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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/15/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The amended specification reciting reference number “116” was received on 02/17/2026. The drawings are now acceptable.
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 9 and 15-18 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 9 recites the limitation “the spacing between the brush and the blade carrier is adjustable in a range comprising the bristles of the brush and engaging the sides of the first helical blade only to the bristles of the brush and engaging the sides of both the first and second helical blades” in lines 2 and 3. It is not clear what is being claimed in this limitation, what the relationship is between the dynamic interface, range, brush, or blades, or what is included in the range. Claim 15 is similarly rejected.
Dependent claims 16-18 fail to remedy the deficiencies.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lingle (US 20150223396 A1) in view of Henderson (US 20190269121 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lingle discloses an apparatus for providing selective tearing, pulling and or removal of plants (reel mower; Fig. 7) comprising:
a blade carrier rotatably attached to the apparatus and having a first longitudinal axis (cutting reel 830; Figs. 8 and 9), the blade carrier further comprising one or more blades disposed around the first longitudinal axis, the blades having sides and extending radially therefrom and defining a first cylindrical diameter (Figs. 8 and 9 show helical blades with sides disposed around a longitudinal axis of the cutting reel);
a brush rotatably attached to the apparatus and having a second longitudinal axis (brush base 100; Figs. 8 and 9), the brush further comprising a plurality of bristles extending outwardly from the second longitudinal axis and defining a second cylindrical diameter (Figs. 8 and 9 show bristles 210 extending outwardly from longitudinal axis defined by brush base 100), the brush being attached to the apparatus such that the second longitudinal axis is parallel to the first longitudinal axis (Figs. 8 and 9 show brush base 100 and cutting reel 830 have parallel axes); and
an elevation device for maintaining the blade carrier and brush at a height over a surface to engage desirable and undesirable plants (ground contacting rollers 850, 860; Figs. 8 and 9; ¶ 0039, lines 11-14, “The cutting reel 830 and bedknife 820 are generally mounted between two ground-contacting rollers 850 and 860 in a frame that permits the height of cut to be adjusted precisely”);
and the blade carrier and the brush are approximately equally spaced from the surface (Fig. 8);
wherein the dynamic interface does not have any fixed components that directly engage in pulling, tearing, or otherwise damaging undesirable plants (¶ 0039, lines 39-60 and Figs. 7-9 show that brush base 100 and cutting reel 830 do not have fixed components that engage in pulling, tearing, or damaging plants, and instead discuss a rotational interface).
Lingle, however, fails to specifically disclose wherein the brush and blade carrier are also arranged such that the bristles of the brush engage the sides of the blades of the blade carrier, thereby defining a dynamic interface, and wherein a spacing between the brush and the blade carrier is adjustable to increase or decrease the size of the dynamic interface.
Henderson, however, is in the field of vegetation control and teaches wherein the brush and blade carrier are also arranged such that the bristles of the brush engage the sides of the blades of the blade carrier, thereby defining a dynamic interface (Fig. 8 shows that brush 210 and serrated disks 226 of roller 200 engage each other to form a dynamic interface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vegetation control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lingle such that the brush and blade carrier are also arranged such that the bristles of the brush engage the sides of the blades of the blade carrier, thereby defining a dynamic interface, as taught by the serrated blade and bristle engagement of Henderson. The engagement of the blade and bristles would eliminate a gap between the components, which would allow for more effective processing of vegetation. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Lingle in view of Henderson such that a spacing between the brush and the blade carrier is adjustable to increase or decrease the size of the dynamic interface in order to tailor the device to different weed types and to adjust the level of engagement of plants with the interface. Additionally, it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 2, Lingle in view of Henderson discloses the device of claim 1.
Lingle discloses wherein the one or more blades on the blade carrier are helical (Figs. 8 and 9 show cutting reel 830 has multiple helical blades).
Regarding claim 3, Lingle in view of Henderson discloses the device of claim 1, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein one of more blades on the blade carrier are discs (Henderson; disks 226; Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vegetation control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lingle in view of Henderson such that one of more blades on the blade carrier are discs, as taught by the disc blades of Henderson. The discs would help lift plants into engagement of the dynamic interface with the brush, which would improve the overall function of the device. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, Lingle in view of Henderson discloses the device of claim 1.
Lingle discloses wherein the blade carrier and brush are positioned such that a first tangent of a first downward extending radius of the first cylindrical diameter is approximately level with a second tangent of a second downward extending radius of the second cylindrical diameter (Fig. 8; ¶ 0039, lines 39-60).
Regarding claim 5, Lingle in view of Henderson discloses the device of claim 1.
Lingle discloses wherein the blade carrier and brush are positioned such that a first tangent of a first downward extending radius of the first cylindrical diameter is lower than a second tangent of a second downward extending radius of the second cylindrical diameter (Fig. 9; ¶ 0039, lines 39-60).
Regarding claim 6, Lingle in view of Henderson discloses the device of claim 1.
Lingle discloses wherein the blade carrier and the brush are powered to rotate in opposite directions (¶ 0039, lines 39-60).
Regarding claim 8, Lingle in view of Henderson discloses the device of claim 1, including the blade carrier further comprises a first helical blade defining the first cylindrical diameter and a second helical blade defining a third cylindrical diameter (Lingle; Figs. 8 and 9), however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the first and third cylindrical diameters are different. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of Lingle such that the first and third cylindrical diameters are different in order to create a variable pattern on a surface cut by the device, which would allow the user to tailor the operation of the device to suit their specific application. Additionally, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 9, Lingle in view of Henderson discloses the device of claim 8.
Lingle discloses wherein a spacing between the brush and the blade carrier is adjustable in a range comprising the bristles of the brush engaging the sides of the first helical blade only to the bristles of the brush engaging the sides of both the first and second helical blades (¶ 0039, lines 39-60).
Regarding claim 13, Lingle in view of Henderson discloses the device of claim 1, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein a rotational speed of the blade carrier is different than a rotational speed of the brush. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of Lingle in view of Henderson such that the rotational speed of the blade carrier is different than a rotational speed of the brush in order to allow the user to independently adjust the speeds of each component, which would give the user more control over the device. Additionally, it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 14, Lingle in view of Henderson discloses the device of claim 1.
Lingle discloses wherein the blade carrier and the brush are powered to rotate in the same direction (¶ 0039, lines 39-60).
Regarding claim 15, Lingle discloses an apparatus for providing selective tearing, pulling and or removal of plants (reel mower; Fig. 7) comprising:
a blade carrier rotatably attached to the apparatus and having a first longitudinal axis (cutting reel 830; Figs. 8 and 9), the blade carrier further comprising a first blade disposed around the first longitudinal axis, having sides and extending radially therefrom and defining a first cylindrical diameter (Figs. 8 and 9 show helical blades with sides disposed around a longitudinal axis of the cutting reel), and a second blade disposed around the first longitudinal axis, having sides and extending radially therefrom and defining a third cylindrical diameter (Figs. 8 and 9);
a brush rotatably attached to the apparatus and having a second longitudinal axis (brush base 100; Figs. 8 and 9), the brush further comprising a plurality of bristles extending outwardly from the second longitudinal axis and defining a second cylindrical diameter (Figs. 8 and 9 show bristles 210 extending outwardly from longitudinal axis defined by brush base 100), the brush being attached to the apparatus such that the second longitudinal axis is parallel to the first longitudinal axis (Figs. 8 and 9 show brush base 100 and cutting reel 830 have parallel axes); and
an elevation device for maintaining the blade carrier and brush at a height over a surface to engage desirable and undesirable plants (ground contacting rollers 850, 860; Figs. 8 and 9; ¶ 0039, lines 11-14);
and the blade carrier and the brush are approximately equally spaced from the surface (Fig. 8); and
wherein a spacing between the brush and the blade carrier is adjustable in a range comprising the brush engaging the first blade only to the brush engaging the first and second blades (¶ 0039, lines 39-60; claim 3).
Lingle, however, fails to specifically disclose wherein the brush and blade carrier are also arranged such that the bristles of the brush engage the sides of the blades of the blade carrier, thereby defining a dynamic interface, and wherein the first and third cylindrical diameters are different. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of Lingle such that the first and third cylindrical diameters are different in order to create a variable pattern on a surface cut by the device, which would allow the user to tailor the operation of the device to suit their specific application. Additionally, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Henderson teaches wherein the brush and blade carrier are also arranged such that the bristles of the brush engage the sides of the blades of the blade carrier, thereby defining a dynamic interface (Fig. 8 shows that brush 210 and serrated disks 226 of roller 200 engage each other to form a dynamic interface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vegetation control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lingle such that the brush and blade carrier are also arranged such that the bristles of the brush engage the sides of the blades of the blade carrier, thereby defining a dynamic interface, as taught by the serrated blade and bristle engagement of Henderson. The engagement of the blade and bristles would eliminate a gap between the components, which would allow for more effective processing of vegetation. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 16, Lingle in view of Henderson discloses the device of claim 15.
Lingle discloses wherein the first and second blades on the blade carrier are helical (Figs. 8 and 9 show helical blades disposed around a longitudinal axis of the cutting reel).
Regarding claim 17, Lingle in view of Henderson discloses the device of claim 15, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the first and second blades on the blade carrier are discs (Henderson; disks 226; Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 18, Lingle in view of Henderson discloses the device of claim 15, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the first blade on the blade carrier further comprises a first plurality of discs having the first cylindrical diameter (Henderson; disks 226; Fig. 8); and wherein the second blade on the blade carrier further comprises a second plurality of discs having the third cylindrical diameter (Henderson; ¶ 0043, lines 11-17, “Smaller diameter disks 222 [FIG. 6] are between the textured disks and are in line [parallel] with the grooves of the base blade providing grooves 221 and acting as the leading edge of the base blade designed to remove, by pulling, cutting, and/or tearing, weeds more aggressively than the fixed grooves on the base blade or textured disks”).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lingle (US 20150223396 A1) in view of Henderson (US 20190269121 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Campey et al. (US 10517203 B2), hereinafter Campey.
Regarding claim 10, Lingle in view of Henderson discloses the device of claim 1, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the one or more blades further comprises hooks on an outer circumference of the one or more blades.
Campey is in the field of vegetation control and teaches wherein the one or more blades further comprises hooks on an outer circumference of the one or more blades (blade segments 18a, teeth 19; Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vegetation control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lingle in view of Henderson such that the one or more blades further comprises hooks on an outer circumference of the one or more blades, as taught by the hooks of Campey. The hooks would dig further into the turf, which would result in more effective removal of material. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, Lingle in view of Henderson discloses the device of claim 1, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the blade carrier blade further comprises burrs/barbs on the sides of the blades and the bristles of the brush engage the burrs/bars.
Campey teaches wherein the blade carrier blade further comprises burrs/barbs on the sides of the blades and the bristles of the brush engage the burrs/bars (blade segments 18a, teeth 19; Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vegetation control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lingle in view of Henderson such the blade carrier blade further comprises burrs/barbs on the sides of the blades and the bristles of the brush engage the burrs/bars, as taught by the hooks of Campey. The hooks would dig further into the turf, which would result in more effective removal of material. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument on page 8 that “Additionally, claim 1 recites that the dynamic interface does not have any fixed components that directly engage in pulling, tearing, or otherwise damaging undesirable plants. If the blades of the reel mower components of Lingle are considered part of a dynamic interface, the blades interact with ‘fixed bedknife 820’. Lingle, 0039. Henderson (US 20190269121 Al) was cited in the rejection of claim 11. Regarding subject matter previously recited in claim 11, Henderson describes the disks as operating in cooperation with the fixed base blade 120. Henderson Col. 8:21-32. The fixed grooved base directly engages in pulling, tearing, or otherwise damaging undesirable plants in cooperation with the brush. In short, both Lingle and Henderson teach fixed structure for interacting with plants, which is directly contrary to claim 1. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9, and 14, are not anticipated or rendered obvious for this additional reason,” the Examiner submits that only the brush base 100 and cutting reel 830 of Lingle and the brush 210 and roller 200 of Henderson are relied upon to teach the components contributing to the dynamic interface. These specific structures do not have fixed components that engage in pulling, tearing, or damaging plants, and instead form a rotational interface.
Regarding the argument on pages 8 and 9 that “Claim 4 further recites that the blade carrier and brush are positioned such that a first tangent of a first downward extending radius of the first cylindrical diameter is approximately level with a second tangent of a second downward extending radius of the second cylindrical diameter. Lingle is silent as to the tangents of the downward extending radii of the reel carrier and brush. Claim 4 is not anticipated for this additional reason. Claim 5 further recites that the blade carrier and brush are positioned such that a first tangent of a first downward extending radius of the first cylindrical diameter is lower than a second tangent of a second downward extending radius of the second cylindrical diameter. Lingle is silent as to the tangents of the downward extending radii of the reel carrier and brush. Claim 5 is not anticipated for this additional reason,” on page 9 that “Claim 9 claims structure to enable adjustability of the damage imparted to undesirable plants. For example, claim 9 recites that a spacing between the brush and the blade carrier is adjustable. Moreover claim 9 recites that the brush and blade carrier are configurable in a range comprising the brush engaging the first helical blade only (lower levels of plant damage) to the brush engaging the first and second helical blades (higher levels of plant damage). Lingle does not teach or suggest this. Claim 9 is not anticipated for this additional reason,” and on page 10 that “Claim 11 currently stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lingle and further in view of Henderson (US 20190269121 Al). The rejection is respectfully traversed. The remarks set forth with respect to claim 1 are incorporated by reference. Claim 11 is not rendered obvious for at least the same reasons as claim 1 is not anticipated. By teaching inclusion of fixed components, e.g., grooved base 120 (Fig. 2, Fig. 4), that directly engage in pulling, tearing, or otherwise damaging undesirable plants, Henderson teaches away from the present invention as claimed.” the Examiner submits that the above arguments are conclusory statements that do not provide any specific evidence or reasoning as to why Lingle does not disclose the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, the above claims remain rejected in view of Lingle, Henderson, and Campey as demonstrated in the above action.
Regarding the argument on page 9 that “Claim 8 further recites that the blade carrier further comprises a first helical blade defining the first cylindrical diameter and a second helical blade defining a third cylindrical diameter, wherein the first and third cylindrical diameters are different. A person of skill in the art would not modify the reel carrier of Lingle as suggested by the Office because having blades of different diameter would not result in a variable pattern on a surface cut by the device. If blades of a different cylindrical diameter were included on the reel carrier of Lingle, only the largest diameter blade would engage the bedknife for cutting grass. A smaller diameter blade would not reach the bedknife or cut any grass. There is no motivation to a person of skill in the art to make such a modification to a reel mower,” the Examiner maintains that a blade carrier with a variable diameter would result in a variable cutting pattern, as the blade region corresponding to a larger diameter would produce a deeper cut, as opposed to a blade region corresponding to a smaller diameter. There is no evidence that the presence of a variable diameter cutting reel would result in only a portion of the blade cutting grass, as grass can grow to heights exceeding the height of the cutting reel with respect to the ground. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Lingle such that the first and third cylindrical diameters are different. Additionally, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Slater et al., US 20120180448 A1, discusses a rotating assembly for a grass treatment device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER THOMAS CALLAWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/S.T.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights