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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 5, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Middleton (USP 4,597,203).
Regarding claim 1: Middleton discloses an implement capable of turf maintenance (as seen in figures 3-14) comprising:
a frame (as seen in figure 1, area of 16);
a hopper assembly (as seen in figure 4, area of 536) mounted to the frame (as seen in figures 4 and 5);
a debris loading duct (as seen in figure 4, at 20, 512 and 56) connected to the frame and in communication with the hopper assembly (as seen in figure 4, area of 530), the debris loading duct having a first portion of at least one releasable
connector connected thereto (as seen in figure 4, at 518 and 520; also, column 3, line 62 to column 4, line 11 );
a rotary tool housing (as seen in figures 3 and 4, at 400) having a rotary tool (as seen in figure 4, at 482) rotatably mounted thereto, the rotary tool housing having a second portion of the at least one releasable connector (as seen in figure 4, at 518 and 520; also, column 3, line 62 to column 4, line 11 ) connected thereto, the rotary tool housing being selectively detachable from the debris loading duct by releasing the first portion of the at least one releasable connector from the second portion of the at least one releasable connector (as seen in figure 3); and
a drive assembly (as seen in figure 4, at 484 and 486; also, column 3, lines 44-52) connectable to a power source (as seen in figure 1, at 14) and drivingly and releasably connected to the rotary tool.
Regarding claim 2: Middleton discloses the implement of claim 1. Further, Middleton discloses an embodiment employing a verticut rotor (as seen in figure 9, at 1004).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Middleton (USP 4,597,203) in view of Hickenbottom et al. (USP 8,955,188).
Regarding claim 3: Middleton discloses the implement of claim 1 substantially as discussed above but fails to show the releasable connector being a latch and catch of an over-center latch mechanism. However, Hickenbottom teaches that it is well known to employ various fastening means to connect allied members of a turf maintenance implement (as seen in figures 1-8) wherein one of those various fastening means is an over-center latch (column 4, lines 50-54). Therefore 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 device of Middleton with the teachings of Hickenbottom since it would be a simple substitution of one known element (the “J” bolt connector assembly of Middleton) for another (the over-center latch assembly of Hickenbottom) to obtain the predictable results of a latching/connecting means which would be self-contained, have fewer parts and be easier to assemble, absent any showing to the contrary.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Middleton (USP 4,597,203) in view of Pahl et al. (USP 7,716,773).
Regarding claim 4: Middleton discloses the implement of claim 1 substantially as discussed above. Further, Middleton discloses the rotary tool housing having rolling type devices (wheels) attached in spaced relation in front of the rotary tool housing (as seen in figures 3 and 4, at 419) but fails to show those rolling type devices being height adjustable rollers. However, Pahl teaches that it is well known to employ height adjustable rollers (as seen in figure 3, at 80; also, column 7, lines 17-34) in concert with a turf maintenance implement (as seen in figure 1, generally 2). Therefore 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 device of Middleton with the teachings of Pahl since it would be a simple substitution of one known element (the wheels of Middleton) for another (the height adjustable rollers of Pahl) to obtain the predictable results of a turf maintenance implement capable of height adjustment and therein allowing for greater operational use and effectiveness.
Claims 1-4, 8-12 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Job (USP 7,163,067) in view of Michel (USP 6,945,021).
Regarding claim 1: Job discloses the state of the art turf maintenance implement (as seen in figures 1-13) comprising:
a frame (as seen in figure 3, area of 54, 56);
a hopper assembly (as seen in figure 2, area of 19) mounted to the frame (as seen in figure 2, via unnumbered member above chains “8”);
a debris loading duct (as seen in figures 4 and 5, area of 14B) connected to the frame and in communication with the hopper assembly (as seen in figure 4, area denoted by arrows above reference numeral 64), and,
a rotary tool housing (as seen in figure 5, at 10) having a rotary tool (as seen in figure 4, area of 68, 72) rotatably mounted thereto.
Also, Job discloses a drive assembly (as seen in figure 2, at 27) connectable to a power source (as seen in figure 2, at 9) and drivingly and releasably connected to the rotary tool (as seen in figures 3 and 5, at 37) but fails to show the debris duct/rotary tool housing assembly being of two parts with releasable connections there between. However, Michel teaches that it is well known in the turf maintenance art to provide such housing/duct assemblies in two separate parts (as seen in figure 2, at 12 and 13). Further, Michel discloses wherein one of the parts of the two part assembly has a first portion of at least one releasable connector connected thereto and the other part has a second portion of the connector (as seen in annotated figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
227
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore 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 device of Job with the teachings of Michel since it would be simple matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable results of having a turf maintenance implement with tools which could be more easily exchanged to allow for greater operational range and effectiveness.
Regarding claim 2: Job as modified by Michel discloses the implement of claim 1. Further, Job discloses wherein the rotary tool is selected from a group consisting of: a rotary broom, a flail rotor, and a verticut rotor (page 3, paragraphs [0051] and [0055]).
Regarding claim 3: Job as modified by Michel discloses the implement of claim 1. Further, Michel discloses wherein the at least one releasable connector comprises a latch and the first portion is an over-center latch mechanism and the second portion is a catch engageable by the over-center latch mechanism (as seen in annotated figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
163
309
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4: Job as modified by Michel discloses the implement of claim 1. Further, Job discloses wherein at least one height adjustable roller is connected to the rotary tool housing in spaced relation in front of the rotary tool housing (as seen in figure 3, at 16).
Regarding claim 8: Job as modified by Michel discloses the implement of claim 1. Further, Job discloses wherein the rotary tool implement is configured to be towed behind a vehicle (as seen in figure 1, at 9), and the power source is a power take-off connected to the vehicle (as seen in figure 1, area of 28).
Regarding claims 9 and 12: Job discloses the state of the art turf maintenance implement for removing and collecting landscape debris from the ground (as seen in figures 1-13) comprising:
a hopper assembly (as seen in figure 2, area of 19) pivotally connected to a frame (as seen in figure 2, via unnumbered member above chains “8”), the hopper assembly being configured to hold landscape debris therein (as seen in figure 11, at 150);
a debris loading duct (as seen in figures 4 and 5, area of 14B) in communication with the hopper assembly (as seen in figure 4, area denoted by arrows above reference numeral 64), and,
a rotary tool housing (as seen in figure 5, at 10) having a rotary tool (as seen in figure 4, area of 68, 72) rotatably mounted thereto and a flexible skirt extending downwardly along a perimeter thereof (as seen in figure 3, at 68A, 68B) wherein the duct and tool housing are height adjustable relative to the frame (as seen in figure 3, via rollers 16)
Also, Job discloses a drive assembly (as seen in figure 2, at 27) connectable to a power source (as seen in figure 2, at 9) and drivingly and releasably connected to the rotary tool (as seen in figures 3 and 5, at 37) but fails to show the debris duct/rotary tool housing assembly being of two parts with releasable connections there between. However, Michel teaches that it is well known in the turf maintenance art to provide such housing/duct assemblies in two separate parts (as seen in figure 2, at 12 and 13). Further, Michel discloses wherein one of the parts of the two part assembly has a first portion of at least one releasable connector connected thereto and the other part has a second portion of the connector (as seen in annotated figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
227
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore 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 device of Job with the teachings of Michel since it would be simple matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable results of having a turf maintenance implement with tools which could be more easily exchanged to allow for greater operational range and effectiveness.
Regarding claim 10: Job as modified by Michel discloses the implement of claim 9. Further, Michel discloses wherein the first portion is an over-center latch mechanism and the second portion is a catch engageable by the over-center latch mechanism (as seen in annotated figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
163
309
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11: Job as modified by Michel discloses the implement of claim 9. Further, the resultant device of Job as modified by Michel (when viewed from the opposing side) would comprise the at least one releasable connector having a first portion and a second portion of a first releasable connector disposed on a left-hand side of the debris loading duct and a left-hand side of the rotary tool housing and a first portion and a second portion of a second releasable connector disposed on a right-hand side of the debris loading duct and a right-hand side of the rotary tool housing (as seen in annotated figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
227
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16: Job as modified by Michel discloses the implement of claim 9. Further, Job discloses wherein the rotary tool implement is configured to be towed behind a vehicle (as seen in figure 1, at 9), and the power source is a power take-off connected to the vehicle (as seen in figure 1, area of 28).
Regarding method claim 17: In view of the structure disclosed by Job as modified by Michel, the method of operating the device would be obvious since it is the normal and logical means by which the device could be employed.
Regarding method claims 18 and 19: The difference between the claim and the resultant device of Job as modified by Michel is the claim recites a secondary rotary tool housing having a secondary tool. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add additional tool housing assemblies, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skilled the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 13-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose of fairly suggest in combination with other claimed features/limitations a turf maintenance implement wherein the rotary tool housing further includes a plurality of primary mounting brackets disposed along a front wall of the rotary tool housing, a left-side secondary mounting bracket disposed along a left-hand side of the rotary tool housing and a right-side secondary mounting bracket disposed along a right-hand side of the rotary tool housing, each of the primary and secondary mounting brackets configured to hold a roller assembly including a roller.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dayton et al. (USPGPub 2008/0105445) discloses a modular landscaping device having several interchangeable tools.
Herlitzius et al. (USPGPub 2024/0032450) discloses a modular tool system for a ground working device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT ERIC PEZZUTO whose telephone number is (703)756-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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.
/ROBERT E PEZZUTO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671