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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
pair of rotatable rollers in claim 14, line 2 and claim 15, line 2 and 3
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 15, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12, line 1 recites “including clutch device spring”, should read – including a clutch device spring –.
Claim 15, lines 2-3 recites “allow tool-less height adjustment of both rollers simultaneously and without tools”, should read – allow tool-less height adjustment of both rollers simultaneously –.
Claim 17, line 1 recites “the reel lawn mower of claim 1”, should read – the reel lawnmower of claim 16 – due to mention of the clutch assembly from claim 16.
Claim 17, lines 4 and 5 recite “the gears”, should read – the gear – due to only one gear being claimed in line 2.
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 14-15 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 14, lines 1-2, recite the limitation “at least one cutting height fixing member is provided in the form of a pair of rotatable rollers”, however there is no mention of a pair of rollers within the specification or shown in the drawings. In Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0040], lines 2-4 sets forth the cutting height is controllable with a rotatable roller, not a pair; therefore, the limitation was not described in the disclosure in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skill in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Claim 15 is rejected for being dependent on claim 14 and for the recitation of multiple rollers in lines 2-3.
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 3, 5-12, 15-19 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.
Examiner’s Note: Applicant’s claims are written with reference numerals included. However, the presence or absence of such reference characters does not affect the scope of the claims (see MPEP 608.01(m)); therefore, claims that rely on reference numerals to specify limitations are rejected as being indefinite.
Claim 3, lines 1, 2, and 5 all recite “the plates”, however it is unclear if the plates are the assembly of three plates or the two spaced apart side plates. Specifically, it is unclear which plates are being referred to; therefore, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to read as “the assembly of three plates”.
Claim 5 in line 1 sets forth “the motor”. However, it is unclear how this motor is related to the internal combustion engine set forth in dependent claim 4, lines 1-2. Specifically, it is unclear if these two portions are one and the same or two different portions altogether. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner interpreting “the motor” to be the internal combustion engine.
Claim 6 in line 2 sets forth “a portion of coupler”. However, it is unclear how this coupler is related to the separable coupler set forth in dependent claim 5, line 2. Specifically, it is unclear if these two portions are one and the same or two different portions altogether. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to read as “a portion of the separable coupler”.
Claim 6, lines 3-4 sets forth “a drive element is operably connected an opposite end of the input shaft”, but fails to disclose what it is opposite of. Specifically, it is unclear what limitation is opposite the drive element on the input shaft; therefore, the claim is indefinite.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean the drive element and separable coupler are on opposite ends of the input shaft.
Claim 6, line 9 sets forth “a friction face facing the face”, but fails to disclose which face is “the face”. Specifically, it is unclear which side of the pair of opposing clutch friction faces in lines 5-6 is the face set forth in this limitation; therefore, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
Claim 6, line 10 sets forth “the second clutch friction disc positioned between the faces”, but fails to explicitly disclose which faces the second clutch friction disc is positioned between. Specifically, it is unclear if the faces are the friction faces of the opposing clutch friction faces in lines 5-6 or the face of the second driven drive element and another face as in line 9; therefore, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
Claim 9, line 3 sets forth “so that face faces face”, but fails to explicitly disclose which face is which. Specifically, it is unclear if the faces are the opposing friction faces or another pair of faces altogether; therefore, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
Claim 9, line 4 sets forth “engageable with the faces”, but fails to explicitly disclose which face is which. Specifically, it is unclear if the faces are the opposing friction faces or another pair of faces altogether; therefore, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
Claim 9, line 5 sets forth “the drive element is power driven by the drive element”, but fails to explicitly disclose which drive element is which; therefore, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
Claim 10, line 2 sets forth “driving of the drive elements”, but fails to explicitly disclose which drive elements are being driven; therefore, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
Claim 11, line 6 sets forth “the drive elements”, but fails to explicitly disclose which drive element is which; therefore, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the clutch components" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15, lines 5-6 sets forth “the leg is an actuator leg, while the leg is a responder leg”, but fails to explicitly disclose which of the pair of connected legs is the actuator leg and which is the responder leg. Specifically, it is unclear which leg is which; therefore, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "inside traction member" in line 8 and “outside traction member” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting the inside traction member to be the drive drum and the outside traction member to be the outer tread sleeve.
The term “about” in claim 18, line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation “at least about 75%” is indefinite due to being unclear on what range of percents falls into “at least about 75%”; therefore, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
Claim 19 is rejected due to dependency on claim 18 and for reciting the limitation “less than about 1 inch or 2.54 centimeters” in line 2 for the same reasons as stated above.
Claim 18, line 2 recites the term “preferably”. However, it is unclear what scope the
term “preferably” encompasses. Specifically, the term “preferably” renders the scope of the
claim vague; therefore, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
Due to dependency on claim 18, claim 19 is rejected as well.
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) 1-2, 4-5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Buday et al. (US 1722730 A).
Regarding claim 1, Buday et al. teaches a reel lawn mower (see Fig. 1) comprising:
a power source [22] operable to power the movement of the reel lawn mower and effect rotation of a mowing reel [10] for cutting of grass (see page 2, lines 19-22),
a transmission (see Fig. 4) that operably couples the power source to the mowing reel (operably couples through clutch elements [54 and 55], see page 2, lines 34-43) and
a drive section ([9 and 15]; propels mower through connection to cutter shaft, see page 2, lines 19-22) to propel the mower during operation,
a cutting head [8 and 10] that includes the reel and other components to effect grass cutting;
a control section [75, 76, and 77] that is operable to selectively effect powering of the cutting head and the drive section (selectively effects powering through controlling the clutch elements [54 and 55], see page 2, lines 85-95); and
a frame (assembly of [5 , 6, and 20]) to hold the various sections as an assembly for operation of the reel lawn mower (see page 1, lines 72-94).
Regarding claim 2, Buday et al. teaches wherein the frame (assembly of [5 , 6, and 20]) is comprised of an assembly of three plates secured together to form a rigid assembly (see page 1, lines 90-94), a top plate (platform [20] comprises a horizontal plate [21], see page 1, lines 72-78) and two spaced apart side plates [5 and 6].
Regarding claim 4, Buday et al. teaches wherein the power source [22] is an internal combustion engine (see page 1, lines 75-78).
Regarding claim 5, Buday et al. teaches wherein the motor [22] has an output shaft (crankshaft of engine, see page 2, lines 23-26) that is suitably coupled to the transmission (see Fig. 1) with a separable coupler [53] to facilitate power source removal, the transmission including a drive clutch assembly [54 and 55], that is operable to effect selective driving of the mowing reel [10] and the drive section [9 and 15], the drive clutch assembly is operable to simultaneously effect driving of the mowing reel and the drive section (through connection to shaft [9]; see page 2, lines 19-22).
Regarding claim 13, Buday et al. teaches wherein the cutting head [8 and 10] includes the mowing reel [10] and a bed knife [8] to effect grass cutting by shearing during rotation of the mowing reel (see Fig. 3), the mowing reel is rotatably mounted to the frame (rotatably mounted through shaft [9], see page 2, lines 19-22), the mowing reel includes a central longitudinal shaft [9] to which a plurality of blades (see blades of reel [10] in Fig. 1) are attached, with the blades extending helically along the length of the mowing reel (see Fig. 1), the blades positioned to effect shearing action of grass between the blades and the bed knife (effects shearing action between blades and knife when blades rotate, see Fig. 3).
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) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buday et al. (US 1722730 A) in view of Arnold (US 4644737 A) and Protolabs.com (https://www.protolabs.com/resources/blog/designing-sheet-metal-notches-and-tabs/); hence forth Protolabs.
Regarding claim 3, Buday et al. discloses the reel lawnmower as applied above, as well as, the assembly of three plates (assembly of [5 , 6, and 20]) being an assembly that rigidly fixes the positions of the plates relative to one another (rigidly fixed through use of bolts; see page 1, lines 90-94), but fails to disclose the plates are a welded assembly that rigidly fixes the positions of the plates relative to one another and wherein opposite ends of the top plate have slots that each receive a respective projecting ear from the respective side plate to facilitate fixing the relative positions of the plates for welding.
Arnold discloses a similar reel lawn mower [20] comprising of an assembly of three plates ([48 and 50]; see Col. 2, lines 67-68 and Col. 3, lines 1-2) wherein the plates are a welded assembly that rigidly fixes the positions of the plates relative to one another (see Col. 3, lines 1-2).
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 bolts of Buday et al. with the welding of Arnold since both are ways to rigidly fix the three plates together; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
But Arnold fails to explicitly disclose wherein opposite ends of the top plate have slots that each receive a respective projecting ear from the respective side plate to facilitate fixing the relative positions of the plates for welding.
However, Protolab discloses that using slots and tabs are useful for creating an assembly, allowing for welding to be placed in places where strength is important and to make the parts easy to assemble (see attached Protolab’s NPL).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to weld the frame of Buday et al. and Arnold using the slot and tab method as taught by Protolab in order to weld at locations that need added strength and for ease of assembly (see attached Protolab’s NPL).
Claim(s 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buday et al. (US 1722730 A) in view of Tsuchiya et al. (US 4481757 A).
Regarding claim 14, Buday et al. discloses the reel lawnmower as applied above, as well as, a pair of rotatable rollers ([12 and 12’], see page 1, lines 34-38), but fails to disclose wherein at least one cutting height fixing member is provided in the form of a roller to allow setting and fixing of the cutting height of the mowing reel and bed knife (please see 112(a) rejection above).
Tsuchiya et al. discloses a similar reel lawn mower (see Fig. 1) comprising of at least one cutting height fixing member (fixing member is the roller [14] and its support arm [50]) provided in the form of a roller [14] to allow setting and fixing of the cutting height of the mowing reel and bed knife (see Col. 6, lines 52-61).
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 cutting height mechanism of Tsuchiya et al. on the lawn mower of Buday et al. in order to adjust the position of the roller, reel, and bed knife with respect to the ground surface for optimizing different cutting operations (see Tsuchiya et al. Col. 6, lines 52-68 and Col. 7, lines 1-4).
Claim(s) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buday et al. (US 1722730 A) in view of Schielein (US 2053535 A).
Regarding claim 16, Buday et al. discloses the reel lawn mower as applied above, as well as, a pair of driving traction members [15] mounted on an axle [9], and a clutch assembly ([16]; see page 1, lines 57-71) providing cooperation between the axle and the traction members to effect simultaneous driving of the traction members by the axle (see page 1, lies 67-70 and Fig. 1).
But Buday et al. fails to disclose each traction member includes an outer tread sleeve mounted on a drive drum in a manner to prevent relative rotation therebetween, the drum is mounted on the axle for selective relative rotation and selective non-relative rotation, and allows either traction member to freewheel during a turning maneuver of the mower to effect driving of the drive drum while allowing the outer tread sleeve to freewheel to freewheel (please see 112(b) rejection above).
Schielein discloses a similar reel lawn mower (see Fig. 1) comprising of a pair of driving traction members [A and B] each traction member includes an outer tread sleeve [7] mounted on a drive drum [10] in a manner to prevent relative rotation therebetween (prevents rotation between the outer tread sleeve and the drive drum due to being fixed together, see page 1, lines 8-16), the drum is mounted on the axle [15] for selective relative rotation (drum rotating with the axle through gear wheels [13], see page 1, lines 17-23) and selective non-relative rotation (rotation stopped through gear wheels [13], see page 1, lines 31-41) and a clutch assembly [C] provides cooperation between the axle and the traction members to effect simultaneous driving of the traction members by the axle (see page 1, lines 47-54), but allows either traction member to freewheel during a turning maneuver of the mower to effect driving of the drive drum while allowing the outer tread sleeve to freewheel (clutch is an overrunning clutch; therefore, is adapted to allow the traction member to freewheel, see page 1, lines 31-54).
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 traction wheels and clutch assembly of Buday et al. with the traction wheels and clutch assembly of Schielein since both are drive systems adapted to affect the rotation of the mower; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
Regarding claim 17, Schielein, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the clutch assembly [C] is a dual side acting assembly (one on each traction wheel, see page 1, lines 31-41), with each side having similar construction, a gear [13] is mounted to a respective traction member [A or B] and is secured to the traction member as to be rotatable therewith so that the gear effects driving rotation of the traction members (see page 1, lines 17-26 and lines 31-54), the gear is an internal gear (see Fig. 4), having a plurality of circumferentially spaced apart gear teeth [21] extending inwardly from an inside surface ([20]; see page 1, lines 40-44), and presenting an engagement surface (see Fig. 3) for selective contact with a ratcheting pawl ([22], see page 1, lines 40-47),
a hub [9] includes a radially extending flange (see below) having opposite faces (see below), at least one pawl is mounted on each face and is pivotal thereon (mounted within the flange; therefore, is mounted on each face of the flange, see Fig. 3), the pawls are resiliently biased to an outward position (see Fig. 3) to engage a respective tooth [21] to effect driving of a respective traction in a forward direction (see page 1, lines 47-55 and page 2, lines 1-4).
PNG
media_image1.png
478
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buday et al. (US 1722730 A) in view of Percy et al. (EP 2082640 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Buday et al. disclose the reel lawn mower as applied above, but fails to disclose a grass catcher removably mounted to the frame, and positioned for receiving cut grass clippings from the reel.
Percy et al. discloses a similar reel lawn mower [10] comprising of a grass catcher [14] removably mounted to the frame [56], and positioned for receiving cut grass clippings (see Fig. 2) from the reel [12].
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 grass catcher of Percy et al. on the reel lawn mower of Buday et al. in order to receive grass clippings discharged from the cutting unit (see Percy et al. paragraph [0041], lines 1-4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-12 and 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 1749189 A discloses a similar reel lawn mower (see Fig. 1) comprising of a transmission (see Fig. 4) and a cutting head [26].
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