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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
the grass catch member at a rear in the rotation direction of the cutter blades as set forth in claim 7 (both grass catch members are in front of the rotation directions/paths of the cutter blades as shown in Figs. 3 and 8)
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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.
Claim 7 is 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 7, lines 4-7 recite “the grass catch member at a front in a rotation direction of the cutter blades has a larger clearance from the cutter blades than the grass catch member at a rear in the rotation direction of the cutter blades”. However, it is unclear how to determine what is the front and rear of the rotation direction. Specifically, the claim is missing what in reference to is the front and rear determined by i.e. the traveling direction; therefore, it is unclear how, in a circular rotation direction, how to determine what is the front and what is the rear, and the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner is interpreting this as front and rear in relation to the traveling direction; therefore, the front is in relation to the front-half periphery wall, and the rear is in relation to the rear-half periphery wall.
Claim 7, lines 4-7 are also rejected for being unclear how the grass catch member located at the rear would receive any clippings from the cutter blades as the mower discharges the clippings forward. It is unclear how a grass catch member placed at the rear of the rotation direction would temporarily retain any clippings; therefore, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “one of the two or more grass catch members has a larger clearance from the cutter blades than the other one of the two or more grass catch members”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christopherson et al. (US 6101794 A) in view of Andre et al. (US 9756782 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Christopherson et al. discloses a mower [40] that discharges cut turfgrass forward (through [298], see Col. 16, lines 35-49), the mower comprising:
a plurality of front [46] and rear wheels [54];
at least one cutter blade [45] that cuts turfgrass; and
a blade accommodating section [44’] that accommodates the cutter blade,
wherein the blade accommodating section includes an upper wall section [202] and a peripheral wall section [264 and 292’] hanging downward from an outer peripheral edge of the upper wall section (see Figs. 1 and 10), the peripheral wall section is formed in an annular shape (see Fig. 10) by a front-half peripheral wall [292’] and a rear-half peripheral wall [264], the front-half peripheral wall is provided spaced apart from a rotation path of the cutter blade by a predetermined distance (see Fig. 10) so as to form, forward of the rotation path of the cutter blade, a grass dropping space (see below),
wherein the blade accommodating section is provided at a position rearward of each of the front wheels in a traveling direction (see Fig. 1), and a width of the front wheel (see below) measured between an inner end (see below) and an outer end (see below) of the front wheel.
PNG
media_image1.png
423
796
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
358
398
media_image2.png
Greyscale
But Christopherson et al. fails to disclose a grass catch member is provided at a position rearward of each of the front wheels in a traveling direction, the grass catch member being attached to a wall surface of the front-half peripheral wall and located within the grass dropping space, and temporarily retaining, on an upper surface thereof, turfgrass cut by the cutter blade, and the grass catch member has a width that is equal to a width of the front wheel measured between an inner end and an outer end of the front wheel, or that is greater than the width of the front wheel, the upper surface is mountain-shaped and is higher at a center part of the width of the grass catch member, and the upper surface is inclined downward from the center part toward both sides in a width direction of the grass catch member.
Andre et al. discloses a similar mower (see Col. 3, lines 45-46) comprising a grass catch member [50], the grass catch member being attached to a wall surface (see Fig. 4) of the front-half peripheral wall ([14], see Col. 6, lines 46-49), and temporarily retaining, on an upper surface [52] thereof, turfgrass cut by the cutter blade (see Col. 8, lines 24-37), and
the grass catch member has a width (see below), the upper surface is mountain-shaped (see shape in Fig. 6) and is higher at a center part [54] of the width of the grass catch member, and the upper surface is inclined downward (through lateral sides [52]) from the center part toward both sides in a width direction (see Fig. 6) of the grass catch member.
PNG
media_image3.png
264
599
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 grass catch member of Andre et al. on the blade accommodating section of Christopherson et al. in order to reduce the down pressure in the blade accommodating section by redirecting the air flows and clipping streams while causing the clippings to fall out of the discharge opening in a more even fashion (see Andre et al. Col. 8, lines 13-16 and 28-32). It can be seen then that when the grass catch member of Andre et al. is provided to the blade accommodating section of Christopherson et al. that the grass catch member is provided within the grass dropping space due to being positioned on the front-half periphery wall, as well as, at a position rearward of each of the front wheels in a traveling direction due to the blade accommodating section being provided at a position rearward of each of the front wheels (see Christopherson et al.’s above and Fig. 1).
But Andre et al. fails to explicitly disclose the grass catch member has a width that is equal to a width of the front wheel measured between an inner end and an outer end of the front wheel, or that is greater than the width of the front wheel.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the width of the grass catch member to the width of the front wheel or greater than the width of the front wheel of Christopherson et al. since a change in the shape of a prior art device is a simple matter of design choice well within the skill of one in the art In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Further, changing the width of the grass catch member does not depart from the scope of the invention (see Andre et al. Col. 8, lines 59-60), as changing the width does not prohibit the member from redirecting the clippings.
Examiner's Note: the grass catch member [50] of Andre et al. has the same structure and function as Applicant's (see Andre et al. Col. 8, lines 24-37 and Fig. 6); therefore, it can be seen that the grass clippings are temporarily retained on the upper surface of the grass catch member before being distributed across the discharge opening of the mower.
Regarding claim 4, the above combination discloses the mower as applied above, but fails to disclose wherein at least a part of the grass catch member is located below the cutter blade.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to place at least a part of the grass catch member below the cutter blade, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Further, arranging at least a part of the grass catch member to be below the cutter blade would not depart from the scope of the invention, as this placement would still allow the grass catch member to catch clippings and spread them in a more even fashion (see Andre et al. Col. 8, lines 59-60).
Regarding claim 5, Christopherson et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses the blade accommodating section [44’], but fails to disclose wherein a lower end of the grass catch member is located at the same height as a lower end of the blade accommodating section, or at a higher height than the lower end of the blade accommodating section.
However, Andre et al. discloses wherein a lower end (see below) of the grass catch member [50] is located at the same height as a lower end of the blade accommodating section, or at a higher height (see Fig. 6) than the lower end of the blade accommodating section [2].
PNG
media_image4.png
234
719
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It can be seen then that when the grass catch member of Andre et al. is applied to the blade accommodating section of Christopherson et al. that the grass catch member would be at a higher height than the lower end of the blade accommodating section of Christopherson et al. as disclosed by Andre et al. (see above).
Regarding claim 6, Christopherson et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses the cutter blades [45], but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the grass catch member overlaps at least a part of the cutter blade in a side view.
However, Andre et al. discloses wherein the grass catch member [50] overlaps at least a part of the cutter blade [32] in a side view (part of the cutter blade is above the grass catch member, see below; therefore, part of the cutter blade overlaps the grass catch member).
PNG
media_image5.png
239
730
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It can be seen then that when the grass catch member of Andre et al. is applied to the blade accommodating section of Christopherson et al. that the grass catch member overlaps at least a part of the cutter blade of Christopherson et al. as disclosed by Andre et al. (see above).
Regarding claim 8, Andre et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the grass catch member [50] includes an end inclined surface (see below; closed by cover [56], see Col. 6, lines 57-62) at a rear end part (see below) in the traveling direction (see Fig. 4), the end inclined surface being inclined downward (inclined downward by inclined walls [52], see Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image6.png
419
543
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Christopherson et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the cutter blade [45] includes a wing section [350] that generates an updraft (see Col. 21, lines 20-24 and Fig. 8).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christopherson et al. (US 6101794 A) and Andre et al. (US 9756782 B2) as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 11 above, and further in view of Meinerding (WO 9749276 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the above resultant combination discloses the mower as applied, as well as, wherein the at least one cutter blade (see Christopherson et al.'s [45]) comprises two or more cutter blades (see Christopherson et al.'s [45a-c] in Fig. 7A), and wherein the grass catch member has a clearance from the cutter blades (see Andre et al. Col. 6, lines 36-41).
But the combination fails to disclose wherein the at least one grass catch member comprises two or more grass catch members respectively in pairs with the cutter blades, and wherein one of the two or more grass catch member has a larger clearance from the cutter blades than the other one of the two or more grass catch members (please see 112(b) rejection above).
Meinerding discloses a similar mower (see page 2, lines 18-21) comprising of at least one grass catch member ([60], holds the clippings in place, allowing the blade to cut them again, see page 6, lines 22-25; therefore, is a grass catch member) comprising two or more grass catch members (two within deck [10], see Fig. 2) respectively in pairs with the cutter blade [20].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the grass catch member of Andre et al. comprise two or more grass catch member as taught by Meinerding in order to hold and disperse more clippings to improve the quality of the cut (see Meinerding page 8, lines 19-30).
But Meinerding fails to explicitly disclose wherein one of the two or more grass catch member has a larger clearance from the cutter blades than the other one of the two or more grass catch members.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the size of one of the grass catch members to be longer than the other and therefore changing the clearance of the grass catch member from the cutter blade, since 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Page 4 of Applicant’s remarks sets forth “Neither Christopherson nor Andre, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests positioning a grass catch member rearward of each front wheel, or dimensioning a grass catch member with reference to the width of a front wheel. Discharging mowed grass to the outside of the front wheel tracks, and the configuration for doing so, is neither disclosed nor suggested in the cited art.” And how the grass catch member of Andre et al. “… is not positioned rearward of each front wheel, it is not dimensioned with reference to a front wheel, and it is not configured to direct cut grass to the outside of the front wheel tracks, as required by amended claim 1.” Examiner disagrees.
As disclosed above, the blade accommodating section of Christopherson et al. is provided behind the front wheels of the mower. When the grass catch member of Andre et al. is provided to the blade accommodating section of Christopherson et al., it is provided rearward of each front wheel of Christopherson et al. due to the location of the blade accommodating section.
Further, the width of the grass catch member of Andre et al. can be changed to a variety of different widths, as changing the width does not prohibit the member from redirecting the clippings and therefore does not debark from the scope of the claims (see Andre et al. Col. 8, lines 59-60).
Finally, amended claim 1 fails to set forth the grass catch member being “configured to direct cut grass to the outside of the front wheel tracks” as set forth above in the remarks. The amendments fail to disclose the grass catch member is located directly behind the front wheel on the front-half periphery wall in order for the grass catch member to direct the clippings outside of the ruts of the wheel as is shown in applicant’s Fig. 8.
It is for these reasons that the arguments are not persuasive and the claimed invention is rejected.
Conclusion
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 SUNNY WEBB whose telephone number is (571)272-3830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 to 5:30 E.T..
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.
/SUNNY D WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights