.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the tine" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the soil core" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the open face" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 is being further examined as though it reads:
"The hollow tine aerator of claim 1, wherein each bevel ejection system comprises an angled base on top of the respective tine that guides a soil core upwards and exits through an open face of the respective tine."
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the bevel ejection system portion" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the tines" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "base" in line 3. It is unclear if "base" is being introduced as part of the claimed device (i.e., of the hollow tine aerator), is structure used with the claimed device in an intended use, or is attempting to refer to "an angled base" in claim 2. Examiner notes that "base" in claim 3 cannot logically be referring to "an angled base" in claim 2 because "an angled base" in claim 2 is (part) of the tine(s) (as claim 2 recites "the bevel ejection system comprises an angled base" and as claim 1 recites "a plurality of tines, each having a ... bevel ejection system;") so there cannot be mounting of the tines to such base (since such base itself is part of the tines). Thus, the metes and bounds of the limitation "base" in claim 3 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 hollow tine aerator of claim 2, each bevel ejection system further comprising:
a screw hole for receiving a hardware to mount the respective tine to a base of the hollow tine aerator."
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the bevel tip design" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the tine's shaft" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 is being further examined as though it reads:
"The hollow tine aerator of claim 1, wherein each bevel tip has an inclined cutting edge that gradually transitions into a shaft of the respective tine."
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the bevel tip design" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the ... bevel ejection system" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since each of the plurality of tines has a bevel ejection system.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the hollow tine design" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 is being further examined as though it reads:
"The hollow tine aerator of claim 1, wherein each bevel tip and bevel ejection system are integrated into the respective tine, and wherein each respective tine of the plurality of tines is hollow."
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the bevel tip design" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the ... bevel ejection system" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since each of the plurality of tines has a bevel ejection system.
The term "significantly" in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "significantly" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, the degree to which "aeration efficiency" is enhanced has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the aeration process" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 is being further examined as though it reads:
"The hollow tine aerator of claim 5, wherein each respective bevel tip and bevel ejection system enhances aeration efficiency, reducing operator fatigue and streamlining aeration."
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ceretti et al. (US 3,011,563)
Regarding claim 1, Ceretti discloses a hollow tine aerator comprising:
a handle (20) for pushing the hollow tine aerator through the ground; and
a plurality of tines (25), each respective tine of the plurality of tines having a bevel tip (including 41) and bevel ejection system (including 39).
Regarding claim 2, Ceretti discloses each bevel ejection system comprising an angled base (including 39) on top of the respective tine that guides a soil core (such as 40) upwards and exits through an open face (37) of the respective tine (see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 3, Ceretti discloses each bevel ejection system further comprising a screw hole (34) for receiving a hardware (such as 33) to mount the respective tine to a base (including 27) of the hollow tine aerator.
Regarding claim 4, Ceretti discloses each bevel tip (including 41) having an inclined cutting edge that gradually transitions into a shaft of the respective tine (see Figs. 3, 4, and 8, wherein the inclined edges extending vertically from 41 gradually transition into vertical edges of 25; also, see Fig. 9, wherein the inclined edges extending vertically from 41 cut into the ground).
Regarding claim 5, Ceretti discloses each bevel tip (including 41) and bevel ejection system (including 39) being integrated into the respective tine (39 and 41 integrated into each 25; see Figs. 1-4), and wherein each respective tine (25) of the plurality of tines is hollow (see col. 3, lines 18-28).
Regarding claim 6, Ceretti discloses each respective bevel tip (including 41) and bevel ejection system (including 39) enhancing aeration efficiency, reducing operator fatigue, and streamlining aeration (see col. 1, lines 36-59).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Leeberg (US 1,982,749), Fry (US 2,057,142), and Leeberg (US 2,140,266) each disclose a hollow tine aerator comprising a handle and a plurality of tines as claimed. Laslo (US D309,242), Oliver (US 5,680,903), Roth (US 5,709,273), Ding (US 2023/0144401), Feng (US D1,012,640), and Luo (US D1,013,467) teach hollow tine aerators having slanted tine edges as shown by Applicant.
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/1/20/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671