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)(4) because reference character “41” has been used to designate both "a supporting part 41” (see in Fig. 3.1 and page 11 line 5 of specification) and "a front edge 41” (see in Fig. 2.2-2.3 and page 9 line 15 of specification) .
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include reference character "49". The examiner believes reference character 47 in Fig. 3.1 has been used mistakenly to designate both "supporting elements 47" and "an outer surface 49" of the supporting head, as described on page 12 lines 4-5.
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because "is described" (line 2) and "is also described" (last line) are implied phrases. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 lines 12-13 “a center longitudinal axis” should be --the center longitudinal axis--. Note that a center longitudinal axis is positively set forth in claim 1 line 6.
Claim 13 line 2 “arranged o lock” should be –arranged to lock--.
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 1-5 and 7-15 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 in line 12 recites the broad recitation "at least one arm", and the claim also recites "preferably three arms" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, the feature has been interpreted as (a) merely exemplary and therefore not required. However, appropriate correction is required to clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the claim.
By virtue of their dependence on claim 1, this basis of rejection also applies to dependent claims 2-15.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the fourth short side" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that “a fourth short side” is positively set forth in claim 3 line 4. Claim 4 has accordingly been interpreted as depending from claim 3 for purposes of examination.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that “two long sides” are positively set forth in claim 3 line 2.
Claim 5 has accordingly been interpreted as depending from claim 3 for purposes of examination.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "a shape of a further trapezoid" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that the initial “a shape of a trapezoid” is positively set forth in claim 3 line 2. Claim 7 has accordingly been interpreted as depending from claim 3 for purposes of examination.
Regarding claims 9-10, the phrase "preferably" (i.e. “preferably of a metal plate” and “preferably made by a bending process of a prefabricated piece of a sheet material”) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether these limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the features following the phrase have been interpreted as merely exemplary and therefore not required. However, appropriate correction is required to clearly set forth the metes and bounds of 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Strickland (US 6134789 A).
Regarding claim 1, Strickland discloses a rotatable part of a trimming apparatus (10) arranged for cutting and removing of grass and other vegetation adjacent a sprinkler head of a watering system (col. 1 lines 6-11), the rotatable part comprises:
- an elongated shaft (40) having a lower end (41) and an upper end (14) in an intended position for use of the rotatable part, wherein the elongated shaft is configured for rotation about a center longitudinal axis extending through the elongated shaft (Fig. 2), wherein the upper end is arranged for connection to a driving device (18) to achieve the rotation of the elongated shaft (col. 4 lines 25-28), and
- a cutting head (46) comprising a connection central portion (48, 49) arranged for connection of the cutting head to the lower end of the elongated shaft and arranged for transfer of the rotation of the elongated shaft to the cutting head (col. 4 lines 28-31),
wherein the cutting head comprises at least one arm
wherein the at least one arm comprises a cutting element (i.e. downwardly-extending lateral portions of U-shaped blade 46) connected to a distal end of the at least one arm in relation to the attachment central portion (Fig. 1), wherein the cutting element comprises:
- a central part (designated in annotated image below, flat vertical face extending between leading edge 47 and trailing edge 45) connected tangentially to an outermost edge of the distal end of the at least one arm radially in relation to the connection central portion (Fig. 1), and
- a rear part (angled portion comprising trailing edge 45) arranged at an angle (“α”, designated below) in relation to the central part and arranged at a rear edge of the central part in relation to a rotational direction of the cutting head during rotation of the cutting head (as seen in Fig. 1, “angled trailing edge 45” is disposed at rear edge w.r.t. rotational direction, col. 4 line 8),
wherein the cutting element comprises a front part (angled face having leading edge 47) arranged at a further angle (“β”, designated below) in relation to the central and arranged at a front edge of the central part in relation to the rotational direction of the cutting head during rotation of the cutting head (as seen in Fig. 1, “leading cutting edge 47” is disposed at rear edge w.r.t. rotational direction, col. 4 line 8), wherein the front part is arranged on the opposite side of a plane (“P”, designated below) through the central part in relation to the rear part (as seen below, rear and front parts are arranged on opposing sides of plane defined by central part).
PNG
media_image1.png
901
1017
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Image of Fig. 1 of Strickland
Regarding claim 9, Strickland discloses the rotatable part according to claim 1, wherein the cutting element is made of a sheet material, preferably of a metal plate (col. 5 lines 20-21 blade is made from steel).
Regarding claim 10, Strickland discloses the rotatable part according to claim 1, wherein the cutting element is arranged as a one-piece element (Fig. 1),
Regarding claim 11, Strickland discloses a trimming apparatus (10) arranged for cutting and removing of grass and other vegetation adjacent a sprinkler head of a watering system, the trimming apparatus comprises:
- a rotatable part according to claim 1, and
a supporting part, wherein the supporting part comprises:
- a hollow elongated handle (30) having a further lower end (36) and a further upper end (26) in an intended position for use of the supporting part and
- a supporting head (42 + 44) connected to the further lower end of the hollow elongated handle (Fig. 1), wherein the elongated shaft (40) of the rotatable part is positioned inside the hollow elongated handle such that the elongated shaft can rotate about the center longitudinal axis in relation to the hollow elongated handle (col. 4 lines 16-17 elongated shaft 40 rotates within hollow flexible shaft 30) and can move in a first and second direction along the center longitudinal axis in relation to the hollow elongated handle (Fig. 2-3, elongated shaft 40 moves up and down relative to flexible shaft 30),
wherein the supporting head is arranged to enclose the cutting head (46) of the rotatable part in a retracted position of the rotatable part in relation to the supporting part (in retracted position as seen in Fig. 2, supporting head 42,44 encloses cutting head 46).
Regarding claim 15, Strickland discloses trimming apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the supporting head (42 + 44) has a tubular framework shape with a first diameter greater than a second diameter of the cutting head (46) (as seen in Fig. 2, supporting head 42,44 has a larger diameter in order to accommodate cutting head 46 within).
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strickland as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bohlman (US 3747214 A).
Regarding claim 2, Strickland discloses the rotatable part according to claim 1, wherein the angle is approximately 45° instead of 90°.
In the same field of endeavor, Bohlman discloses a device (Fig. 7) for trimming vegetation around sprinkler heads, wherein the device comprises a plurality of L-shaped cutter members formed of sheet metal and each composed of a rear part (28), a central part (29), and a front part (30), wherein the rear part is disposed at a right angle in relation to the central part (Fig. 7, col. 3 lines 3-7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the angle of the trailing rear part, such as 90 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 3-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strickland as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tybuszynski (US 20240122102 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Strickland discloses the rotatable part according to claim 1, wherein the rear part (45) has a shape of a trapezoid (trailing face 45 has the shape of a rectangle which is a type of trapezoid) with two long sides (forward and rearward edges of 45 relative to rotational direction) arranged parallel to each other, a third short side (upper edge of 45 relative to up-down direction during use) arranged substantially perpendicular to the long sides (Fig. 1), and a fourth short side (lower edge of 45 nearest ground surface during use).
Strickland fails to disclose wherein the fourth short side (i.e. the bottom edge) of the rear part is arranged at angles other than 90° in relation to the long sides.
In the same field of endeavor, Tybuszynski discloses a cutting head (264, Figs. 22-26) for trimming around sprinkler heads, the cutting head comprising a plurality of arms (281) having a respective cutting element (296) extending downwardly therefrom, wherein the cutting element has the shape of a trapezoid with two long sides arranged parallel to each other (parallel lateral edges as shown in Fig. 27), a third short side (upper edge) arranged substantially perpendicular to the long sides and a fourth short side (bottom cutting edge 318) arranged with other angles than 90° in relation to the long sides (as seen in Fig. 27, blade has a perpendicular upper edge and slanted bottom edge). The Examiner notes that Fig. 2-5 of provisional app. 63/477,430 filed 12/28/2022 provides support for the subject matter discussed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fourth short side of Strickland (i.e. the bottom edge) to be slanted such that it is disposed at angles other than 90° relative to the long sides, as taught by Tybuszynski, in order to provide improved cutting of grass and other vegetation (see Tybuszynski at top of para. [0076]).
Regarding claim 4, Strickland in view of Tybuszynski discloses the rotatable part according to claim 3, wherein the cutting element has an upper side and a lower side in the intended position for use of the rotatable part and wherein the fourth short side is arranged at the lower side of the cutting element (fourth short side = bottom cutting edge).
Regarding claim 5, Strickland in view of Tybuszynski discloses the rotatable part according to claim 3, wherein the rear part has a first long side (rearwardmost distal edge of 45 relative to rotational direction) and a second long side (forwardmost edge of 45 abutting central part) of the two long sides, wherein the second long side is arranged to have contact with the central part (Strickland Fig. 1) and wherein the second long side is longer than the first long side arranged at a distance from the central part (from combination w/ Tybuszynski in Fig. 27 teaches parallel long sides having different lengths).
Regarding claim 7, Strickland in view of Tybuszynski discloses the rotatable part according to claim 3, wherein the central part of the cutting element has a shape of a further trapezoid (Strickland teaches central part having rectangle shape which is a type of trapezoid).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strickland as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schumacher (US 2718838 A).
Regarding claim 8, Strickland discloses the rotatable part according to claim 1, wherein the front part (47) of the cutting element has a shape of a trapezoid/rectangle (Fig. 1) instead of a triangle.
Schumacher in the same area of lawn trimmers discloses a cutter (35) comprising a front part (41 + 42) in the shape of a triangle (Fig. 5) defining the cutting edge of the cutter (col. 2 lines 60-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the front part of Strickland to have the shape of a triangle, as taught by Schumacher, as this is a simple substitution of one known beveled or sharpened leading edge for slicing through grass/soil build-up for another to yield predictable results, and since those of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a modification such as a mere change in shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strickland as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Aman et al. (US 3554293 A).
Regarding claim 12, Strickland discloses the trimming apparatus according to claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the supporting head (42,44) comprises a number of supporting elements arranged on an outer surface of the supporting head intended to face the ground during use of the trimming apparatus and arranged to be inserted into the ground.
In the same field of endeavor, Aman discloses a similar trimming apparatus including a cutting apparatus (20) housed within a supporting head (40) comprising a number of supporting elements (52) arranged on an outer surface (46) of the supporting head intended to face the ground during use of the trimming apparatus and arranged to be inserted into the ground (Fig. 1-3, col. 2 lines 67-69,71-73).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the supporting head of Strickland to include similar supporting elements for staking into the turf or surrounding grass/vegetation, as taught by Aman, in order to securely anchor the trimming apparatus in place thereby improving overall stability during operation.
Regarding claim 13, Strickland discloses the trimming apparatus according to claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the supporting part (26 + 30 + 36) comprises a locking mechanism arranged to lock the rotatable part in relation to the supporting part.
In the same field of endeavor, Aman discloses a trimming apparatus comprising a substantially similar rotatable part (14) and supporting part (76 + 68 + 54) (Fig. 2), wherein the supporting part comprises a locking mechanism (78) arranged to lock the rotatable part in relation to the supporting part (col. 2 lines 35-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the supporting part of Strickland to include a similar locking mechanism, as taught by Aman, in order to provide means for adjustably mounting and securely retaining the shaft at the height desired for best results during operation (Aman at col. 1 lines 23-26 and col. 3 lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 14, Strickland in view Aman discloses the trimming apparatus according to claim 13. Aman further teaches wherein the locking mechanism (78) is arranged at the hollow elongated handle (at the upper collar 76 thereof) and is arranged to act with pressure forces on the elongated shaft (14) of the rotatable part to lock the rotatable part in relation to the supporting part (set screw 78 when tightened creates clamping force for locking shaft 14 in place).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dimitracopoulos (US 20210153430 A1) discloses a cutting blade with substantially trapezoidal downturned tips. Szurpicki (US 8201639 B2) disclose a lawn edger tool. Karczewski (US 20080135267 A1) discloses a hand operated cutting tool including blades having angled leading and trailing edges. Thompson et al. (US 6857480 B2) discloses an adjustable head edger. Thede (US 6412568 B1) discloses a sprinkler head edging device. Oostendorp (US 5493783 A) discloses a grass trimming device for sprinkler heads. Wait et al. (US 4862682 A) discloses a rotary grass trimming device comprising a blade formed from a metal bending process. Morris (US 3923102 A) discloses a tool for edging around sprinkler heads. Rousselet (US 3174224 A) discloses a grass trimmer for sprinkler heads. Alexander et al. (US 2913058 A) discloses a lawn edger. Lancour (US 2745331 A) discloses a lawn edger.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Joesph Rocca, can be reached on (571) 272-8971. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671