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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14, 18-20 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.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 11, 13, 17 are considered to have substantially the same reasons for allowance. Towed lawn grooming systems that create a striping patten in the grass are known in the art. For example, Smith and Sprinkmann (prior art of record) present two designs of such a towed implement. Together, these references share much of the same structure with the claimed invention. Smith, specifically, presents a similar hitching device with a pipe and sleeve similar to the claimed invention; however, the device of Smith achieves the retention of the pipe and projection in the corresponding cylinder and sleeve in a different way from the claimed invention. These references, together, render the general idea of a lawn grooming machine with a hitch having a pipe and sleeve obvious. However, neither of these references, nor any other reference, teaches opposed holes or slots on either the pipe or sleeve as claimed in claims 11, 13, and 17 and depicted in Applicant’s Fig 6. It cannot be considered obvious to further modify hitching device to include the holes and slots as claimed. In view of the prior art of record, any obvious combination to include further modify the hitching device would require improper hindsight reasoning. For this reason, the claims are allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract that was provided appears to be drawn to a completely different invention. There is some similar structure, but there is no mention of a “clamp”, “inner shell”, or “outer shell” in the specification for the instant application.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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 1-15 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 “a projection rotatably received within the cylinder” in line 8. Examiner understands the “cylinder” to be element 84 and pipe 88 to be rotatably received within the cylinder 84. Examiner also understands “projection” to be element 104. It is unclear how element 104 is rotatably received within the cylinder 84 especially if the pipe 88 is already rotatably received within the cylinder 84. It appears that Applicant’s intention may be to claim –a projection rotatably received within the sleeve--. The claim is rendered indefinite for this reason. Claims 2-15 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (US 5423565).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a lawn grooming system comprising:
a hitch, the hitch comprising:
a mounting bracket (14);
a pivot member pivotably connected to the mounting bracket, the pivot member comprising a cylinder (pivot member 38A/22 and cylinder 42); and
an intermediate coupler comprising a pipe and a sleeve, wherein the pipe is rotatably received within the cylinder (intermediate coupler 38B with pipe 39 and the sleeve is considered to be the thru-hole of 38B; pipe 39 is received within cylinder 42); and
a projection rotatably received within the cylinder (stem 48 is received within sleeve of 38B).
Regarding claim 2, Smith discloses the lawn grooming system further comprising a lawn grooming implement connected to the projection and selectively coupled to the hitch (Figs 1-2; implement 4 is connected to the projection 48 selectively).
Regarding claim 10, Smith discloses the lawn grooming system wherein the sleeve is connected orthogonally to the pipe (through sleeve of 38B and pip 39 are considered to be orthogonal in Fig 2).
Regarding claim 15, Smith discloses the lawn grooming system wherein the pivot member pivots about a first axis in a first dimension, the pipe rotates within the cylinder about a second axis in a second dimension, and the projection rotates within the sleeve about a third axis in a third dimension, wherein the first, second, and third dimensions are orthogonal to one another (first pivot axis along 22; second pivot axis along 39; third pivot axis along 48; these axes are considered to be orthogonal to each other).
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(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith as applied to claims 2 above in further view of Sprinkmann (US 20090255228).
Regarding claim 3, Smith discloses the lawn grooming system with an implement as a mower, but is silent on any of the specific structure of the implement (col 4, lines 4-6).
Sprinkmann discloses a similar machine (Fig 3) and teaches the machine pulling a lawn striping implement with a cover and roller drum rotatably connected to the cover (striping implement 50; cover 52; roller drum 56).
Smith and Sprinkmann are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of pulling lawn implements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith to incorporate the teachings of Sprinkmann and replaced the lawn implement of Smith with the lawn striping implement of Sprinkmann. One would have made this replacement to groom sports fields, golf greens, or ornamental gardens (Sprinkmann; para [0002], lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Smith and Sprinkmann discloses the lawn grooming system further comprising a plate connecting the projection to the cover (see Annotated Figure 1; the plate connects the projection of the combination to the cover).
PNG
media_image1.png
251
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Smith and Sprinkmann discloses the lawn grooming system wherein the plate comprises at least one handle (Sprinkmann; the plate is considered to have lips on either side that are capable of being used as a handle; see Fig 6).
Claim(s) 1, 6-9, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprinkmann (US 20090255228) in view of Smith.
Regarding claim 1, Sprinkmann discloses a lawn grooming system comprising:
a hitch, the hitch comprising:
a mounting bracket (70a and 70b);
a pivot member pivotably connected to the mounting bracket (12 is pivotably connected to 70a/70b).
Sprinkmann fails to specifically disclose a cylinder and an intermediate coupler as claimed. However, Sprinkmann does disclose a coupling device to pull an implement (coupling device 30 and 31; implement 50).
Smith discloses a similar machine to pull implements (Fig 2; implements 4) and teaches a pivot member with a cylinder (pivot member 38A with cylinder 42) and an intermediate coupler with a pipe and sleeve (intermediate coupler 38B with pipe 39 and the sleeve is considered to be the thru-hole of 38B). The pipe of the coupler is rotatably received within the cylinder and a projection is rotatably received within the sleeve (pipe 39 is received within cylinder 42; stem 48 is received within sleeve of 38B).
Sprinkmann and Smith are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of pulling lawn implements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sprinkmann to incorporate the teachings of Smith and replaced the coupling device of Sprinkmann with the pivot member and intermediate coupler of Smith. One would have made this replacement follow the contour of uneven terrain, turn in tight quarters, and tilted for access to the implement (Smith; abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Sprinkmann discloses the lawn grooming system wherein the mounting bracket comprises opposed faces, wherein the pivot member is pivotably connected to the opposed faces (opposed faces 43a and 43b; pivot member 12 is pivotably connected to 43a and 43b).
Sprinkmann fails to specifically disclose a bumper extending between the opposed faces; however, Smith further teaches a bumper that is centrally located to connect the implement to the vehicle (Smith; bumper 14; col 4, lines 13-16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify the combination of Sprinkmann and Smith to include further teachings of Smith and combined the use of a bumper on the mounting bracket extending between the opposed faces. One would have made this combination to connect the lawn grooming system to a vehicle (Smith; col 4, lines 13-16).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sprinkmann and Smith discloses the lawn grooming system wherein the mounting bracket comprises flanges extending from the bumper and configured to be secured to the back of a motive device with a plurality of fasteners (claim language is broad; Sprinkmann; flanges 76a and 76b extend from the bumper of the combination and secure the system to the back of the motive device of the combination with fasteners 78a and 78b).
Regarding claim 8, Sprinkmann discloses the lawn grooming system wherein the pivot member comprises plates that are pivotably connected to the faces wherein arms extend medially from the plates to connect the plates to the cylinder (plates 72a and 72b are pivotably connected to faces 43a and 43b; arms 14a/16a and 14b/16b).
Regarding claim 9, Sprinkmann further discloses the lawn grooming system wherein each face comprises a retention hole and the plates each comprise a retention pin configured to selectively project through a respective retention hole to selectively retain the pivot member in an upright position (retention hole 75a and 75b; retention pin 71a and 71b project through the retention holes to retain the pivot member in a multitude of positions includes an upright position).
Regarding claim 16, Sprinkmann discloses a hitch for use in lawn grooming, the hitch comprising:
a mounting bracket (70a and 70b);
a pivot member comprising:
opposed plates pivotably connected to the mounting bracket (72a and 72b);
arms extending between the cylinder and the opposed plates (16a, 16b, and 18); and
Sprinkmann fails to specifically disclose a cylinder and an intermediate coupler as claimed. However, Sprinkmann does disclose a coupling device to pull an implement (coupling device 30 and 31; implement 50).
Smith discloses a similar machine to pull implements (Fig 2; implements 4) and teaches a pivot member with a cylinder (pivot member 38A with cylinder 42) and an intermediate coupler with a pipe and sleeve (intermediate coupler 38B with pipe 39 and the sleeve is considered to be the thru-hole of 38B). The pipe of the coupler is rotatably received within the cylinder and a projection is rotatably received within the sleeve (pipe 39 is received within cylinder 42; stem 48 is received within sleeve of 38B).
Sprinkmann and Smith are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of pulling lawn implements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sprinkmann to incorporate the teachings of Smith and replaced the coupling device of Sprinkmann with the pivot member and intermediate coupler of Smith. One would have made this replacement follow the contour of uneven terrain, turn in tight quarters, and tilted for access to the implement (Smith; abstract).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Sprinkmann and Smith discloses the hitch wherein the opposed plates pivot relative to the mounting bracket about a first axis in a first dimension, the pipe rotates within the cylinder about a second axis in a second dimension, and the sleeve is configured for the projection to rotate within the sleeve about a third axis in a third dimension, wherein the first, second, and third dimensions are orthogonal to one another (Smith; first pivot axis along 22; second pivot axis along 39; third pivot axis along 48; these axes are considered to be orthogonal to each other).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Works (US 20120217724) discloses a similar hitching device to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE SCOVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30-6 (ET).
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 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.
/BLAKE E SCOVILLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671