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 Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 24 line 3 “backare” should be –back are--.
Note Applicant’s claim numbering appears to skip claim 25 and goes directly from claim 24 to claim 26.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 13-14, 16-17, 22-24, 27-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomlinson et al. (US 3121303 A) in view of Blume (US 1362667 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), and
wherein the bent section of the knife back 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).
Tomlinson fails to teach wherein the bent section of the knife back is bent along an entire width of the double-knife cutting system.
However, such a feature is extremely old and known.
In the same area, Blume teaches a similar reciprocating mower comprising an upper cutter bar (34) and a lower cutter bar (35) having respective forward ends (40) which are in contact and respective rearward ends (41) which diverge rearwardly in opposing directions (Fig. 5, page 2 lines 7-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the bent section of the knife back of Tomlinson to be bent along its entire width, as taught by Tomlinson, in order to facilitate the egress of any dirt or grass clippings which may find its way between the cutter bars during operation (Blume at page 2 lines 9-17 and lines 79-84), thereby preventing clogging and increasing the service life of the mower.
Regarding claim 14, Tomlinson in view of Blume discloses the mower knife device according to claim 13. Tomlinson further teaches wherein the knife bar (120) is arranged at the level of the double-knife cutting system around the knife plane (Fig. 6), and/or 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 16, Tomlinson in view of Blume discloses the mower knife device according to claim 13, but fails to teach wherein the section of the knife back adjacent to the gap is bent such that a distance between a projecting part (i.e. upper tip of 152) of the bent knife back of the upper cutting knife and a projecting part (i.e. lower tip of 142) of the bent knife back of the lower cutting knife in the direction of the orthogonal axis corresponds to at least the first extension (i.e. height) of the knife bar (120).
However, It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to scale the knife bar and/or distance between the projecting parts to have distances corresponding to each other, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component (e.g. minor downsizing of the knife bar and/or lengthening of the bent projecting parts, and a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 17, Tomlinson in view of Blume discloses the mower knife device according to claim 13, wherein the bent section of the knife back is flat and comprises a bending angle relative to the knife plane, but does not explicitly detail wherein the bending angle is 15°.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the bending angle, such as 15°, since there is no demonstration of criticality of the claimed value, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 22, Tomlinson in view of Blume discloses the mower knife device according to claim 13. Tomlinson further teaches 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 front-back length of knife backs 122,124 is 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 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 23, Tomlinson in view of Blume discloses the mower knife device according to claim 13. Tomlinson further teaches wherein the upper cutting knife (124’ + 124) is formed in one piece and/or wherein the lower cutting knife (122’ + 122) is formed in one piece (col. 1 lines 21-22 and col. 3 lines 61-64).
Regarding claim 24, Tomlinson in view of Blume discloses the mower knife device according to claim 13. Tomlinson further teaches wherein remaining sections of the upper cutting knife and of the lower cutting knife outside the bent sections (142,152) of the knife back are formed substantially flat (Fig. 6, forward portions of knives 122,124 are substantially flat and horizontal).
Regarding claim 27, Tomlinson in view of Blume discloses the mower knife device according to claim 22. Tomlinson further teaches 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 (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 front-back length of knife backs 122,124 is over 3x this distance or approximately ≥ 30 mm as seen in Figs. 6-7), but does not explicitly detail 33 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for this distance, such as 33 mm, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap and/or are merely close to ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists and discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 28, Tomlinson in view of Blume discloses the mower knife device according to claim 22. Tomlinson further teaches wherein the bent section (142, 152) of the knife back comprises an extension of half of the extension of the knife back in the direction from the blade tip of the blade element to the knife bar (as seen in Figs. 6-7, bents sections 142, 152 are close to half of the entire front-back extension of knife backs 122,124).
Regarding claim 30, Tomlinson in view of Blume discloses the mower knife device according to claim 13, wherein the section of the knife back adjacent to the gap is bent uniformly along an entire width of the double-knife cutting system (inherent from combination w/ Blume).
Claims 26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomlinson in view of Blume as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Hinks et al. (US 3538690 A).
Regarding claim 26, Tomlinson in view of Blume discloses the mower knife device according to claim 23, but does not explicitly detail wherein the upper and/or lower cutting knife is made of a flat steel and subsequently bent.
In the same area, Hinks discloses a similar reciprocating mower wherein the upper cutting knife (15) and the lower cutting knife (16) are each 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 bent rib members 17,18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the upper and lower cutting knives of Tomlinson by bending a flat piece of steel, as taught by Hinks, as a mere simple substitution of one known blade material for another to yield predictable results. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice, and it is common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
Regarding claim 29, Tomlinson in view of Blume discloses the mower knife device according to claim 14, but fails to teach wherein the knife bar is arranged symmetrically around the knife plane.
In the same area, Hinks discloses a similar reciprocating mower comprising a knife bar (23), and an upper and lower cutting knife (15, 16) having a plurality of teeth (19 and 20 respectively) arranged in a knife plane, wherein the knife bar is arranged symmetrically around the knife plane (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position the knife bar of Tomlinson symmetrically about the knife plane, as taught by Hinks, as this is a mere simple substitution of one knife bar arrangement for another to yield predictable results.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomlinson in view of Blume as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Majkrzak (US 20050166566 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Tomlinson in view of Blume 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) arranged thereon, but fails to teach 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 area, 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 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 in view of Blume and 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 in view of Blume and 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).
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 13-14, 16-20 and 22-30, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, the new grounds of rejection incorporates a secondary reference as necessitated by amendment, thereby rendering the anticipatory arguments presented by Applicant moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Blaauw (US 3114230 A) discloses a double sickle bar mower having diverging cutter bars.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Christopher Sebesta, can be reached on (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 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
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights