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 Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Claim 7 recites "wherein a leading edge of the blade when the blade is rotated in a clockwise direction about the rotational axis is identical to a leading edge of the blade when the blade is rotated in a counter-clockwise direction about the rotational axis." In the Remarks of 7/9/2026, Applicant provided annotated figures in which the first and second edges (112 and 114, respectively) were also labeled "leading edge." (See Remarks of 7/9/2026, labeled p. 8.) Accordingly, the first and second edges are interpreted to be the leading edges under certain conditions as claimed, and the leading edges in claim 7 are NOT interpreted to be separate and distinct from the first and second edges.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 has been amended to recite "wherein the planar portion extends along the second side of the body in a horizontal plane, further wherein the first end of the second side and the second end of the second side intersect the horizontal plane." However, the original disclosure fails to describe or show the planar portion extending along the second side of the body in such a horizontal plane, wherein the first end of the second side and the second end of the second side intersect said horizontal plane. On the contrary, Figs. 4-6 only show planar portions that extend in a horizontal plane that is offset from a horizontal plane that intersects the first end of the second side and the second end of the second side. Thus, claim 13 contains new matter, and claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Additionally, claim 14 is rejected because of its dependency on claim 13.
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, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Notaras et al. (US 6,179,059).
Regarding claim 1, Notaras discloses a blade (including 14 in Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a body having a first side (see annotated Fig. A, below) and a second side (surfaces of side opposite said first side) opposite the first side, the first side and the second side both extending from a first end (see annotated Fig. A) to a second end (see annotated Fig. A) of the body, a first edge (see annotated Fig. A) extending along a length of the body between the first side and the second side from the first end to the second end, and a second edge (see annotated Fig. A) extending along the length of the body between the first side and the second side from the first end to the second end,
the body comprising a first arm (including arm labeled C in Fig. 2), a second arm (including arm labeled D in Fig. 2), and a planar portion (planar portion about 28) between the first arm and the second arm,
wherein the blade is configured to rotate about a rotational axis (R) that extends through the planar portion (see Figs. 1-3),
the body further comprising a hole (28) surrounding the rotational axis,
wherein each of the first arm and the second arm comprises a first bend (inner 26) extending away (vertically downward in Fig. 2) from the planar portion and a second bend (outer 26) extending (back) toward the planar portion (vertically toward the planar portion relative to its previous downward extension in Fig. 2), and
wherein the body is symmetrical about at least one axis of symmetry (having axes of symmetry as shown in annotated Fig. A since 14 is substantially identical in overall length and thickness to 12, which is a flat rectangular plate), and
wherein the first edge and the second edge are symmetrical along the length of the body (as seen in Figs. 10 and 13).
PNG
media_image1.png
639
1133
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A. Notaras et al. (US 6,179,059) annotated Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 2, Notaras discloses the at least one axis of symmetry comprising a first axis of symmetry and a second axis of symmetry (see annotated Fig. A, above), wherein the body is symmetrical about both the first axis of symmetry and the second axis of symmetry (as shown since 14 is described as substantially identical in overall length and thickness to 12, which is a flat rectangular plate).
Regarding claim 3, Notaras discloses the first axis of symmetry being orthogonal to the second axis of symmetry (see annotated Fig. A).
Regarding claim 4, Notaras discloses the first axis of symmetry and the second axis of symmetry being orthogonal to the rotational axis (see annotated Fig. A).
Regarding claim 5, Notaras discloses the first edge and the second edge being generally perpendicular to the first side and second side of the body (see annotated Fig. A).
Regarding claim 7, Notaras discloses a leading edge of the blade when the blade is rotated in a clockwise direction about the rotational axis being identical to a leading edge of the blade when the blade is rotated in a counter-clockwise direction about the rotational axis (as 14 is symmetrical and all leading edges of 14 are of identical thickness).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Notaras discloses the first bend (first 26) being disposed at an angle of between about 85 degrees and about 100 degrees with respect to the planar portion (see col. 3, lines 44-48).
Regarding claim 11, Notaras discloses the second bend (second 26) being disposed between the first end (see annotated Fig. A) and the first bend (first 26), wherein the first arm (including arm labeled C in Fig. 2) comprises an inner portion disposed between the first bend and the second bend and an outer portion between the first end and the second bend (see Figs. 1-3).
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11-14, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stark et al. (US 2013/0228351)
Regarding claim 1, Stark discloses a blade comprising:
a body having a first side (surface opposite that seen in Fig. 6) and a second side (surface seen in Fig. 6) opposite the first side, the first side and the second side both extending from a first end (38) to a second end (39) of the body, a first edge (36) extending along a length of the body between the first side and the second side from the first end to the second end, and a second edge (37) extending along the length of the body between the first side and the second side from the first end to the second end,
the body comprising a first arm (30), a second arm (31), and a planar portion (29) between the first arm and the second arm,
wherein the blade is configured to rotate about a rotational axis (21) that extends through the planar portion,
the body further comprising a hole (32) surrounding the rotational axis,
wherein each of the first arm and the second arm comprises a first bend (at 55) extending away from the planar portion (see Fig. 8) and a second bend (at 56) extending toward the planar portion (see Fig. 8), and
wherein the body is symmetrical about at least one axis of symmetry (described as rotationally symmetrical in para. 0029), and
wherein the first edge and the second edge are symmetrical along the length of the body (see Fig. 6, wherein 36 and 37 are symmetrical along the length of the body in a rotational manner).
Regarding claim 5, Stark discloses the first edge and the second edge being generally perpendicular to the first side and second side of the body (as shown by α in Fig. 6, wherein α as described in para. 0036 is "generally perpendicular" as defined in para. 0018 of the specification of the instant application).
Regarding claim 7, Stark discloses a leading edge of the blade when the blade is rotated in a clockwise direction about the rotational axis being identical to a leading edge of the blade when the blade is rotated in a counter-clockwise direction about the rotational axis (as the blade is rotationally symmetrical as described in para. 0029).
Regarding claim 9, Stark discloses the first bend (at 55) being disposed at an angle of about 110 degrees with respect to the planar portion (see para. 0031).
Regarding claim 11, Stark discloses the second bend (at 56) being disposed between the first end and the first bend (at 55), wherein the first arm comprises an inner portion (40) disposed between the first bend and the second bend and an outer portion (41) between the first end and the second bend (see Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 12, Stark discloses the second bend (at 56) being disposed at an angle of between about 50 and about 60 degrees with respect to the inner portion (see para. 0031).
Regarding claim 13, Stark discloses the planar portion (including or of 29) extends along the second side of the body being disposed in a horizontal plane, further wherein the first end of the second side and the second end of the second side intersect the horizontal plane (see Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 14, Stark discloses the outer portion (41) being disposed at an angle of between about 35 degrees and about 55 degrees with respect to the horizontal plane (see para. 0031).
Regarding claim 20, Stark discloses a blade comprising:
a body having a first side (surface opposite that seen in Fig. 6) and a second side (surface seen in Fig. 6) opposite the first side, the first side and the second side both extending from a first end (38) to a second end (39) of the body, a first edge (36) extending along a length of the body between the first side and the second side from the first end to the second end, and a second edge (37) extending along the length of the body between the first side and the second side from the first end to the second end,
the body comprising a first arm (30), a second arm (31), and a planar portion (29) between the first arm and the second arm,
wherein the first arm comprises a first bend (at 55) extending away from the planar portion, a second bend (at 56), and an outer portion (41) between the first end and the second bend,
a cutting wing (including or of 35, having edges 53 and 54) extending from the second edge of the outer portion of the first arm, wherein the cutting wing is not parallel with the outer portion (41) of the first arm (neither 53 nor 54 being parallel with 41),
wherein the blade is configured to rotate about a rotational axis (21) that extends through the planar portion, and
wherein the body is symmetrical about at least one axis of symmetry (described as rotationally symmetrical in para. 0029).
Regarding claim 21, Stark discloses the cutting wing (including or of 35, having edges 53 and 54) extending in a direction towards the planar portion (54 extending in a direction towards 29 in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 22, Stark discloses the cutting wing (including or of 35, having edges 53 and 54) configured to be on a leading edge or a trailing edge of the blade during a cutting operation (depending on intended use).
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark.
Regarding claim 19, Stark discloses an outdoor tool comprising:
a power head comprising a power head housing (5), a motor (10), and a drive shaft (13) extending from the motor and rotatably driven by the motor, wherein the motor is disposed within the power head housing and the drive shaft extends from the power head housing (see Fig. 1); and
a tool attachment comprising a blade (including 16), a guard (including 17) disposed on one side of the blade, and a wheel (15), wherein the drive shaft is coupled to the blade and is configured to drive rotation of the blade about a rotational axis of the blade (see para. 0025), wherein Stark discloses the structure of the blade with respect to claim 1, as set forth above.
Stark does not explicitly disclose a power source. However, Examiner has taken Official Notice that it is old and well-known in the art for an outdoor tool to have a power source within a power head housing. 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 tool of Stark with a power source, as is old and well-known, for portability and/or extended usage. Additionally, providing Stark with a power source is a combination of prior art elements (i.e., that of Stark and a power source that is old and well-known) according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see labeled p. 7, filed 7/9/2026, with respect to the have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections and have been withdrawn.
Further, Applicant’s arguments, see labeled p. , filed 7/9/2026, with respect to Andrew have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections over Andrew have been withdrawn.
Applicant's other arguments filed 7/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Notaras, Applicant argues: "Notaras is directed to a generally cross-shaped planar blade and fails to disclose a blade having a first bend extending away from the planar portion and a second bend extending toward the planar portion. Therefore, Notaras fails to anticipate the blade of claim 1." (See Remarks of 7/9/2026, labeled p. 9.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because Notaras discloses a blade having a first bend (inner 26) extending (vertically) away (i.e., downward in Fig. 2) from the planar portion and a second bend (outer 26) extending (vertically back) toward the planar portion. In Fig. 2 of Notaras, the second bend (outer 26) extends the blade toward the planar portion relative to its extension downward from the first bend (inner 26). Applicant's argument appears to assume a definition of "extending toward the planar portion" to require intersecting axes or planes. However, such a definition is neither required by the claim language nor read into the claims. Further, to require specific details not positively recited in the claims would require improperly imparting limitations from the specification into the claims, in direct contradiction of para. 0077 in the instant specification.
Regarding Stark, Applicant argues: "Stark is directed to a blade that includes a wear section 35 arranged only on one side of the second section 41 of each arm of the blade. See, e.g., FIG. 6 and para. [0034]-[0035] of Stark. As illustrated in FIG. 6, Stark fails to disclose that the first edge and the second edge are symmetrical along the length of the body. Therefore, Stark fails to anticipate the blade of claim 1." (See Remarks of 7/9/2026, labeled p. 9.) Applicant makes a similar argument with respect to claim 19 on labeled p. 10.
Applicant's arguments are unpersuasive because Stark discloses, as illustrated in Fig. 6, that the first edge (36) and the second edge (37) being symmetrical along the length of the body in a rotational manner. Additionally, Stark recites: "The blade 16 has two arms 30 and 31 that project radially outwardly with respect to the rotation axis 21 and are formed in a rotationally symmetrical manner to one another about the rotation axis 21." (See Stark, para. 0029.) The claim language including "along the length of the body" is so broad as to be read on by Stark. Again, to require specific details not positively recited in the claims would require improperly imparting limitations from the specification into the claims, in direct contradiction of para. 0077 in the instant specification. Yet further, portions of the edges in Stark could meet limitations of claim 1 even when more narrowly defining symmetrical edges when giving the claim language (e.g., that defining the first and second edges) its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 20, Applicant argues: "Applicant respectfully submits that none of the materials cited in the Office Action discloses a blade having a cutting wing, wherein the body of the blade is symmetrical about at least one axis of symmetry." (See Remarks of 7/9/2026, labeled p. 9.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because the Non-Final Rejection of 4/9/2026 explains that Stark meets these limitations with respect to previous claims 1, 15, and 16.
Finally, Examiner took Official Notice in the last office action that it is old and well-known in the art "for an outdoor tool to have a power source within a power head housing." Applicant did not challenge the official notice in the remarks. Under the guidelines of MPEP § 2144.03, to adequately traverse Official Notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner's action including stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the examiner's assertion of official notice would be inadequate. Since Applicant has not traversed Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice, the facts are now considered to be admitted prior art. See MPEP § 2144.03.
Conclusion
The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is still considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Lounsbury (US D1,094,474) particularly discloses a blade as set forth in at least claim 1.
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 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/10/9/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights