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 .
Title of Invention Is Not Descriptive
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. If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by an examiner’s amendment. See MPEP § 1302.04(a).
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 line 2: “main body portion the engagement part is...” appears as though it should read: “the engagement part is...”
Claim 3 line 2: “main body portion part of the lawn collecting container is...” appears as though it should read: “the lawn collecting container is..”
Claim 4 line 2: “forming” should read: “formed”.
Claim 5 line 2: “main body portion the connecting part is...” appears as though it should read: “the connecting part is...”
Claim 6 line 3: “main body portion the strap is...” appears as though it should read: “the strap is ...”
Claim 7 line 3: “main body portion the bag part...” appears as though it should read: “the bag part ...”
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.
Claim 15 is 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 15 recites: “wherein the two supporting parts are provided with different structures respectively.” It is unclear in view of the specification and drawings how the two structures are different than one another. The drawing only show similar structures in the inner surface of the housing part. The specification does not provide details of how the structures are different and how different structures would work with the collecting container depicted by the drawings. It is unclear how using different respective structures would work.
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, 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sepaniak (US 2008/0264029).
Regarding claim 1, Sepaniak discloses a lawn mower, comprising: a main body portion (31); and a lawn collecting container (21); wherein the main body portion is capable of moving forward, the lawn collecting container is arranged at a rear of the main body portion (Figure 1), the lawn collecting container is connected with the main body portion in a form that is freely disassembled and assembled relative to the main body portion (Bag is removable form securing means 22. ¶0051), a cylindrical housing part is formed on the main body portion, the cylindrical housing part is provided with an opening at a bottom part of the main body portion, a mowing blade is housed in the housing part (Figure 1 shows typical cylindrical portion housing the lawnmower blade), when the lawn collecting container is removed from the main body portion and the main body portion is in vertical direction with a rear part of the main body portion is configured as a lower side, the lawn collecting container is capable of being mounted to the bottom part of the main body portion (The lawnmower is capable of assuming a vertical position if positioned that way by an operator. The bag is capable of being mounted to the bottom, for example the bag may be folded up and placed in the bottom of the mower), at least part of the lawn collecting container enters the housing part from the bottom part of the main body portion (Bag may be folded and placed within the housing), and an inner surface of the housing part is capable of supporting the lawn collecting container (Any inner surface on which the folded bag rests).
Regarding claim 8, Sepaniak discloses wherein two supporting parts configured to support the lawn collecting container are arranged on the inner surface of the housing part with the mowing blade interposed therebetween (A backwall and a sidewall of the housing part are arranged on the inner surface of the housing and would support the folded bag placed within).
Regarding claim 15, Sepaniak discloses wherein the two supporting parts are provided with different structures respectively (The backwall and sidewall would be considered different structures).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 and 9-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections(s) 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. Hartz (USPN 5261215)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J BEHRENS whose telephone number is (303)297-4336. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-2pm MST.
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 M. 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.
/ADAM J BEHRENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671