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 do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 119a; 119a; and 119. 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. 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 the line "a base member, and" (i.e., line 10) and the section beginning "at least one grasping finger depending from..." (i.e., lines 11-12) should be indented under the section beginning "a weed engagement member..." (i.e., lines 8-9) in order to clearly delineate the base member and the at least one grasping finger as subcomponents of the weed engagement member. Appropriate correction (or explanation) is required. Applicant’s cooperation is respectfully requested in correcting any further errors of which Applicant may become aware in the disclosure.
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 3, 9-19, and 21 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 3 recites the limitation "the portion of the weed" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (as opposed to "the at least a portion of the weed" recited elsewhere throughout the claims).
Claim 9 recites "at least a portion of a weed" in line 9. However, claim 1 (from which claim 9 depends) previously recites "at least a portion of a weed" in line 16. It is unclear if these are the same portion or if another portion is being introduced. Thus, the metes and bounds of the weed(s) and structure relative thereto in claim 9 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 9 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. Additionally, claims 10-18 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 9.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the at least a portion of the weed" in line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since "at least a portion of a weed" is recited both in claim 1 and earlier in claim 9.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the at least a portion of the weed" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since "at least a portion of a weed" is recited in both claims 1 and 9 (from which claim 11 depends).
Claim 17 recites "a power unit" in line 4. However, claim 1 (from which claim 17 depends) previously sets forth "a power unit" in line 4. It is unclear if these are the same power unit or if another power unit is being introduced. Thus, the metes and bounds of the power unit(s) in claim 17 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 17 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. Claim 17 is being further examined as though "a power unit" reads "the power unit" in line 4.
Similarly, claim 19 recites "a power unit" in line 3. However, claim 1 (from which claim 19 depends) previously sets forth "a power unit" in line 4. It is unclear if these are the same power unit or if another power unit is being introduced. Thus, the metes and bounds of the power unit(s) in claim 19 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 19 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. Claim 19 is being further examined as though it reads:
"A motorized system for removing weeds from a lawn or garden surface, the system comprising:
the device according to claim 1; and
the power unit."
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the auger" in lines 2-3. 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Odermatt (EP 2656706 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Odermatt discloses a device for removing weeds from a lawn or garden surface, the device comprising:
a drive shaft (including or of 5) having a first end and a second end, the first end being configured to operatively couple to a power unit (including 10; see Fig. 5 and description therefor) for rotation about a longitudinal axis of the drive shaft and the second end (including 9) being a free end distal from the first end (see all figures; being "free" with a boring member as disclosed by Applicant);
coupled to the second end, an auger (including 7) having one or more flights about the longitudinal axis and a boring member (including 9); and
a weed engagement member (including 6) axially coupled to the drive shaft at a longitudinal position intermediate the auger and the first end (see Fig. 5), the weed engagement member having
a base member (horizontal plate connecting vertical, tapered elements of 6), and
at least one grasping finger (at least one vertical, tapered element of 6) depending from the base member towards the auger, the at least one finger being axially offset from the longitudinal axis (see all figures);
wherein when the boring member (including 9) is in contact with the lawn or garden surface and the drive shaft is driven in a first direction of rotation about the longitudinal axis, the auger (including 7) is configured to be driven into engagement with at least a portion of a weed (when applied thereto) and the weed engagement member (including 6) is configured to be drawn towards the lawn or garden surface and into engagement with the at least a portion of the weed (either via soil in which the weed resides, or by directly engaging the weed, depending upon the size of the weed).
Regarding claim 2, Odermatt discloses the auger (including 7) having a single flight (see all figures).
Regarding claim 3, Odermatt discloses the device being enabled to drive the auger (including 7) away from the lawn or garden surface with the weed engagement member (including 6) and the at least a portion of the weed when the drive shaft (including or of 5) is driven in a second direction of rotation about the longitudinal axis (enabled for such functionality by operation as described in paras. 0043 and 0071 of the English translation provided herewith).
Regarding claim 4, Odermatt discloses the at least one grasping finger (at least one vertical, tapered element of 6) comprising a pair of opposing grasping fingers (a pair of vertical, tapered elements of 6) depending therefrom (see all figures)
Regarding claim 5, Odermatt discloses the at least one grasping finger (at least one vertical, tapered element of 6) being bi-directional (tapered on both sides as shown; extending vertically and horizontally as shown; and moving vertically and horizontally in operation).
Regarding claim 7, Odermatt discloses each one of the pair of opposing grasping fingers (a pair of vertical, tapered elements of 6) being angularly offset from the other finger (as the tapered sides of the vertical, tapered elements are angularly offset from each other; and the vertical, tapered elements are angularly offset from each other with respect to a vertical direction or axis, as shown in Fig. 2, wherein the vertical, tapered elements are angled inwardly).
Regarding claim 8, Odermatt discloses a shaft casing (including 8a, 8b, and/or 8c) proximate the first end (upper end in the figures) of the drive shaft (including or of 5), the shaft casing rotationally decoupled from the drive shaft (8a, 8b, and 8c mounting 2a, 2b, and 2c such that 2a, 2b, and 2c are independently rotatable as described in para. 0061 of the English translation provided herewith).
Regarding claim 19, Odermatt discloses a motorized system for removing weeds from a lawn or garden surface, the system comprising:
the device according to claim 1, as set forth above; and
the power unit (including 10; see Fig. 5 and description therefor).
Regarding claim 20, Odermatt discloses a weed engagement tool for a weeding device comprising:
a base member (horizontal plate connecting vertical, tapered elements of 6) configured to axially couple with a drive shaft (including 5) having a free end configured to be driven into engagement with at least a portion of a weed; and
at least one grasping finger (at least one vertical, tapered element of 6) depending from the base member and towards the free end when coupled to the drive shaft, the at least one grasping finger being axially offset from a longitudinal axis of the drive shaft (see all figures).
Regarding claim 21, Odermatt discloses the at least one grasping finger (at least one vertical, tapered element of 6) comprising a pair of opposing grasping fingers (a pair of vertical, tapered elements of 6) depending therefrom (see all figures).
Regarding claim 22, Odermatt discloses the at least one grasping finger (at least one vertical, tapered element of 6) being bi-directional (tapered on both sides as shown; extending vertically and horizontally as shown; and moving vertically and horizontally in operation).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odermatt in view of Schneider (US 4,213,504).
Regarding claim 6, Odermatt discloses the device with respect to claim 1, as set forth above. Odermatt does not explicitly disclose the weed engagement member being in fixed rotation with the drive shaft as claimed. However, Schneider teaches a device for removing weeds from a lawn or garden surface, the device comprising:
a drive shaft (including 40, 48, 70, and 74) having a first end (including or of 48) and a second end (including end of 40 opposite 76); and
a weed engagement member (including 42 and 44) axially coupled to the drive shaft at a longitudinal position intermediate the first end and the second end, the weed engagement member having
a base member (including 44), and
at least one grasping finger (including or of 42) depending from the base member;
wherein the weed engagement member (including 42 and 44) is in fixed rotation (via 72) with the drive shaft (including 40, 48, 70, and 74).
Schneider is analogous because Schneider discloses a weeding device comprising a drive shaft and a weed engagement member rotationally fixed thereto. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Odermatt with fixed rotation means as taught by Schneider in order to work the soil deeply with minimal effort. (See Schneider, col. 2, line 8 - col. 3, line 22.) Additionally, providing Odermatt with the fixed rotational means of Schneider is a combination of prior art elements (i.e., the device in Odermatt with the structure fixing rotation of a weed engagement member in Schneider) according to known methods to yield predictable results (as taught by Schneider). See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, 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. In particular, Humphrey (US 2,035,967) teaches an ejector comprising a blade (including 15 and/or 16), but these blades "push or scrape the earth and weed from the cutters" and do not necessarily meet the functionality of that in claim 9.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joel F. Mitchell whose telephone number is (571)272-7689. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:00.
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 at (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 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.
/JFM/4/4/26
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671