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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The ABSTRACT 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 this case “Provide is” should be removed.
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 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, 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 or 2) as being anticipated by Cigarini (2023/0041171, priority 7/30/2021).
It should be noted that the recitation “so as to …," "movable," "arranged to” etc. is considered as merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Since it is the language itself of the claims which must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention, without limitations imported from the specification, whether such language is couched in terms of means plus function or consists of a detailed recitation of the inventive matter. Limitations in the specification not included in the claim may not be relied upon to impart patentability to an otherwise unpatentable claim. In re Lundberg, 113 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1957).
“[0030] The support element 3, when driven by the drive shaft, rotates about the vertical axis Y-Y thereof with an angular speed ωu.
[0031] As a result of the rotation of the support element 3, the plurality of cutting elements 2 can also rotate.”
“[0015] In the present text, the term “freely rotatable” means that the cutting element can make full rotations about the pin (a full rotation covering an angular sector of 360°), in both directions.”
“[0067] The lower and upper plate 6,7 can be closed together in packs due to fastening means 8. By closing the fastening means 8, the plurality of cutting elements is retained within the lower 7 and upper 6 plate, while by opening the fastening means 8 it is possible to open the plates to replace one or more cutting elements 2.”
[AltContent: textbox (Side surface closing a space between the upper & lower plates)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Cutout portion with respect to a trajectory drawn by an arc portion, overlapping the blade portion)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
782
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (an outer periphery of the lower plate includes an arc portion/shape)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
368
526
media_image2.png
Greyscale
1. A weed cutting blade device comprising:
an upper plate (6) and a lower plate (7) provided so as to rotate around a center (shown/taught above);
a guide pin (fastening pins 9) coupling the upper plate and the lower plate at a position eccentric from the center (see quote); and
a disk-shaped rotary blade (discoid cutting element 4) provided between the upper plate and the lower plate so as to freely rotate around the guide pin as an axis (intended capability taught above, see quote), and
having a blade portion on an outer periphery thereof, the blade portion protruding outward from the lower plate (best shown in fig 11),
wherein an outer periphery of the lower plate includes an arc portion formed in an arc shape along a circumferential direction around the center (marked up), and
a cutout portion shaped so as to be cut out with respect to a virtual circle which is a trajectory drawn by the arc portion as the lower plate rotates (marked up), and
the cutout portion is formed so as to overlap the blade portion of the rotary blade from a position on a front side with respect to the rotary blade in a rotation direction of the lower plate when viewed in a plan view (intended use / arrangement, the overlap shown/taught in figs 11, 12).
2. The weed cutting blade device according to claim 1, wherein the upper plate or the lower plate has a side surface portion closing a space between the upper plate and the lower plate (marked up).
4. The weed cutting blade device according to claim 1, wherein an end portion, located on the rotation direction side of the lower plate, of the cutout portion is defined as a front end, an end portion, located on an opposite side to the rotation direction, of the cutout portion is defined as a rear end, and the cutout portion includes a first portion forming a part thereof from the front end, and a second portion changing a direction to a side approaching the virtual circle from the first portion and extending to the rear end while overlapping the rotary blade when viewed in a plan view (design shape of the cutout shown/taught in fig 12 above).
[AltContent: textbox (Inclined upward)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
236
548
media_image3.png
Greyscale
5. The weed cutting blade device according to claim 1, wherein at least an outer periphery side of a bottom surface of the lower plate is formed in an inclined shape displaced upward from an inner side toward an outer side (marked up).
6. The weed cutting blade device according to claim 1, wherein an upper surface of the upper plate is formed as a surface having no irregularities or steps (fig 13).
[AltContent: textbox (Tip has a non-sharp shape design)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (the rotary blade has, along the outer periphery thereof, a plurality of protruding portions as the blade portion protruding outward in a radial direction of the rotary blade)][AltContent: textbox (whose vertical width gradually decreases toward a second direction opposite to the first direction)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
364
264
media_image4.png
Greyscale
7. The weed cutting blade device according to claim 1, wherein the rotary blade has, along the outer periphery thereof (marked up),
a plurality of protruding portions as the blade portion protruding outward in a radial direction of the rotary blade (plurality of teeth 5, shown above),
each of the protruding portions has a first side blade formed in a tapered shape (shown/taught above) whose vertical width gradually decreases toward a first direction in a circumferential direction of the rotary blade (marked up), and
a second side blade formed in a tapered shape whose vertical width gradually decreases toward a second direction opposite to the first direction in the circumferential direction of the rotary blade (the overall width decreases, thereby both sides decrease as a result), and
a tip in a protruding direction of each of the protruding portions is formed in a non-sharp shape (shown above).
8. The weed cutting blade device according to claim 7, wherein the first side blade and the second side blade have a common edge portion between the first side blade and the second side blade on an opposite side to a tapering direction (fig 13).
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 or 2) as being anticipated by Kim (KR 20180016073).
Prima Facie Case: The patent office has the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of invalidity. A prima facie case is adequately articulated by notifying the applicant of the reasons for its rejections so long as the explanation is not "so uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds for rejection." Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1990). This requirement comes straight from Section 132 of the Patent Act. 35 U.S.C. §132(a).
There has never been a requirement for an examiner to make an on-the-record claim construction of every term in every rejected claim and to explain every possible difference between the prior art and the claimed invention in order to make out a prima facie rejection. This court declines to create such a burdensome and unnecessary requirement. "[Section 132] does not mandate that in order to establish prima facie anticipation, the PTO must explicitly preempt every possible response to a section 102 rejection. Section 132 merely ensures that an applicant at least be informed of the broad statutory basis for the rejection of his claims, so that he may determine what the issues are on which he can or should produce evidence." Chester, 906 F.2d at 1578
Kim ‘073 teaches rotary blade (folding blade 20) between top & bottom plates & guide pin (guiding pins 40) with a cutout/recess (where the blade portion extends), the blade designed with width reduction, i.e. top & bottom thinning toward the end, a non-sharp tip portion as claimed (figs 2, 3), the rotary blade(s) are retractable:
“The rotation disc 30 is composed of an upper disc 34 and a lower disc 35. The lower disc 35 and the lower disc 35 are coupled to the coupling pin 40 with reference to the coupling pin 40, The rotation of the folding blade 20 is made free by the rotation of the folding blade 20 so that the folding blade 20 is not disturbed by the rotation of the folding blade 20. Even when the folding blade 20 hits a stone or other foreign object during the operation, is recessed into the rotary plate 30 and is returned again to perform the next operation immediately, thereby improving the working efficiency.”
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cigarini (2023/0041171), in view of Kim (KR 20180016073).
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Cigarini teaches the claimed invention, except:
3. The weed cutting blade device according to claim 1, wherein the rotary blade is mounted on the guide pin so as to be movable between an outermost position at which the blade portion protrudes outside the virtual circle and an innermost position at which the blade portion retracts inside the virtual circle (not shown).
Kim teaches the claimed feature (see quote above).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide rotary blade of Cigarini with the teachings of Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success since even when the rotating blade hits a stone or other foreign object during the operation, is recessed into the rotary plate and is returned again to perform the next operation immediately, thereby improving the working efficiency (see Kim teaching above).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cigarini (2023/0041171) and/or Kim (KR 20180016073), in view of JP 40-32021, cited by applicant).
Cigarini and/or Kim while teaches the blade thinning, JP 40-32021 also teaches a gradual decrease in width from the top and the bottom (both sides):
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Gradual decrease in width on both sides)]
PNG
media_image5.png
536
476
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the blade of Cigarini and/or Kim with the teachings of JP 40-32021, with a reasonable expectation of success the decreased width contributes to a sharper edge and better cutting; one skilled in the art having ordinary engineering skill would be able to design the blade width as desired.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Kim (KR 20170138745) teaches a disc shaped rotary blade between upper & lower plates, as claimed (figs 3, 4).
Onoue (4310999) teaches in fig 3B, the thinning of blade tip from top and bottom sides (2a).
Fassauer (5483788) teaches a cutting disc, including multiple blades which are retractable:
“The apparatus further includes a spinning, cutting disc rotatable on the shaft and supported in a bottom opening to substantially enclose the vacuum chamber. The cutting disc may include multiple retractable blades for cutting the grass.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARPAD FABIAN-KOVACS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6990. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th.
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 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 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.
/ARPAD FABIAN-KOVACS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671