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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: release mechanism 17. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because "The current invention is" is an implied phrase. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Angularly Adjustable Lawn Trimmer Attachment for Riding Lawn Mower
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 6, last paragraph line 1 “trimmer driver pully 70” should be –trimmer driver pulley 75--.
Page 6, last paragraph line 3 “A trimmer belt guide pully 77” should be –A belt guard 77-.
Page 7, last paragraph lines 1-2 “the drive shaft bar (61)” should be –the trimmer bar (61)— for consistent use of terminology throughout the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4, 8, 10, 14-16, and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Each of claims 2-4 and 18 which recites “pully” should be amended to --pulley—in order to provide the correct formal spelling for the claims.
Claim 3 lines 3-4 and claim 18 lines 6-7 “which turns a trimmer cable turning trimmer cable turning the trim string holder” should be --which turns a trimmer cable turning the trim string holder--.
Claim 4 lines 2-3 “a trimmer driver pully” should be –the trimmer driver pulley--. Note a trimmer driver pully is positively set forth in claim 3 line 3.
Claim 8 line 2-3 “a plurality of upper trimmer support brackets which connects to a plurality of trimmer support brackets” should be --a plurality of upper trimmer support brackets which connects to a plurality of lower trimmer support brackets--.
Claim 10 line 3 includes reference characters 61, 35, and 30 which must be deleted for consistent presentation of elements throughout the claims.
Claim 10 line 3 “of trim sting holder” should be –of the trim string holder--. It is noted that a trim string holder is positively set forth in claim 1 line 3.
Claims 14-15 are objected to because a claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim 15 recites “having a cutting assembly with” in line 1. The examiner believes this should read –having a coupling assembly with—as the elements following the limitation pertain to the coupling components of the trimmer belt guide pulley 70 (i.e. “coupler assembly” on page 8 first paragraph line 2), not any cutting means.
Claims 15-16 and 19-20 contain a semi-colon after “comprising” which should be corrected to a colon for accuracy and consistency with the rest of the claims.
Applicant is advised that should claim 13 be found allowable, claim 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being an exact duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 18 lines 7-8 “a trimmer cable” should be –the trimmer cable--. Note a trimmer cable is positively set forth in claim 18 line 6.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 lines 2-3 recite “a trimmer belt guide pully attached to the lawn mower securing the driver belt to a trimmer driver pully”. This limitation is not supported by the written description as trimmer belt guide pulley (70) is disposed at an end opposite trimmer driver pully (75), with driver belt (90) extending therebetween (see Fig. 11, and specification page 7, first paragraph). Thus, trimmer belt guide pully (70) does not secure driver belt (90) to trimmer driver pully (75). Rather, the examiner believes this portion of the claim was intended to read --a belt guard attached to the lawn mower securing the driver belt to the trimmer driver pulley— consistent with belt guard (77) depicted in Fig. 10 securing driver belt (90) to trimmer driver pulley (75), and has interpreted it as such for purposes of examination.
By virtue of their dependence on claim 4, this basis of rejection also applies to claims 15-16. Note claim 15 line 3 “the trimmer belt guide pulley” has been interpreted accordingly to read—a trimmer belt guide pulley—.
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 1-17 and 19 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 1 recites the limitation “the lawn mower" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
By virtue of their dependence on claim 1, this basis of rejection also applies to claims 2-17.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the sides of the trimmer safety guard" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13 and 17 recite the limitation "the angle adjuster" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 15 line 2 and claim 19 line 2 recite “a drive shaft bar”. It is unclear if Applicant means to introduce a separate element from “the trimmer bar” or if these are the same element as page 7, last paragraph lines 1-2 of the specification discloses “the drive shaft bar (61)” having the same reference character as trimmer bar 61. For purposes of examination, they have been interpreted as the same element as believed was intended by Applicant.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the trimmer belt guide pulley" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 12-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ould (WO 8800004 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ould discloses a Riding Lawn Mower Lawn Trimmer (110) (note the preamble merely states the intended use of the invention, trimmer 110 is capable of use with a riding lawn mower and therefore meets the claim) comprising:
a trimmer bar (13 + 200) with a Trimmer Safety Guard (209),
an extender (150) that extends out from the trimmer bar with an adjustable angle bar (206) that controls the angle of a trim string holder (111) (page 4 lines 28-35), and
trim string (119),
where the trimmer bar is attached to a support (10) and a support hinge (199) that is connected to the lawn mower (Fig. 1, col. 3 lines 30-32) and having a drive system (20).
Regarding claim 2, Ould discloses the Riding Lawn Mower Lawn Trimmer according to claim 1 further comprising: where the drive system (20) is a pully system (“pulley assembly 20”).
Regarding claim 6, Ould discloses the Riding Lawn Mower Lawn Trimmer according to claim 1 further comprising: having a trimmer cross guard support (250) the connects to sides of the trimmer safety guard (209) (Fig. 1, V-shaped blade 250 meets the BRI of “a trimmer cross guard support” as it connects across front and rear sides of trimmer guard 209).
Regarding claim 7, Ould discloses the Riding Lawn Mower Lawn Trimmer according to claim 1 further comprising: having a cross bracket (205) attached to the trimmer bar (attached to boom 200 of trimmer bar assembly, see Figs. 2-3, page 5 lines 18-19).
Regarding claim 12, Ould discloses the Riding Lawn Mower Lawn Trimmer according to claim 1 further comprising: where the support hinge (199) connects a deck of the lawn mower (Fig. 1, col. 3 lines 30-32 vertical hinge 199 connects to support plate 10 on upper surface of mower deck).
Regarding claims 13 and 17, Ould discloses the Riding Lawn Mower Lawn Trimmer according to claim 1 further comprising: where an angle adjuster is a nut and bolt system (214 + 215) which fits into an open angled area (216) in the angle bar (206) (page 4 line 28 – page 5 line 10).
Regarding claim 14, Ould discloses the Riding Lawn Mower Lawn Trimmer according to claim 7 further comprising: where the angle bar (206) has a top (upper portions 211,212) that is connected to the cross bracket (205) (Fig. 1, page 4 lines 21-24).
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.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ould (WO 8800004 A1), hereinafter Ould ‘004, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ould (US 4715169 A), hereinafter Ould ‘169.
Regarding claim 5, Ould ‘004 discloses the Riding Lawn Mower Lawn Trimmer according to claim 1 further comprising: having the extender (150) attached to the trim string holder (111) (Fig. 1), but does not explicitly disclose details of the extender being hollow and having a trimmer cable therein.
However, Ould ‘004 at page 4 lines 8-11 states that details of the flexible drive (150) are disclosed in an earlier patent specification, the US equivalent of which is Ould ‘169, which teaches that flexible spindle drive 150 “is supported within an outer cable having…its interior coated with a grease to reduce friction and wear of the spindle drive” (Ould ‘169 at col. 4 lines 27-35).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the flexible extender of Ould ‘004 as a hollow outer cable with the flexible spindle drive cable supported therein, as disclosed by Ould ‘169, in order to smoothly transmit rotation of the pulley assembly to the trimmer means and yield predictable results.
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ould ‘004 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ould ‘169 and Bird (US 5167108 A).
Regarding claim 3, Ould ‘004 discloses the Riding Lawn Mower Lawn Trimmer according to claim 2 further comprising: where the drive system has a driver belt (41) attached to a trimmer driver pulley (42) which turns the extender (150) turning the trim string holder (111) (page 3 line 33 – page 4 line 1).
Ould ‘004 does not explicitly disclose details of the extender (150) including a trimmer cable therein.
However, Ould ‘004 at page 4 lines 8-11 states that details of the flexible drive (150) are disclosed in an earlier patent specification, the US equivalent of which is Ould ‘169, which teaches that the extender (150) comprises an outer cable supporting an inner flexible drive shaft therein (as addressed in reg. claim 5 above).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the flexible extender of Ould ‘004 as a hollow outer cable with the flexible spindle drive cable supported therein, as disclosed by Ould ‘169, in order to smoothly transmit rotation of the pulley assembly to the trimmer means and yield predictable results.
Ould further teaches wherein the trimmer driver pulley (42) is connected to a motor of the lawn mower, but fails to disclose via a lawn mower pulley and a lawn mower drive belt.
However, such a drive arrangement is old and well-known. In the same area of trimmer attachments, Bird discloses a similar pulley system for driving the trimmer of a riding mower, wherein the pulley system comprises a driver belt (32) attached to a lawn mower pulley (68) that turns a lawn mower drive belt (66) turning a trimmer driver pulley (34) for rotating trimmer shaft (47) (Fig. 2, col. 3 lines 42-45 and col. 4 lines 7-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to connect the trimmer driver pulley and lawnmower motor of Ould via a lawn mower pulley and lawn mower drive belt arrangement, as taught by Bird, since this is a mere simple substitution of one connection for transmitting rotation from the lawn mower motor to the driver pulley for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding independent claim 18, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1, 3, and 5 above; therefore, claim 18 is also rejected over the same rationale as the previous claims.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ould as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Barber (US 3304700 A).
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Ould discloses the Riding Lawn Mower Lawn Trimmer according to claim 3, but fails to disclose a belt guard attached to the lawn mower for securing the driver belt (41) to the trimmer driver pully (42).
Barber in a similar field discloses a trimmer drive assembly comprising a belt guard (12) attached to a lawn mower for securing belt (23) to pulley (10) (Fig. 4, col. 2 lines 11-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a similar belt guard for the driver belt of Ould’ 004, as taught by Barber, in order to prevent the drive belt from jumping off (e.g. when belt is slack or belt tension is being varied) (Barber at col. 2 lines 11-13).
Claims 15-16 and 19-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ould as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Pendleton (US 11497167 B2).
Regarding claim 15, The combination of Ould discloses the Riding Lawn Mower Lawn Trimmer according to claim 4.
Ould ‘004 further teaches a trimmer belt guide pulley (20), but does not explicitly disclose details of a coupling assembly for the trimmer belt guide pulley comprising an upper driveshaft bolt that screws into the trimmer bar that inserts into the trimmer belt guide pulley and a drive shaft coupler.
In the same field of endeavor, Pendleton discloses a similar trimmer (50, Fig. 4) comprising a coupling assembly (Figs. 5-6) for connecting a driven pulley (126) to a flexible drive shaft (44 + 45), the coupling arrangement having an upper driveshaft bolt (130) that screws into a trimmer support element (Fig. 7) and inserts into the driven pulley (126) and a drive shaft coupler (42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the coupling arrangement of the driven trimmer belt guide pulley of Ould ‘004 to utilize an upper driveshaft bolt and driveshaft coupler, as taught by Pendleton, in order to provide a smooth transfer of power from the pulley system to the flexible cable for driving the trimmer (Pendleton at col. 7 lines 19-32).
Regarding claim 16, The combination of Ould discloses the Riding Lawn Mower Lawn Trimmer according to claim 15.
Pendleton further teaches wherein the trimmer belt guide pulley (126) turns the drive shaft coupler (42) that holds the trimmer cable (45) inside the extender (44) (Pendleton col. 7 lines 25-32).
Regarding claim 19, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 15 above, therefore, claim 19 is also rejected over the same rationale as the previous claim.
Regarding claim 20, The combination of Ould discloses the Riding Lawn Mower Lawn Trimmer according to claim 18, but fails to disclose the trimmer being a kit.
In the same field of endeavor, Pendleton discloses a similar trimmer (50, Fig. 4), wherein components of the trimmer and drive system for extracting auxiliary power from the mower are provided in a kit (Abstract line 1 and col. 14 line 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the components of the trimmer attachment in a kit, as taught by Pendleton, in order to facilitate installation of the trimmer on a variety of existing implements (Pendleton col. 4 lines 18-21).
Claims 1 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castelli et al. (US 9510506 B2) in view of Bird (US 5167108 A).
Regarding claim 1, Castelli discloses a Riding Lawn Mower Lawn Trimmer comprising:
a trimmer bar (20),
an extender (44) that extends out from the trimmer bar (col. 5 lines 8-9) with an adjustable angle bar (40) that controls the angle of a trim string holder (14) (col. 4 lines 53-56 changes angle of trimmer 14 relative to mower),
trim string (Fig. 1),
where the trimmer bar is attached to a support and a support hinge (22) that is connected to the lawn mower (16) and having a drive system (50,52,54).
Castelli fails to disclose a trimmer safety guard.
Bird discloses a similar lawn mower trimmer attachment comprising trimmer safety guard (46) (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a trimmer safety guard for the trimmer of Castelli, as taught by Bird, in order to prevent accidental contact with the cutting string and/or injury from airborne debris.
Regarding claim 8, Castelli in view of Bird discloses the Riding Lawn Mower Lawn Trimmer according to claim 1. Castelli further discloses having the trimmer bar connected to a plurality of upper trimmer support brackets (24,30) which connects to a plurality of lower trimmer support brackets (28,32) (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Castelli in view of Bird discloses the Riding Lawn Mower Lawn Trimmer according to claim 8. Castelli further teaches having bracket height adjusters (34,36).
Regarding claim 10, Castelli in view of Bird discloses the Riding Lawn Mower Lawn Trimmer according to claim 9. Castelli further teaches having the bracket height adjusters consist of a screw (36) and a slot (34) allowing the user to adjust the height of the trimmer bar and therefore the height of the trim string holder holding the trim string allowing the user to control the height of the trim (col. 1 lines 36-40).
Regarding claim 11, Castelli in view of Bird discloses the Riding Lawn Mower Lawn Trimmer according to claim 8. Castelli further teaches where the lower trimmer support brackets (28,32) are connected to the mower by the support hinge (22) (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Castelli in view of Bird discloses the Riding Lawn Mower Lawn Trimmer according to claim 1. Castelli further teaches where the support hinge (22) connects a deck (16) of the lawn mower.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hofmeister (US 9820435 B2) discloses a floating trimmer. Kobayashi (US 20160014958 A1) discloses a weed trimmer attachment for riding lawnmowers. Bell (US 20140202128 A1) discloses a mower deck trimmer assembly. Eubanks (US 8302372 B1) discloses an auxiliary trimmer for a lawn mower. Lund (US 6474053 B1) discloses a retractable trimmer attachment. Handlin (US 20020129588 A1) discloses a mower and string trimmer combination. Keane (US 6085507 A) discloses a flexible drive shaft trimmer. Slawson et al. (US 4965990 A) discloses a mower and edger assembly. Wessel et al. (US 4718221 A) discloses an edger and trimmer. Owens (US 4642976 A) discloses a height adjustable trimmer. Remer (US 4453372 A0 discloses a grass trimmer attachment. Lesesne (US 2719400 A) discloses a lawn edging and trimming attachment with adjustable height brackets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Joesph Rocca, can be reached on (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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671