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 1-3 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.
Regarding Claim 1: Claim 1 recites the language: “...resulting in said apparatus having fewer necessary mechanical parts.” The phrase “having fewer necessary mechanical parts” fails to define the metes and bounds of the claim, and is therefore indefinite. There is no baseline set forth for how many mechanical parts is necessary, nor what is being compared to when the claim of “fewer necessary mechanical parts” is asserted. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the phrase “having fewer necessary mechanical parts” as not substantial to the metes and bounds of the claim due to a lack of clear boundaries.
Regarding Claim 2: Claim 2 recites the language: “…wherein are rotated…”. This language does not clearly define what elements are being rotated with regards to the claimed invention as defined in preceding claims, and is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, examiner will interpret the rotating element to be the strings set forth in the claim preamble.
Regarding Claim 3: Claim 3 recites the language: ”…wherein are spaced along the spindle…”. Similar to claim 2, this language does not clearly define what elements are spaced along the spindle with regard to the claimed invention as defined in preceding claims, and is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, examiner will interpret the spaced elements to be the strings set forth in the claim preamble.
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)(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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hurley et al as part of US 20060123635 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hurley.
Regarding Claim 1: Hurley teaches of an apparatus for defoliating lawn and turf grass weeds, comprising
at least one spindle rotating about a horizontal axis holding a plurality of strings rotating vertically (Fig. 4, trimmer head 22 comprises a plurality of trimming strings 62, the plurality of which depends on the style of trimmer head 22 utilized; Fig. 3, trimmer head 22 is shown rotating along a horizontal axis, with trimming strings 62 working vertically).
and a means to rotate said spindle at high speed wherein the improvement consists of the use of high speed cutting strings (Fig. 5, motor 20 drives the movement of trimmer head 22).
Regarding Claim 2: Hurley teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1.
Hurley further teaches wherein the strings are rotated at a speed high enough to cut any resisting vegetation (Paragraph 42, string trimmer head 22 cuts vegetation while in operation via rotational movement of trimming strings 62).
Regarding Claim 3: Hurley teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1.
Hurley further teaches wherein the strings are spaced along the spindle close enough to adequately clear resisting vegetation in a path the width of the strings on the spindle (Fig. 6, alternate embodiment demonstrates strings 188 are spaced along the body of trimmer head 186; Paragraph 42/Fig. 3, string trimmer head 22 cuts vegetation in a sharp vertical line the width of the cutting implement, trimming strings 62).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Proulx as part of US 4097991 A teaches of an apparatus for cutting vegetation, comprising at least one spindle rotating about a horizontal axis holding a plurality of strings rotating vertically, and a means to rotate said spindle at high speed wherein the improvement consists of the use of high speed cutting strings resulting in said apparatus having fewer necessary mechanical parts, wherein are rotated at a speed high enough to cut any resisting vegetation, and wherein are spaced along the spindle close enough to adequately clear resisting vegetation in a path the width of the strings on the spindle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN ANTHONY BREGEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0922. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 Eastern, 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, Christopher J 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.
/EVAN A BREGEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671