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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: "116" Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: line 14 recites the limitation “wherein brush and blade carrier.” Examiner recommends revision to “wherein the brush and blade carrier.”
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 9, 15, and 16 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 “such that the dynamic interface is selectively configurable in a range comprising the brush and engaging the first helical blade only to the brush and engaging 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 claim 16 fails to remedy the deficiencies.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lingle (US 20150223396 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, extending radially therefrom and defining a first cylindrical diameter (Figs. 8 and 9 show helical blades 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”);
wherein brush and blade carrier are also arranged such that the bristles of the brush engage the blades of the blade carrier in a dynamic interface (¶ 0039, lines 39-60, “A turf conditioning brush constructed according to the present invention has a generally cylindrical base 100 that is configured to rotate by one of several means, including, but not limited to, being configured as a sleeve rotatably mounted on an axle, a sleeve engaging a rotatable spindle 400, or the base may be constructed integrally to a rotatable spindle 400. In a preferred embodiment, the turf conditioning brush is mounted on a drive spindle 400 and the motive force for the rotation of the turf conditioning brush may be supplied by any of several means, including, but not limited to, indirect means such as a geartrain, a drive belt engaging a pulley, a drive chain engaging a sprocket or the sleeve or spindle 400 may be directly driven. In one embodiment, the brush base 100 is configured as a sleeve engaging a rotatable spindle 400. The direction of rotation of the brush base 100 may be the same as that of the cutting reel 830 or opposite to that of the cutting reel 830, and in a preferred embodiment the rotation of the brush base 100 is opposite to that of the cutting reel 830, such that the grass-contacting face of the brush is rotating towards the oncoming grass leaves and away from the cutting reel 830 when the reel mower 700 cutting unit 800 is in forward motion;” Claim 3), 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 do not disclose fixed components that engage in pulling, tearing, or damaging plants, and instead discuss a rotational interface).
Regarding claim 2, Lingle 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 4, Lingle 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 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 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 7, Lingle discloses the device of claim 1.
Lingle discloses wherein a spacing between the brush and the blade carrier is adjustable to increase or decrease the size of the dynamic interface (¶ 0039, lines 39-60).
Regarding claim 14, Lingle 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).
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 8, 9, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lingle (US 20150223396 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Lingle 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 (Figs. 8 and 9), however, Lingle 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 discloses the device of claim 8.
Lingle discloses wherein a spacing between the brush and the blade carrier is adjustable such that the dynamic interface is selectably configurable in a range comprising the brush and engaging the first helical blade only to the brush and engaging the first and second helical blades (¶ 0039, lines 39-60).
Regarding claim 13, Lingle discloses the device of claim 1, however, Lingle 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 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 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, extending radially therefrom and defining a first cylindrical diameter (Figs. 8 and 9 show helical blades disposed around a longitudinal axis of the cutting reel), and a second blade 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);
wherein brush and blade carrier are also arranged such that the bristles of the brush engage the blades of the blade carrier in a dynamic interface (¶ 0039, lines 39-60), 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 such that the dynamic interface is selectably configurable 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 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 16, Lingle discloses the device of claim 16.
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).
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lingle (US 20150223396 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Patton et al. (US 9974234 B2), hereinafter Patton.
Regarding claim 3, Lingle discloses the device of claim 1, however, Lingle fails to specifically disclose wherein one of more blades on the blade carrier are discs.
Patton, however, is in the field of vegetation control and teaches wherein one of more blades on the blade carrier are discs (turf groomer 20, cutting discs 24; Figs. 1 and 3).
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 one of more blades on the blade carrier are discs, as taught by the disc blades of Patton. The discs would cut horizontal runners of grass, and help work in a top dressing material into the turf surface, which would promote healthy growth of the turf surface. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 17, Lingle discloses the device of claim 1, however, Lingle fails to specifically disclose wherein the first and second blades on the blade carrier are discs.
Patton, however, is in the field of vegetation control and teaches wherein the first and second blades on the blade carrier are discs (turf groomer 20, cutting discs 24; Figs. 1 and 3).
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 first and second blades on the blade carrier are discs, as taught by the disc blades of Patton. The discs would cut horizontal runners of grass, and help work in a top dressing material into the turf surface, which would promote healthy growth of the turf surface. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lingle (US 20150223396 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Campey et al. (US 10517203 B2), hereinafter Campey.
Regarding claim 10, Lingle discloses the device of claim 1, however, Lingle 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 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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lingle (US 20150223396 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Henderson (US 20190269121 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Lingle discloses the device of claim 1, however, Lingle fails to specifically disclose wherein the blade carrier blades have sides; and wherein the blade carrier blade further comprises burrs/barbs on the sides of the blade and the bristles of the brush engage the burrs/bars.
Henderson teaches wherein the blade carrier blades have sides; and wherein the blade carrier blade further comprises burrs/barbs on the sides of the blade and the bristles of the brush engage the burrs/bars (bristles 211a, 211b, serrated disks 226; Fig. 8; ¶ 0043, lines 1-8, “a roller 200 may be fitted to the front of the base 220. The roller is powered to rotate in a direction counter to the brush 210. The roller may include textured disks 224 and serrated disks 226. The serrations may be optimized for selective cutting of undesirable plants. The textured disks, which may be spaced apart 3.0 inches, are larger and help lift prostate plants into engagement with the brush 210 and grooves 221”).
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 blade carrier blades have sides; and the blade carrier blade further comprises burrs/barbs on the sides of the blade and the bristles of the brush engage the burrs/bars, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument on pages 7 and 8 that “Lingle does not disclose any cooperation between the helical blades of the reel unit and the rotating brush. To the contrary, the reel unit and the rotating brush appear physically separated from each other. In particular, where bedknife 820 is located is physically separate from the rotating brush. Because of this separation, the brush and reel unit don't engage with each other and do not form an interface with respect to plants. In contrast, claim 1 defines the dynamic interface where the bristles of the brush engage the blades of the blade carrier. That is, the dynamic interface is where the bristles overlap with and come into contact with the radially extending blades. See, e.g., Fig. 1b, Fig. 2a, and Fig. 2b. Because Lingle does not disclose a dynamic interface as claimed, claim 1 is not anticipated by Lingle,” the Examiner submits that Lingle discloses the claimed engagement and dynamic interface as evidenced by ¶ 0039, lines 39-60, and claim 3. Specifically, claim 3 details that “with said turf conditioning brush in contact with the turf; engaging said reel mower cutting unit to drive said turf conditioning brush; and mowing the turf with said reel mower cutting unit,” which demonstrates that the “brush and blade carrier are also arranged such that the bristles of the brush engage the blades of the blade carrier in a dynamic interface” as claimed.
Regarding the argument on page 8 that “Lingle does not teach or disclose any components, fixed or otherwise, for pulling, tearing, or otherwise damaging undesirable plants,” the Examiner submits that the cutting action of rotating cutting reel 830 of Lingle damages plants via cutting, thus disclosing the claimed amended limitations of claim 1 pertaining to the subject matter of cancelled claim 12.
Regarding the arguments on page 8 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 relative positions 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 relative positions of the reel carrier and brush. Claim 5 is not anticipated for this additional reason. Claim 7 further recites that a spacing between the brush and the blade carrier is adjustable to increase or decrease the size of the dynamic interface. For the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1, Lingle does not have a dynamic interface as claimed. Accordingly, Lingle cannot disclose adjusting a size of a dynamic interface. Claim 7 is not anticipated for these additional reasons,” 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, claims 4, 5, and 7 remain rejected in view of Lingle 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 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,” the Examiner submits 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Backus, US 4889045 A, discusses an apparatus for peeling bulbous plants.
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 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
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642