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 filed 11/12/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
References CN 301774059, CN 302020933, CN 302173162, CN 302833874, CN 304681927, and EM 000005483-0001 were not considered due to lack of a legible copy of these foreign patents. Further, when examiner did a separate search for the listed foreign patents, no patents exist under the given application numbers.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 9, 11, and 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 5 and 17, line 2 recites “the smallest tooth of each lobe is arranged adjacent to the largest tooth”, should read – a smallest tooth of each lobe is arranged adjacent to a largest tooth –.
Claim 9, line 2 recites “a tapered surface”, should read – the tapered surface – from previous mention of the tapered surface in dependent claim 8.
Claim 11, line 3 recites “segment are arranges in rows”, should read – segment are arranged in rows –.
Claim 16, line 6 recites “the second end of the lobe”, should read – a second end of the lobe –.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stark (US 9468143 B2).
Regarding claim 16, Stark teaches an edger blade [20] for an edger blade assembly (see assembly of [1] in Fig. 1), the blade comprising:
a body [21] having a top surface ([41], see Col. 3, lines 48-49), a bottom surface ([31], see Col. 3, lines 48-49), a central opening (see below) extending from the top surface to the bottom surface, the central opening configured to receive a coupling (receives the bottom of tube [2], coupling the blade to the rest of the edger assembly, see Col. 3, lines 23-27) of the edger assembly;
the blade comprising one or more lobes (see below; while only a few are shown in the annotated drawing, the lobes continue around the periphery of the blade) extending from the body, each lobe comprising a plurality of teeth [36] extending from a periphery (see Fig. 2);
wherein each lobe has a varying radius (the radius of the lobe varies because each tooth is inclined, see Fig. 3; therefore, the first end is further from the central opening than the second end) from a first end of the lobe (see below) to the second end of the lobe (see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
336
340
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark (US 9468143 B2) in view of Zhu (CN 211889252 U).
Regarding claim 1, Stark discloses an edger blade [20] for an edger blade assembly (see assembly of [1] in Fig. 1), the blade comprising:
a body [21] having a top surface ([41], see Col. 3, lines 48-49), a bottom surface ([31], see Col. 3, lines 48-49), a central opening (see below) extending from the top surface to the bottom surface, the central opening configured to receive a coupling (receives the bottom of tube [2], coupling the blade to the rest of the edger assembly, see Col. 3, lines 23-27) of the edger assembly;
the blade comprising one or more lobes (see below; while only a few are shown in the annotated drawing, the lobes continue around the periphery of the blade) extending from the body, each lobe comprising a plurality of teeth ([36]; two teeth within each lobe, see below) extending from a periphery (see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
335
340
media_image2.png
Greyscale
But Stark fails to disclose the blade further comprising a plurality of holes extending from the top surface to the bottom surface.
Zhu teaches similar a blade [10], the blade comprising a plurality of holes ([20], see paragraph [0002], lines 4-6) extending from the top surface (surface shown in Fig. 1) to the bottom surface (not shown but is the surface opposite the top surface).
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 holes of Zhu on the body of the edger blade of Stark in order to improve the stability during rotary sawing (see Zhu paragraph [0003], lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 2, Zhu, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the plurality of holes [20] are arranged radially (see Fig. 1, arranged around the radius of the blade) around the central opening (see above).
Regarding claim 3, Stark, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the plurality of teeth [36] of each lobe (see above) vary in size (see Fig. 3, each tooth is inclined from a larger side to a smaller side; therefore, each tooth varies in size).
Regarding claim 6, Stark, of the above resultant combination, further discloses a tapered surface (see Fig. 3 and Col. 2, lines 34-38) extending from the top surface [41] to the bottom surface [31] about a periphery (formed on each surface of the blade; therefore, tapers about the periphery, see Col. 2, lines 34-38) of the blade [20].
Regarding claim 7, Stark, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the tapered surface (see Fig. 3 and Col. 2, lines 34-38) extends about an entire periphery (formed on each surface of the blade; therefore, tapers about the entire periphery, see Col. 2, lines 34-38) of the blade [20].
Regarding claim 8, Stark, of the above resultant combination, further discloses comprising a tapered surface (see Fig. 3 and Col. 2, lines 34-38) extending from the top surface [41] to the bottom surface [31] extending around the entire periphery (formed on each surface of the blade; therefore, tapers about the entire periphery, see Col. 2, lines 34-38) of the blade, but fails to disclose the tapered surface surrounds at least one hole of the plurality of holes.
However, Zhu discloses the plurality of holes [20].
It can be seen then that when the holes of Zhu are applied to the edger blade of Stark that the tapered surface of Stark surrounds at least one hole of the plurality of holes due to the tapered surface being formed about the entire periphery of the blade as disclosed by Stark (see Col. 2, lines 34-38).
Regarding claim 9, Stark, of the above resultant combination, further discloses comprising a tapered surface (see Fig. 3 and Col. 2, lines 34-38) extending from the top surface [41] to the bottom surface [31] extending around the entire periphery (formed on each surface of the blade; therefore, tapers about the entire periphery, see Col. 2, lines 34-38) of the blade, but fails to disclose the tapered surface surrounds each hole of the plurality of holes.
However, Zhu discloses the plurality of holes [20].
It can be seen then that when the holes of Zhu are applied to the edger blade of Stark that the tapered surface of Stark surrounds each hole of the plurality of holes due to the tapered surface being formed about the entire periphery of the blade as disclosed by Stark (see Col. 2, lines 34-38).
Regarding claim 10, Zhu, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the plurality of holes [20] vary in size (see different sizes in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Stark, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein each lobe (see above) defines a segment (each lobe is a segment of the blade) of the blade [20] extending between the central opening (see above) and the periphery of the blade (see Fig. 2), wherein in each segment there are a plurality of teeth ([36]; two teeth within each segment).
But Stark fails to disclose the plurality of holes within each segment are arranged in rows, further wherein the number of the plurality of holes within each row of each segment equals the number of plurality of teeth within each respective segment.
However, Zhu discloses a similar edger blade [10] comprising of a plurality of lobes (see below) each defining a segment (each lobe is a segment of the blade), the plurality of holes [20] within each segment are arranges in rows (see below), further wherein the number of the plurality of holes within each row of each segment equals the number of plurality of teeth [13] within each respective segment (there are two holes within each row of each segment and two teeth within each segment; therefore, the holes and teeth are equal, see below).
PNG
media_image3.png
592
683
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It can be seen then that when the plurality of holes of Zhu is applied to the edger blade of Stark that the number of the plurality of holes within each row of each segment equals the number of plurality of teeth within each respective segment as disclosed by Zhu (see above).
Regarding claim 12, Zhu, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the plurality of holes [20] in each segment vary in size (see sizes of [20] in Fig. 1), wherein the plurality of holes within each segment are arranged smallest to largest (holes get larger closer to the periphery of the blade, see Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark (US 9468143 B2) and Zhu (CN 211889252 U) as applied to claims 1-3 and 6-12 above, and further in view of Jeong (KR 101885613 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Stark discloses the edger blade as applied above, but fails to disclose wherein the plurality of teeth of each lobe are arranged smallest to largest about the periphery of the blade.
Jeong discloses a similar edger blade [100] wherein the plurality of teeth [130] of each lobe (see below; while only a few are shown in the annotated drawing, the lobes continue around the periphery of the blade) are arranged smallest to largest (see Fig. 2b and para. [0025], lines 1-4) about the periphery of the blade.
PNG
media_image4.png
474
565
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the teeth of Stark with the teeth of Jeong since both are cutting edges capable of cutting through vegetation, yielding the same predictable result. As well as to extend the edger blade’s life as the smallest tooth of the plurality of teeth wears out last; therefore, allowing the blade to be used for a long time (see Jeong para. [0027], lines 1-6 and para. [0028], lines 1-3).
Examiner’s Note: Jeong’s blade discloses the teeth varying in size, but the specific arrangement of the teeth being from smallest to largest is dependent on which side (top or bottom) of the edger blade is coupled to the edger assembly (see Jeong para. [0022], lines 6-8); therefore, Jeong’s Fig. 2b discloses the plurality of teeth being arranged from smallest to largest.
Regarding claim 5, Jeong, of the above resultant combination, further discloses the one or more lobes comprising at least two lobes (see below), wherein the smallest tooth (see below) of each lobe is arranged adjacent to the largest tooth of an adjacent lobe (see below).
PNG
media_image5.png
474
565
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark (US 9468143 B2) in view of Adcock (US 5033259 A).
Regarding claim 13, Stark discloses an edger blade [20] for an edger blade assembly (see assembly of [1] in Fig. 1), the blade comprising:
a body [21] having a top surface ([41], see Col. 3, lines 48-49), a bottom surface ([31], see Col. 3, lines 48-49), a central opening (see below) extending from the top surface to the bottom surface, the central opening configured to receive a coupling (receives the bottom of tube [2], coupling the blade to the rest of the edger assembly, see Col. 3, lines 23-27) of the edger assembly
the blade comprising one or more lobes (see below; while only a few are shown in the annotated drawing, the lobes continue around the periphery of the blade) extending from the body, each lobe comprising a plurality of teeth ([36]; two teeth within each lobe, see below) extending from a periphery (see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
335
340
media_image2.png
Greyscale
But Stark fails to disclose the blade comprising a non-metallic material.
Adcock discloses a similar edger blade [10] comprising of a non-metallic material (see Col. 2, lines 55-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blade of Stark to be made out of the non-metallic material of Adcock in order for the blade to be lighter than a metal blade, allowing for the blade to remain balanced if a piece is broken off of the blade (see Adcock Col. 3, lines 14-18). Further, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the material of the blade of Stark to a non-metallic material, 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.
Regarding claim 14, Stark, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the body [21] and the one or more lobes (see above) are formed from a unitary piece of material (see Fig. 2; lobes are extensions on the body of the blade, therefore is a unitary piece of material).
Regarding claim 15, Adcock, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the non-metallic (see Col. 2, lines 55-59) material comprises a composite material (see Col. 1, lines 60-64).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark (US 9468143 B2) in view of Jeong (KR 101885613 B1).
Regarding claim 17, Stark discloses the edger blade as applied above, but fails to disclose the one or more lobes comprising at least two lobes, wherein the smallest tooth of each lobe is arranged adjacent to the largest tooth of an adjacent lobe.
Jeong discloses a similar edger blade [10] comprising of one or more lobes comprising at least two lobes (see below), wherein the smallest tooth (see below) of each lobe is arranged adjacent to the largest tooth of an adjacent lobe (see below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the teeth of Stark with the teeth of Jeong since both are cutting edges capable of cutting through vegetation, yielding the same predictable result. As well as to extend the edger blade’s life as the smallest tooth of the plurality of teeth wears out last; therefore, allowing the blade to be used for a long time (see Jeong para. [0027], lines 1-6 and para. [0028], lines 1-3).
Examiner’s Note: Jeong’s blade discloses the teeth varying in size, but the specific arrangement of the teeth being from smallest to largest is dependent on which side (top or bottom) of the edger blade is coupled to the edger assembly (see Jeong para. [0022], lines 6-8); therefore, Jeong’s Fig. 2b discloses the plurality of teeth being arranged from smallest to largest.
PNG
media_image5.png
474
565
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2913058 A) in view of Zhu (CN 211889252 U).
Regarding claim 18, Smith et al. discloses an edger blade assembly (see assembly of Fig. 7) comprising: a first blade (see below; each blade is [157]) and a second blade (see below; each blade is [157]), each blade comprising:
a body (body of [157], see Fig. 7) having a top surface (see below; top surface for second blade is not shown but is the opposite of the bottom surface), a bottom surface (see below; bottom surface of the first blade is not shown but is the opposite of the top surface), a central opening (see below) extending from the top surface to the bottom surface, the central opening configured to receive a coupling [161 and 163] of the edger assembly;
the blade comprising one or more lobes (see below; only two are shown in the annotated drawing, but the lobes continue around the entire periphery of both blades) extending from the body, each lobe comprising a plurality of teeth (see below) extending from a periphery (see Fig. 7);
wherein the bottom surface of the first blade and the bottom surface of the second blade face each other (see below).
PNG
media_image6.png
353
422
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
353
422
media_image7.png
Greyscale
But Smith et al. fails to disclose the blade further comprising a plurality of holes extending from the top surface to the bottom surface.
Zhu teaches similar a blade [10], the blade comprising a plurality of holes ([20], see paragraph [0002], lines 4-6) extending from the top surface (surface shown in Fig. 1) to the bottom surface (not shown but is the surface opposite the top surface).
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 holes of Zhu on the body of the edger blade of Smith et al. in order to improve the stability during rotary sawing (see Zhu paragraph [0003], lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 19, Smith et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the first blade (see above, blade [157]) is rotationally offset (see Fig. 7; teeth of the first blade are offset from the teeth of the second blade) from the second blade (see above, blade [157]).
Regarding claim 20, Smith et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the bottom surface (see above) of the first blade (see above, blade [157]) is planar and the bottom surface of the second blade (see above, blade [157]) is planar (both surfaces are flat surfaces, see Fig. 9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892 for the full list of references.
Reference US 1711102 discloses a similar edger blade (see Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of teeth [17 and 19] and holes [14].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNNY WEBB whose telephone number is (571)272-3830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 to 5:30 E.T..
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 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.
/SUNNY D WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671