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 knife head and lateral drive of claim 21 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.
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 it uses implied phrases (i.e. "The invention relates to"). 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: DOUBLE-KNIFE CUTTING SYSTEM WITH BENT KNIFE BACK.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 has a duplicate period at the end thereof which should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 17 and 21-24 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 17, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention, that is, whether the bending angle can be any angle between 5 and 45 degrees, or if it is limited to 15 degrees. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the Examiner has interpreted it as the former (i.e. any angle between 5 and 45 degrees).
Claim 21 recites the limitation “a lateral drive”. However, it is unclear whether “a lateral drive” should be interpreted as a drive disposed at a lateral end of the mower device, or if “a lateral drive” refers to a drive mechanism for moving the blades in a lateral direction since the drive is not shown in the drawings nor described in sufficient detail in the specification as to make the location and arrangement clear.
Regarding claim 22, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention, that is, whether an extension of the knife back can be any distance greater than or equal to 10 mm, or if it is limited to 33 mm, and further, whether an extension of the bent section of the knife back can be any distance greater than or equal to 5 mm, or if it is limited to half the extension of the knife back. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the Examiner has interpreted “preferably” to mean “and/or” such that either or both limitations may be true.
Claim 23 recites “wherein the upper cutting knife and/or the lower cutting knife is formed in one piece” in lines 1-2. The current wording of the claim when interpreted under “and” could be misconstrued as meaning both knives consist of only one part, in which case, relative movement would not be possible. The Examiner therefore suggests amending this portion of the claim to read --wherein the upper cutting knife is formed in one piece and/or the lower cutting knife is formed in one piece--.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the remaining sections" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 13-14, 17, 21-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tomlinson et al. (US 3121303 A).
Regarding independent claim 13, Tomlinson discloses a mower knife device (70), comprising:
a double-knife cutting system (“double sickle mower”), wherein the double-knife cutting system comprises an upper cutting knife (124 + 124’) and a lower cutting knife (122 + 122’), which are configured to be movable in translation relatively to one another (“double sickle motion”), wherein the upper cutting knife and the lower cutting knife each comprise a plurality of blade elements (cutting teeth 124’ and 122’ respectively) and a knife back (122,124), wherein the blade elements are configured to be connected to one another via the knife back and arranged essentially in a knife plane (Fig. 3, teeth 122’,124’ arranged in a horizontal plane),
a knife bar (120) which comprises a first extension (i.e. height of 120) in the direction of an axis (up-down axis) orthogonal to the knife plane and which is configured to hold the double-knife cutting system (col. 3 lines 56-60), wherein a gap is arranged between the knife bar and the double-knife cutting system (as seen in Figs. 4-5, knife bar 120 is rearwardly spaced from knife backs 122,124), wherein a section (142,152) of the knife back adjoins the gap (Fig. 6, sections 142,152 extend into space 140 of gap),
wherein the section of the knife back adjacent to the gap is bent in the direction of the orthogonal axis (sections 142,152 are upwardly and downwardly bent, as seen in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 14, Tomlinson discloses the mower knife device according to claim 13, wherein the section (152) of the knife back (124) of the upper cutting knife adjacent to the gap and the section (142) of the knife back (122) of the lower cutting knife adjacent to the gap are bent substantially symmetrically with respect to the knife plane (Fig. 6, substantially symmetrical about horizontal mid-plane of knives).
Regarding claim 17, Tomlinson discloses the mower knife device according to claim 13, wherein the bent section (142,152) of the knife back (122,124) is flat and comprises a bending angle of between 5° and 45° relative to the knife plane (approx. 45° or less as seen in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 21, Tomlinson discloses the mower knife device according to claim 13, comprising a knife head (128) to initiate a drive movement of a lateral drive (38) on the double-knife cutting system (tab 128 translates a drive movement from lateral drive system 38 to upper blade 124), wherein the knife head is fixedly connected directly to the upper cutting knife (124) at a remaining section (col. 3 line 72 – col. 4 line 4, fixedly connected at inner end of knife 124), which comprises sections of the knife back located outside the bent section of the knife back (Fig. 5, connected at separate inner end of knife back portion outside bent portions 142,152), and in particular is fixedly connected without additional reinforcement (direct connection as seen in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 22, Tomlinson discloses the mower knife device according to claim 13, wherein the knife back (122,124) comprises an extension of at least 10 mm in the direction from a blade tip of the blade element to the knife bar (i.e. in the front-back direction) (known from col. 5 line 74 – col. 6 line 2 that the thickness of plate 134,134’ is 3/8 inch = approx. 10 mm, and knife backs 122,124 are greater than this distance as seen in Figs. 6-7),
wherein the bent section (142,152) of the knife back comprises an extension of at least 5 mm and/or is half of the extension of the knife back, in the direction from a blade tip of the blade element to the knife bar (i.e. in the front-back direction) (from above, thickness of plate 134,134’ is 3/8 inch = approx. 10 mm, and bent sections 142,152 extend rearward a distance substantially equal thereto as seen in Figs. 6-7, and are close to half of the entire extension of knife backs 122,124).
Regarding claim 24, Tomlinson discloses the mower knife device according to claim 13, wherein remaining sections of the upper cutting knife and of the lower cutting knife are formed substantially flat outside the bent sections (142,152) of the knife back (Fig. 6, forward portions of knives 122,124 are substantially flat and horizontal).
Claims 13-16 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hinks et al. (US 3538690 A).
Regarding independent claim 13, Hinks discloses a mower knife device (Figs. 1-4), comprising:
a double-knife cutting system (10), wherein the double-knife cutting system comprises an upper cutting knife (15) and a lower cutting knife (16), which are configured to be movable in translation relatively to one another (see opposing arrows 13, 14 in Fig. 1), wherein the upper cutting knife and the lower cutting knife each comprise a plurality of blade elements (cutting teeth 19 and 20 respectively) and a knife back (11, 12), wherein the blade elements are configured to be connected to one another via the knife back and arranged essentially in a knife plane (Fig. 2-3, teeth 19,20 are arranged in a horizontal plane),
a knife bar (rearmost portion of 23) which comprises a first extension (height of the rearmost portion of 23, i.e. height at portion where screws 26 extend) in the direction of an axis (up-down axis) orthogonal to the knife plane and which is configured to hold the double-knife cutting system (col. 2 lines 66-68), wherein a gap is arranged between the knife bar and the double-knife cutting system (Fig. 2, rearmost portion of 23 is rearwardly spaced from knives 15,16), wherein a section (17,18) of the knife back adjoins the gap,
wherein the section of the knife back adjacent to the gap is bent in the direction of the orthogonal axis (sections 17,18 are upwardly and downwardly bent, as seen in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Hinks discloses the mower knife device according to claim 13, wherein the knife bar (rearmost portion of 23) is arranged at the level of the double-knife cutting system (10) and symmetrically around the knife plane (see Fig. 2, symmetric about midplane of knives), and/or wherein the section (17) of the knife back of the upper cutting knife (15) adjacent to the gap and the section (18) of the knife back of the lower cutting knife (16) adjacent to the gap are bent substantially symmetrically with respect to the knife plane (see Fig. 2, bent portions 17,18 are symmetric about midplane of knives).
Regarding claim 15, Hinks discloses the mower knife device according to claim 13, wherein the section (17,18) of the knife back (11,12) adjacent to the gap is bent uniformly along an entire width of the double-knife cutting system (10) (Fig. 4, col. 2 lines 50-53).
Regarding claim 16, Hinks discloses the mower knife device according to claim 13, wherein the section (17,18) of the knife back (11,12) adjacent to the gap is bent such that a distance between a projecting part (upper tip of 17) of the bent knife back of the upper cutting knife (15) and a projecting part (lower tip of 18) of the bent knife back of the lower cutting knife (16) in the direction of the orthogonal axis (up-down axis) corresponds to at least the first extension of the knife bar (Fig. 2, combined height of bent sections 17 + 18 is at least as tall as height of rearmost portion of 23, i.e. where screws 26 extend).
Regarding claim 23, Hinks discloses the mower knife device according to claim 13, wherein the upper cutting knife (15) and/or the lower cutting knife (16) is formed in one piece and made of a flat steel (col. 6 lines 64-65 formed of stainless steel) and subsequently bent (Figs. 2-3, col. 2 lines 47-55 see “L-shaped cross section”).
Regarding claim 24, Hinks discloses the mower knife device according to claim 13, wherein remaining sections of the upper cutting knife (15) and of the lower cutting knife (16) are formed substantially flat outside the bent sections of the knife back (Fig. 2-3, forward portions of knives 15,16 are substantially flat and horizontal).
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.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomlinson or Hinks as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Majkrzak (US 20050166566 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Tomlinson or Hinks discloses the mower knife device according to claim 13, wherein each blade element comprises two boundaries with cutting edges (Tomlinson teaches each cutting tooth 122’124’ comprises two lateral cutting edges, Hinks teaches each cutting tooth 15,16 comprises two lateral cutting edges) arranged thereon, but does not explicitly detail wherein the boundaries are convexly formed such that the cutting edge of one blade element and the opposite cutting edge of an adjacent blade element extend continuously over the knife back.
In the same field of endeavor, Majkrzak discloses a similar sickle mower including a cutting knife (10) comprising a plurality of blade elements (15), wherein each blade element comprises two strictly convexly formed boundaries with cutting edges (26) arranged thereon, wherein the cutting edges of adjacent blade elements extend continuously over the knife back (19) (para. [0019] continuously curved from tips 32 toward inner midpoint 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the blade elements of Tomlinson or Hinks to have curved, continuous cutting edges as opposed to straight line tapered edges, as taught by Majkrzak, in order to greatly increase the cutting capacity of the knife sections (Majkrzak at para. [0005 and 0017]).
Regarding claim 19, Tomlinson/Hinks in view of Majkrzak discloses the mower knife device according to claim 18. Majkrzak further teaches wherein each blade element (15) is symmetrically constructed around a centerline (36) which runs parallel to a direction from a blade tip (32) of the blade element to a knife bar (12) (i.e. parallel to fore-aft direction), wherein the two strictly convexly formed boundaries (26) in the region of the blade tip run substantially parallel to the centerline (see Majkrzak blade configuration shown on the left of Fig. 1 and bottom of para. [0016] teaches at a region adjacent tips 32 the cutting edges 26 are linear and parallel to the fore and aft center line 36, i.e. the space between the cutting edge lines 26 shown by double arrow 40 in Fig. 4 is constant).
Regarding claim 20, Tomlinson/Hinks in view of Majkrzak discloses the mower knife device according to claim 18. Majkrzak further teaches wherein the cutting edges (26) are flat (Majkrzak at Figs. 1 and 4-5, para. [0006] teaches cutting edges are edges are also smoothly curved).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Talbot et al. (US 10918017 B2) discloses a cutter bar having rearwardly extending diverging arms. Shimizu et al. (US 20210029887 A1) discloses a reciprocating blade apparatus. Peterson (US 10321636 B2) discloses a vegetation trimming apparatus. Yang et al. (US 6510681 B2) discloses a high speed sickle cutting system. Wells (US 3564714 A) discloses a trimmer blade tooth configuration. Herman (US 3083518 A) discloses a weed lawn mower attachment. Huddle et al. (US 2664690 A) discloses a double sickle mower. Kulikowski (US 2042902 A) discloses a hedge trimmer. Auble (US 1113944 A) discloses a cutter for a mower. Hatch (US 0354786 A) discloses an improved cutting tooth.
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