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 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 12, 25 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 term “about” in claim 12 and claim 25 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term 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. It is not clear how about two isolators could be provided, as isolators 76/78/79 appear to be provided in quantities that are integers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 20-22, 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thorsell (US 10130025 B2).
Regarding claim 20, Thorsell discloses a rotary cutter comprising:
a central deck (see fig. 1) having a rotary cutting element (22);
a central axle (62) rotatably mounted to the central deck; a
plurality of axle arms (32, see fig. 7) depending from the central axle;
a plurality of suspension bars (34, 38) pivotably mounted to respective ones of the plurality of axle arms;
a plurality of wheels (24) respectively mounted to the plurality of suspension bars;
a plurality of suspension components (41) respectively engaged with respective ones of the plurality of axle arms and the plurality of suspension bars such that each of the plurality of suspension components is configured to resist rotation of the respective suspension bar with respect to the respective axle arm; and
a central suspension assembly (not numbered, see the springs attached between 82 and 62) comprising a central suspension component (springs positioned between 82 and 62, not numbered, see fig. 1, 4-7) configured to resist rotation of the central axle (62) with respect to the central deck (see fig. 1-7).
Regarding claim 21, Thorsell discloses the rotary cutter of claim 20 further comprising a pair of side decks including a left-side deck and a right-side deck, each of the left-side deck and the right-side deck hingedly connected to the central deck (see fig. 1-3, 7).
Regarding claim 22, Thorsell discloses the rotary cutter of claim 20 wherein each of said plurality of suspension components is made of a first material of between about 25 Shore A hardness and about 60 Shore A hardness (col. 7 lines 6-11).
Regarding claim 24, Thorsell discloses the rotary cutter of claim 20 wherein the central suspension assembly comprises a suspension bank (multiple springs positioned between 82 and 62, not numbered, see fig. 1, 4-7).
Regarding claim 25, Thorsell discloses the rotary cutter of claim 24 wherein the suspension bank comprises between two to eight isolators (two positioned between 82 and 62, not numbered, see fig. 1, 4-7).
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorsell (US 10130025 B2) in view of Samet (US 10434833 B1).
Regarding claim 1, discloses a flex-wing rotary cutter (10) comprising:
a central deck (see fig. 1) connected to a central axle (62);
a first axle arm (32) depending from the central axle;
a first suspension assembly (fig. 7-8) pivotably connected to the first axle arm, the first suspension assembly comprising:
a first suspension bar (34, 38) connected to a first wheel (24); and
a first suspension component (41) flexibly engaged with the first suspension bar and the first axle arm, the first suspension component being configured to resist rotation of the first suspension bar with respect to the first axle arm;
a second axle arm (not numbered, see fig. 7) depending from the central axle;
a second suspension assembly (not numbered, see fig. 7, substantially the same as the first suspension assembly) pivotably connected to the second axle arm, the second suspension assembly comprising:
a second suspension bar (34, 38) connected to a second wheel (24); and
a second suspension component (41) flexibly engaged with the second suspension bar and the second axle arm, the second suspension component being configured to resist rotation of the second suspension bar with respect to the second axle arm;
a side deck (see fig. 1, the central deck has a side deck hingedly attached on each side) hingedly connected to the central deck and also connected to a side axle (fig. 7);
a third axle arm (not numbered, see fig. 7 wherein wheels are connected to the side decks by axle arms) depending from the side axle;
at least one cutting element (22) operably mounted to each of the central deck and the side deck; and
a central suspension (not numbered, see the springs attached between 82 and 62) assembly flexibly connected between the central axle and the central deck, the central suspension assembly comprising a fourth suspension component (springs positioned between 82 and 62, not numbered, see fig. 1, 4-7) configured to mitigate dynamic loads transmitted from the central axle (62) to the central deck (see fig. 1-7).
Thorsell does not disclose:
a third suspension assembly pivotably connected to the third axle arm, the third suspension assembly comprising:
a third suspension bar connected to a third wheel; and
a third suspension component flexibly engaged with the third suspension bar and the third axle arm, the third suspension component being configured to resist rotation of the third suspension bar with respect to the third axle arm.
In the same field of endeavor, Samet discloses first, second, and third suspension assemblies (fig. 2-3), wherein the third suspension assembly has a third suspension bar (100) connected to a third wheel (26) and a third suspension component (164) flexibly engaged with the third suspension bar and the third axle arm, the third suspension component being configured to resist rotation of the third suspension bar with respect to the third axle arm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Thorsell with a third suspension assembly substantially the same as first and second suspension assemblies, as disclosed by Samet, as a way of providing the side decks with suspension along with the central deck.
Regarding claim 2, Thorsell, of the resultant combination, discloses the flex-wing rotary cutter of claim 1 wherein each of the first suspension bar and the second suspension bar is mounted within a respective one of the first axle arm and the second axle arm so as to extend within about the full length of the respective one of the first axle arm and the second axle arm (see fig. 7-8).
Regarding claim 3, the resultant combination discloses the flex-wing rotary cutter of claim 2.
The combination does not disclose wherein each of the first suspension bar and the second suspension bar has a length of about 20 inches to about 30 inches.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the length of the suspension bars, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Thorsell, of the resultant combination, discloses the flex-wing rotary cutter of claim 1, wherein each of said first suspension component and said second suspension component is made of a first material having a Shore A hardness of between about 25 Shore A hardness and about 60 Shore A hardness (col. 7 lines 6-11).
Regarding claim 7, the resultant combination discloses the flex-wing rotary cutter of claim 4.
The combination does not disclose wherein said fourth suspension component is made of a second material of between about 50 Shore A hardness and about 100 Shore A hardness.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a material with a hardness between about 50 Shore A hardness and about 100 Shore A hardness for the fourth suspension component, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
Regarding claim 8, Thorsell, of the resultant combination, discloses the flex-wing rotary cutter of claim 1, wherein each of said first suspension component, said second suspension component, and said third suspension component is made of a first material of between about 25 Shore A hardness and about 60 Shore A hardness (col. 7 lines 6-11).
Regarding claim 9, the resultant combination discloses the flex-wing rotary cutter of claim 8.
The resultant combination does not disclose wherein said fourth suspension component is made of a second material of between about 50 Shore A hardness and about 100 Shore A hardness.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a material with a hardness between about 50 Shore A hardness and about 100 Shore A hardness for the fourth suspension component, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
Regarding claim 10, Thorsell, of the resultant combination, discloses the flex-wing rotary cutter of claim 1 wherein each of said first suspension component and said second suspension component comprises a rubber isolator (col. 7 lines 6-11).
Regarding claim 11, Thorsell, of the resultant combination, discloses the flex-wing rotary cutter of claim 1 wherein the central suspension assembly comprises a suspension bank (multiple springs positioned between 82 and 62, not numbered, see fig. 1, 4-7).
Regarding claim 12, Thorsell, of the resultant combination, discloses the flex-wing rotary cutter of claim 11 wherein the suspension bank comprises between two to eight isolators (two positioned between 82 and 62, not numbered, see fig. 1, 4-7).
Regarding claim 13, Thorsell, of the resultant combination, discloses the flex-wing rotary cutter of claim 1 wherein each of the first wheel and the second wheel are tandem wheels (col. 9 lines 24-33).
Regarding claim 14, Thorsell, of the resultant combination, discloses the flex-wing rotary cutter of claim 1 wherein each of the first suspension bar and the second suspension bar comprises a collar (36) configured for receiving a pivot pin (40).
Regarding claim 15, the resultant combination discloses the flex-wing rotary cutter of claim 14.
The combination does not disclose wherein said collar is fixed to the respective one of said first suspension bar and said second suspension bar via a weldment.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to attach the collar to the suspension bar via weldment, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by the resultant combination.
Regarding claim 16, Thorsell, of the resultant combination, discloses the flex-wing rotary cutter of claim 1 wherein each of the first suspension bar and the second suspension bar comprises a collar (36) configured for receiving a wheel hub assembly (see fig. 8).
Regarding claim 19, Thorsell, of the resultant combination, discloses the flex-wing rotary cutter of claim 1 wherein the side deck is a member of a pair of side decks including a right-side deck and a left-side deck (see fig. 1-3, 7).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorsell (US 10130025 B2).
Regarding claim 23, Thorsell discloses the rotary cutter of claim 22.
Thorsell does not disclose wherein the central suspension component is made of a second material of between about 50 Shore A hardness and about 100 Shore A hardness.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a material with a hardness between about 50 Shore A hardness and about 100 Shore A hardness for the fourth suspension component, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 17-18 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 3527032 A discloses a mower having multiple hinged side decks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADELINE RUNCO whose telephone number is (469)295-9123. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 M-F.
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 Rocca can be reached at 5712728971. 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.
/MADELINE I RUNCO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights