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 .
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer (US 4840232 A) in view of Bowsher (US 20080000651 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mayer discloses a perforator (50) for a lawn aerator (Fig. 1), comprising:
a main portion (unlabeled circular portion of hub 52 located between 56 and 58 in Fig. 4, i.e. substantially flat, circular portion immediately surrounding shaft 60 and extending outward from central aperture 56 in a radial direction X, and disposed intermediate respective annular projections 58 relative to axial direction R); and
a plurality of perforating portions (54), integrally formed with the main portion (col. 2 lines 54-59), extending radially outward from an outer periphery of the main portion, and arranged at intervals in a circumferential direction of the main portion (Fig. 4), each perforating portion forming a cutting portion (74) at a distal end thereof (col. 5 lines 15-16),
wherein between cutting portions of any two adjacent perforating portions, an edge of the perforator is turned over towards one side of the perforator to form a turned-over portion (52) (Fig. 6, col. 4 lines 1-3 hub 52 comprises annular projections 58 which are turned outward to protrude from the main portion and toward respective sides in the axial direction R),
the turned-over portion comprises: a turned-over section (58), formed at the periphery of the main portion, and located between two adjacent perforating portions, wherein the two adjacent perforating portions and the turned-over section are integrally formed (col. 6 lines 50-56 each tine assembly 50 consists of an integral casting comprising a hollow hub 52 and a series of equally-angularly spaced tines 54 integral with and extending from the hub).
Mayer fails to disclose two additional turned-over sections, respectively formed at the two adjacent sides of the two adjacent perforating portions.
In the same area, Bowsher discloses a similar perforator having a plurality of perforating portions (25) comprising two turned-over sections (designated below) formed at two adjacent sides of two adjacent perforating portions, wherein each turned-over section has a turned-over degree and a turned-over width, and both the turned-over degree and turned-over width gradually increase in a direction away from central portion 10 (as seen in Fig. 3 and shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
586
828
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Image of Fig. 3 of Bowsher
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the perforating portions of Mayer similar to that of Bowsher, since this is a mere simple substitution of one tine shape/structure for aerating a lawn for another to yield predictable results. Note that Mayer’s perforating portions (54) are integrally formed with the annular projection (58) (which corresponds to Applicant’s “second” turned-over section formed at the periphery of the main portion). Therefore, if one were to modify the shape of the perforating portion of Mayer per the teaching of Bowsher to include two first turned-over sections as claimed, as combined above, one would inherently acquire two first turned-over sections integrally formed with the second turned-over section (i.e. since the entire tine assembly of Mayer is an integral casting, all elements thereof are considered to be “integrally formed”).
Regarding claims 2-3, Mayer in view of Bowsher discloses the perforator according to claim 1. Bowsher further teaches:
wherein each first turned-over section has a turned-over degree, and the turned-over degree gradually increases in a direction away from the main portion (as seen in annotated image above), as per claim 2, and
wherein each first turned-over section has a turned-over width, and the turned-over width gradually increases in a direction away from the main portion (as seen in annotated image above), as per claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 2-3; therefore, claim 4 is also rejected over the same rationale as claims 2-3.
Regarding claim 7, Mayer discloses a lawn aerator (Fig. 1, col. 3 lines 9-10) comprising the perforator (50) according to claim 1.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of Bowsher as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hack (US 20220000001 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Mayer in view of Bowsher discloses the perforator according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the perforator is provided with a plurality of reinforcement portions which extend radially outward from the main portion into the plurality of perforating portions respectively.
In the same field of endeavor, Hack discloses a similar perforator (50) for a lawn aerator (10, Fig. 1), the perforator comprising a plurality of perforating portions (54) and a plurality of reinforcement portions (56) which extend radially outward from a main portion (52) into the plurality of perforating portions respectively (Fig. 3, para. [0032]).
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 plurality of perforating portions of Mayer to include a plurality of reinforcement portions, as taught by Hack, in order to enhance stiffness and rigidity of the design to better resists bending loads (Hack at para. [0010-0011]).
Regarding claim 6, Mayer in view of Bowsher and Hack discloses the perforator according to claim 5. Hack further teaches wherein each reinforcement portion (56) is configured as a convex portion (Fig. 4-4E) formed by stamping the perforator to one side of the perforator (Hack at para. [0036] ribs 56 are stamped into perforator 50 such that they project from one side thereof).
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-7, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however the arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“Mayer discloses that annular projections are formed on the side of the main portion in the axial direction However, annular projections are not at the periphery of the main portion” (Applicant’s remarks page 8).
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The main portion of Mayer is drawn to the unlabeled circular surface of hub 52 located between aperture 56 and annular projection 58 in Fig. 4, i.e. the substantially flat, circular portion immediately surrounding shaft 60 and extending outward from central aperture 56 in a radial direction X, and disposed inwardly of annular projection 58 relative to axial direction R, as addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Therefore, the annular projections 58 are formed at the outer periphery of the main portion and extend axially outwardly therefrom.
Applicant further argues:
“Mayer does not disclose that: (a) two first turned-over sections, respectively formed at two adjacent sides of the two adjacent perforating portions, and (b) the two first turned-over sections and the second turned-over section are integrally formed…As is the case with Mayer, Bowsher also fails to disclose or to suggest that: (a) a second turned- over section, formed at the periphery of the main portion, and located between the two first turned-over sections, and (b) the two first turned-over sections and the second turned-over section are integrally formed” (Applicant’s remarks pages 8-9).
Regarding (b), the Examiner points out that Applicant argues the references individually rather than the combination of references. Mayer discloses a turned-over section 58, equivalent to Applicant’s “second turned-over section”, along the periphery of the main portion. Accordingly, Bowsher provides only the teaching of providing two first turned-over sections formed respectively at two adjacent sides of two perforating portions. Since the entire tine assembly of Mayer is an integral casting (see Mayer col. 6 lines 50-56), all elements thereof are considered to be “integrally formed” to each other. As such, modification of the shape of Mayer’s perforating portions 54 after those of Bowsher results in “two first turned-over sections” integrally formed with the “second turned-over section” 58 of Mayer as the BRI of “integrally formed” is “joined/connected together in such a way that they function as a single, unified piece, e.g. a single piece manufactured as one unit and/or multiple parts welded, molded, or fused together to act as a single unit).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 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
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights