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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 with respect Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “Applicants believe that the rejection under §103 is unfounded at least for the reason that there is no recognition in the prior art of the advantages of situating the tank as inventors have done nor is there any teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do as inventors have done. In more particular, applicants' positioning of the tank as part of the frame was deliberately chosen to address two specific problems which are inherent to these sorts of devices. The problems and the inventors' solution are specifically set out in [0032] of the instant application: what is particularly important for purposes of the instant invention is that the spray tanks 30 and 32 are situated between, and integral to, the frame members 24/75 and 25/76, respectively. This arrangement provides each pump ready access to each tank's contents via its associated supply line (e.g., supply line 230). This arrangement provides some additional strength to the support members and also provides some protection to the tanks against falling or fallen debris”.
In response to these arguments, choosing the location of the parts of the apparatus is very known in art and a matter of routine engineering design choice that depends on the general design of the apparatus and the required dimensions of the apparatus as desired; and
One having ordinary skill in art carefully choose the location of machine parts to protect them from foreign objects—such as dust, debris, fluids, and tools—because exposure directly impacts safety, reliability, and performance.
Proper placement prevents catastrophic failures and reduces maintenance costs by addressing several critical engineering factors:
Reliability & Uptime: Shielding critical components to reduce unexpected breakdowns.
Safety: Enclosing moving parts prevents external debris from causing dangerous jams, kickbacks, or catastrophic mechanical failures.
Cost Efficiency: Protecting parts from contamination limits the need for frequent replacements and cuts down on expensive routine maintenance.
Therefore, provides some protection to the tanks against falling or fallen debris would have resulted from routine engineering practices and it therefore not patentable and would be obvious because there is no unexpected result.
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall (US5479971A) in view of Terrell (US20190274258A1).
Regarding claim 1, Marshall discloses a tree cutting apparatus (abstract; col.2: line 17-col.4: line 5), comprising:
(a) a rectangular support frame (fig.1: (12)) comprising:
(a1) a forward front-end assembly (fig.1: (24)),
(a2) a rearward attachment member (fig.1: the reward end of the apparatus (10)), said rearward attachment member being adapted to be engaged by a skid loader (col.4 lines 6-16),
(a3) a left side upper frame member (fig.1: left (68)) and a left side lower frame member (fig.1: (22)) at least for supporting said front end assembly, said left side upper and lower frame members being supported by said rearward attachment member at a left first end and terminating at a left second end at said front end assembly (fig.1);
(a4) a right side upper frame member (fig.1: (68)) and a right side lower frame member (fig.1: (20)) at least for supporting said front end assembly, said right side upper and lower frame members being supported by said rearward attachment member at a right first end and terminating at a right second end at said front end assembly (fig.1);
(b) a horizontal planar tree cutting blade (fig.1: (14)) rotatably mounted on said front end assembly, said blade having a front edge (fig.3: the top edge of element (14)) and a rear edge (fig.3: the bottom edge of element (14)), wherein said front edge comprises an arcuate cutting edge extending beyond said front end assembly (figs.1-3);
(c) first and second pistons (fig.1: (40) and (46)) mounted within said rectangular support frame and in reciprocal mechanical communication with each other, said first piston having a first shaft (fig.1: (38)) in mechanical communication with said blade and said second piston having a second shaft (fig.1: (44)) in mechanical communication with said blade,
wherein (c1) retraction of said first shaft rotates said blade in a first direction and is accompanied by an extension of said second shaft, and, (c2) retraction of said second shaft rotates said blade in a direction opposite said first direction and is accompanied by an extension of said first shaft (col.3: line 28-col.4: line 6).
Marshall does not disclose (d) a tank integral to and situated between either said left side upper frame member and said left side lower frame member, or said right side upper frame member and said right side lower frame member; (e) a pump mounted on said rectangular support frame and in communication with an interior of said tank, said pump at least for drawing a liquid from said tank and urging the liquid into a supply hose that terminates in a nozzle mounted on said front end assembly.
Terrell teaches a tree cutting apparatus and sprayer (abstract and paragraphs 0043 and 0048-0052) comprising:
a tank (fig.10A: (900)) integral to a frame member (fig.10A: (530)); a pump mounted on said frame and in communication with an interior of said tank (paragraph 0050: small pump), said pump at least for drawing a liquid from said tank and urging the liquid into a supply hose (fig.10A: (1110)) that terminates in a nozzle (fig.4: (415) mounted on a front end assembly (figs.4 and 10A).
Both of the prior arts of Marshall and Terrell are related a tree cutting apparatus;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Marshall to have the configuration of a tank, a pump, a hose and a nozzle as taught by Terrell in order to apply herbicide when the apparatus in use or idle (Terrell: paragraph 0043); thereby having a tree cutting apparatus and sprayer.
Further, choosing the location of the parts of the apparatus is very known in art and a matter of routine engineering design choice that depends on the general design of the apparatus and the required dimensions of the apparatus as desired;
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the locations of the configuration of a tank, pump, hose and nozzle as desired, including d) a tank integral to and situated between either said left side upper frame member and said left side lower frame member, or said right side upper frame member and said right side lower frame member; (e) a pump mounted on said rectangular support frame and in communication with an interior of said tank, said pump at least for drawing a liquid from said tank and urging the liquid into a supply hose that terminates in a nozzle mounted on said front end assembly in order to obtain a tree cutting apparatus and sprayer with specific dimensions as desired.
Regarding claim 2, Marshall discloses wherein said blade is elliptical (fig.1).
Therefore, the modification of Marshall in view of Terrell teaches the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Marshall discloses wherein said blade has an axis of rotation (fig.3: (34)) that is located nearer said rear edge than said front edge.
Therefore, the modification of Marshall in view of Terrell teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Marshall discloses wherein said arcuate cutting edge of said blade comprises left and right cutting edges (fig.3: (14a) and (14b)) defined by a center line (fig.3: (48)) running longitudinally through said blade and wherein said left cutting edge comprises a plurality of teeth (fig.3: (50a)) that are configured to cut into a tree when said blade is rotated in said first direction and wherein said right cutting edge comprises a plurality of teeth (fig.3: (50b)) that are configured to cut into the tree when said blade is rotated in said second direction.
Therefore, the modification of Marshall in view of Terrell teaches the limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Marshall discloses a tree gripping member (fig.4: (60)) mounted on the forward end of said rectangular support frame for engaging with a trunk of the tree and preventing transverse sliding movement of the tree away from the blade when the blade is rotated to cut the tree.
Therefore, the modification of Marshall in view of Terrell teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Marshall discloses a deflecting member (fig.4: (60)) mounted atop said frame, said deflecting member at least for deflecting falling tree limbs and tree trunks away from said rectangular support frame.
Therefore, the modification of Marshall in view of Terrell teaches the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Marshall discloses a tree cutting apparatus (abstract; col.2: line 17-col.4: line 5), comprising:
a rectangular support frame (fig.1: (12)) having a forward frame member (fig.1: (24)), a rearward frame member fig.1: the reward end of the apparatus (10)), a left frame member (fig.1: (22) and left (68)) and a right frame member (fig.1: (20) and right (68)),
wherein (a1) said rearward frame member is adapted to be engaged by a skid loader (col.4 lines 6-16),
(a2) said left frame member comprises a left upper frame member (fig.1: (22)) and a left lower frame member (fig.1: (68)), said left upper and lower frame members being attached at a left first end on said rearward frame member and supporting said front frame member on a left second end (fig.1),
(a3) said right frame member comprises a right upper frame member (fig.1: (20)) and a right lower frame member (fig.1: right (68)), said right upper and lower frame members being attached at a right first end on said rearward frame member and supporting said front frame member on a right second end (fig.1);
(b) a horizontal planar tree cutting blade (fig.1: (14)) rotatably mounted on said forward frame member, said blade having a front edge (fig.3: the top edge of element (14)) and a rear edge (fig.3: the bottom edge of element (14)), wherein said front edge comprises an arcuate cutting edge extending beyond said forward frame member figs.1-3);
(c) a sprocket (fig.1: (32) and (34)) attached to said blade;
(d) first and second pistons (fig.1: (40) and (46)) mounted within said rectangular support frame and in reciprocal mechanical communication with each other, said first piston having a first shaft (fig.1: (38)) in mechanical communication with said sprocket and said second piston having a second shaft (fig.1: (44)) in mechanical communication with said sprocket, wherein (d1) retraction of said first shaft rotates said blade in a first direction and is accompanied by an extension of said second shaft, and, (d2) retraction of said second shaft rotates said blade in a direction opposite said first direction and is accompanied by an extension of said first shaft (col.3: line 28-col.4: line 6).
Marshall does not disclose (e) a left sprayer tank integral to said support frame and situated between said left upper structural member and said left lower structural member; (f) a right sprayer tank integral to said support frame and situated between said right upper structural member and said right lower structural member; (g) a left sprayer nozzle attached to said forward frame member; (h) a right sprayer nozzle attached to said forward frame member; (i) a left sprayer pump attached to said rearward frame member and in communication with said left sprayer tank and said left sprayer nozzle, said left sprayer pump at least for drawing liquid from said left sprayer tank and dispensing it through said left sprayer nozzle; and, (j) a right sprayer pump attached to said rearward frame member and in communication with said right sprayer tank and said right sprayer nozzle, said right sprayer pump at least for drawing liquid from said right sprayer tank and dispensing it through said right sprayer nozzle.
Terrell teaches a tree cutting apparatus and sprayer (abstract and paragraphs 0043 and 0048-0052) and 0050 comprising:
a first tank (fig.10A: (900)) integral to a frame member (fig.10A: (530)); a pump mounted on said rectangular support frame and in communication with an interior of said tank (paragraph 0050: small pump), said pump at least for drawing a liquid from said tank and urging the liquid into a supply hose (fig.10A: (1110)) that terminates in a nozzle (fig.4: (415) mounted on a front end assembly (figs.4 and 10A); and a second tank (fig.11: (1110)) independent of the first tank (fig.10A: (900)) (paragraph 0052).
Both of the prior arts of Marshall and Terrell are related a tree cutting apparatus;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Marshall to have the configuration of a first tank, a second tank, a pump, a hose and a nozzle as taught by Terrell in order to apply herbicide when the apparatus in use or idle (Terrell: paragraph 0043); thereby having a tree cutting apparatus and sprayer.
Further, choosing the location of the parts of the apparatus is very known in art and a matter of routine engineering design choice that depends on the general design of the apparatus and the required dimensions of the apparatus as desired;
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the locations of the configuration of a first tank, a second tank, a pump, a hose and a nozzle as desired, including (e) a left sprayer tank integral to said support frame and situated between said left upper structural member and said left lower structural member; (f) a right sprayer tank integral to said support frame and situated between said right upper structural member and said right lower structural member; (g) a left sprayer nozzle attached to said forward frame member; (h) a right sprayer nozzle attached to said forward frame member; (i) a left sprayer pump attached to said rearward frame member and in communication with said left sprayer tank and said left sprayer nozzle, said left sprayer pump at least for drawing liquid from said left sprayer tank and dispensing it through said left sprayer nozzle; and, (j) a right sprayer pump attached to said rearward frame member and in communication with said right sprayer tank and said right sprayer nozzle, said right sprayer pump at least for drawing liquid from said right sprayer tank and dispensing it through said right sprayer nozzle in order to obtain a tree cutting apparatus and sprayer with specific dimensions as desired.
Regarding claim 8, Marshall discloses wherein said first and second pistons further comprise: (i) a first chain (fig.1: (36)) connected to said first piston shaft (fig.1: (38)) and engaged with said sprocket on a first side of said sprocket, and (ii) a second chain (fig.1: (42)) connect to said second piston shaft (fig.1: (44)) and engaged with said sprocket on a side of said sprocket opposite said first side.
Therefore, the modification of Marshall in view of Terrell teaches the limitations of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Marshall discloses wherein said blade is elliptical (fig.1) in shape.
Therefore, the modification of Marshall in view of Terrell teaches the limitations of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Marshall discloses wherein said blade has an axis of rotation (fig.3: (34)) that is located nearer said rear edge than said front edge.
Therefore, the modification of Marshall in view of Terrell teaches the limitations of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Marshall discloses wherein said arcuate cutting edge of said blade comprises left and right cutting edges (fig.3: (14a) and (14b)) defined by a center line (fig.3: (48)) running longitudinally through said blade and wherein said left cutting edge comprises a plurality of teeth (fig.3: (50a)) that are configured to cut into a tree when said blade is rotated in said first direction and wherein said right cutting edge comprises a plurality of teeth (fig.3: (50b)) that are configured to cut into the tree when said blade is rotated in said second direction.
Therefore, the modification of Marshall in view of Terrell teaches the limitations of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Marshall discloses further comprising (k) a tree gripping member (fig.4: (60)) attached to the forward frame for engaging with a trunk of a tree and preventing a transverse sliding movement of the tree away from the blade as the blade is rotated to cut the tree.
Therefore, the modification of Marshall in view of Terrell teaches the limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Marshall discloses a deflecting member (fig.4: (60)) mounted atop said rectangular support frame, said deflecting member at least for deflecting falling tree limbs and tree trunks away from said frame.
Therefore, the modification of Marshall in view of Terrell teaches the limitations of claim 13.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm.
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 TEMPLETON can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights