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 § 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 8-10 and 17-18 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 8, lines 3-5 set forth “the curved blade to impart rotational torque to the turret and generate orbital rotation of the turret, wherein such deflection and resulting orbital rotation is achieved independently of any tilt of the motor/blade assembly”.
However, applicant's specification para. [0032], lines 5-9, sets forth "When a motor 22 with a curved blade 28 is positioned on a radius free to rotate around the turret 30, with the blade 28 facing directly downward (i.e., toward a flat surface or ground G), with the motor 22 spinning clockwise, the blade 28 creates thrust downward, and there is no tangential thrust component accelerating the system around the turret 30 (no orbital thrust)." and, in lines 11-14, "With the motor/blade assembly 24 rotated or tilted slightly so that the blade 28 is tilted toward the ground G (e.g., by 5 degrees) as the motor/blade assembly 24 rotates counterclockwise. This produces a tangential thrust component accelerating the system around the turret 30 in the clockwise direction."
It can be seen then that the curved blade with no tilt of the motor/blade assembly produces only downward thrust. There is no support within the specification that discloses the curved blade achieving orbital rotation independently of the tilt of the motor/blade assembly; therefore, the claim contains subject matter that was not described within the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9, line 2 sets forth “the pivoting mechanism comprises a spring hinge that damps vertical motion along the z-axis and opposes thrust-based force vectors”. However, dependent claim 6 sets forth that the “pivoting mechanism is configured to rotate the at least one arm to tilt the at least one motor/blade assembly”.
Applicant’s specification para. [0030] states “The mechanical springs 36 (e.g., spring washers, torsion springs, shock absorbers, elastic materials exhibiting spring-like behavior, etc.) oppose the thrust-based force vectors as a dampener to limit motor/blade assembly 24 vertical range of motion along the z-axis.”. While the tilt of the arm is accomplished through a servo motor (see applicant’s para. [0033]) or a male appendance in connection with a female slot (see applicant’s para. [0034]).
The specification does not set forth the spring hinge being capable of rotating the at least one arm. Specifically, the pivoting mechanism of claim 9 has to be capable of rotating the at least one arm, damping vertical motion along the z-axis, and opposing thrust-based force vectors. However, a spring hinge is incapable of accomplishing all three of the functions; therefore, the claim contains subject matter that was not described within the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Due to dependency on claim 9, claim 10 is rejected as well.
Claim 17 recites the same limitation and is rejected as well with claim 18 rejected for dependency on claim 17.
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 1-10 and 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.
Claim 1, lines 10-11 recites the limitation “the at least one arm”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear if the at least one arm is connected to the frame or another limitation; therefore, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
Due to dependency on claim 1, claims 2-10 are rejected as well.
Claim 3, lines 3-4 sets forth “to one end of an arm”. It is unclear if this arm is the same as the at least one arm set forth in claim 1 or another limitation altogether; therefore, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
Due to dependency on claim 3, claims 4-10 are rejected as well.
Claim 4, lines 1-2 sets forth “wherein the arm is one of a plurality of arms”. It is unclear if the plurality of arms are the same as the at least one arm set forth in claim 1 or another limitation altogether; therefore, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
Claim 8, lines 3-5 set forth “the curved blade to impart rotational torque to the turret and generate orbital rotation of the turret, wherein such deflection and resulting orbital rotation is achieved independently of any tilt of the motor/blade assembly”. However, it is dependent on claim 1 that sets forth “wherein the at least one motor/blade assembly is tiltable relative to the at least one arm such that the airflow thrust includes a tangential thrust component configured to produce orbital motion of the at least one arm about the turret.” And dependent on claim 6 that sets forth “rotate the at least one arm to tilt the at least one motor/blade assembly at an angle to provide a thrust component to rotate the turret.”
It is unclear if the orbital motion is achieved via the tilt of the motor/blade assembly or if it is not. Specifically, dependent claims 1 and 6 set forth the orbital motion is achieved through the tilt of the motor/blade assembly, while claim 8 now sets forth the curved blade alone can achieve the orbital motion; therefore, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
Claim 15, lines 3-6 set forth “the cover comprising a vented opening comprising angled louvers that deflect thrust- based airflow and generate orbital rotation of the turret generated by the curved blade to impart rotational torque to the turret and generate orbital rotation of the turret,”.
It is unclear if the orbital rotation of the turret is accomplished through the cover’s angled louvers or the curved blade. Specifically, the claim sets forth that the orbital rotation occurs by both the angled louvers and the curved blade. Further, as set forth above, a curved blade without any tilt fails to produce orbital rotation of the turret; therefore, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
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) 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allard (US 3665685 A) in view of Kuhn et al. (US 5483790 A) and Wilgus (US 3212244 A).
Regarding claim 11, Allard teaches a vegetation cutting device (see Fig. 1) comprising:
a deck ([40 or 40']; houses blades, see Col. 2, lines 10-11),
one or more springs [95] supported in fixed relation to the deck (fixed through arm [90] supporting the deck, see Fig. 11),
one or more motor/blade assemblies (two identical assemblies; motor [60 and 60'] and blades, not shown but present, see Col. 2, lines 10-11), the one or more springs being sized and configured to support the one or more motor/blade assemblies in relation to the deck (see Col. 3, lines 62-73), the one or more motor/blade assemblies each comprising a blade (not shown but present, see Col. 2, lines 10-11) and a motor [60 and 60'] for rotating the blade, and
wherein the one or more springs are sized to suspend a known weight (spring supports the weight of the motor and the blade, see Col. 3, lines 62-73; allowing the spring to pull both upwards) of the one or more motor/blade assemblies at a predetermined maximum ground clearance height (cutting height, predetermined through curved leaf [102], see Col. 3, lines 74-75 and Col. 4, lines 1-9) when the device is in Power Off mode (motor is off; no outside forces to move the motor/blade assembly to the minimum ground clearance), and have spring constants to allow maximum spring extension of the one or more springs to a minimum ground clearance (max spring extension to the lowest ground clearance height, beyond the predetermined cutting height) when the device is in a Power On mode (motor is on; device moving over uneven ground causing the spring to extend to minimum ground clearance, see Col. 3, lines 62-73),
wherein the motor/blade assemblies are urged downward from the predetermined maximum ground clearance height toward the minimum ground clearance (in Power On mode, movement of the device over uneven terrain causes the motor/blade assembly to move from maximum to minimum ground clearance, see Col. 3, lines 62-73), and
wherein the one or more springs bias the one or more motor/blade assemblies upward towards the predetermined maximum ground clearance height (spring biases the motor/blade assembly upwards to the predetermined maximum ground clearance height to maintain ideal cutting height, see Col. 3, lines 62-73).
But Allard fails to disclose the blade is a curved blade that generates thrust to create suction at the vegetation, the motor is electric with a battery supported in relation to the mower deck and connected to the electric motor of each one of the one or more motor/blade assemblies by flexible wires to transmit power to the electric motor of each one of the one or more motor/blade assemblies, and the thrust urges the one or more motor/blade assemblies downward so the one or more springs oppose the thrust to the predetermined maximum ground clearance height when the thrust is reduced.
Kuhn et al. discloses a similar motor/blade assembly (motor not shown but inherently present, see Col. 3, lines 25-35, and blade [26]) comprising of a curved blade (curved by wings [34]) producing upward airflow to create suction on the vegetation (forces airflow upwards, see Col. 3, lines 35-38) wherein the blade creates downward thrust (air flows upward, creating lift on the grass, and downward thrust on the blade, see Col. 3, lines 35-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the blade of Allard with the blade of Kuhn et al. since both are blades used to cut vegetation, yielding the same predictable result; therefore, it can be seen then that, when the blade of Kuhn et al. is applied to the device of Allard, the downward thrust of the blade of Kuhn et al. urges the motor/blade assembly of Allard from the maximum ground clearance to the minimum ground clearance (see Kuhn Col. 3, lines 35-38). Further, it can be seen then, when the thrust is reduced, the spring biases the motor/blade assembly back upwards to the maximum ground clearance, overcoming the force of the thrust, and maintaining the motor/blade assembly at this position for cutting the grass at the ideal height (see Allard Col. 3, lines 56-75 and Col. 4, lines 1-9).
But Kuhn et al. fails to disclose the motor is electric with a battery supported in relation to the mower deck and connected to the electric motor of each one of the one or more motor/blade assemblies by flexible wires to transmit power to the electric motor of each one of the one or more motor/blade assemblies.
Wilgus discloses a similar device (see Fig. 1) comprising of an electric motor (see Col. 2, lines 36-39) and a battery [28] supported in relation to the mower deck [2] and connected to the electric motor of each one of the one or more motor/blade assemblies (motor, see Col. 2, lines 36-39, and blade [32]) by flexible wires to transmit power to the electric motor of each one of the one or more motor/blade assemblies (battery drives the electric motor which drive the blade [32]; therefore, inherit flexible wires are present to transmit power, see Col. 2, lines 36-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the motor of Allard with the electric motor of Wilgus since both are motors used to drive the blades of the device; therefore, yielding the same predictable result. Further, 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 battery of Wilgus on the device of Allard in order to provide power to the electric motor (see Col. 2, lines 36-41).
Regarding claim 12, Allard, of the above resultant combination, further discloses a spacer/caster (spacer [104] and caster [102], see Col. 4, lines 1-9) below the center of the motor/blade assembly (motor [60 and 60'] and blades, not shown but present, see Col. 2, lines 10-11) to guard against blade-to-ground contact.
Regarding claim 13, Allard, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the device (see Fig. 1) is an orbital deck mower (mower deck [40 and 40'] orbits in a path around the vehicle [10], see Fig. 7) comprising a turret ([20]; pivots the device, see Fig. 7 and Col. 1, lines 50-53), the at least one spring [95] being fixed in relation to one end of an arm ([34], see Fig. 11) having an opposing end (opposing end is connected to chassis [18] which pivots about turret, see Col. 1, lines 50-53) that is supported in relation to the turret.
Regarding claim 14, Allard, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the arm [34] is one of a plurality of arms ([34 and 34']; both connected to chassis [18], see Fig. 1) supported in spaced relation to the turret [20], the at least one spring [95] is one of a plurality of springs (other not shown, but as each motor/blade assembly is identical, the other motor/blade assembly has an identical spring) each supported in relation to one of the plurality of arms (fixed onto arm [90] connected to arm [34], see Fig. 11), and the at least one motor/blade assembly (motor [60 and 60'] and blades, not shown but present, see Col. 2, lines 10-11) is one of a plurality of motor/blade assemblies (see Fig. 1) each supported in relation to one of the plurality of springs ([95] compresses to help raise assembly, see Col. 3. Lines 65-73).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks in page 4 sets forth “Independent claim 11 has likewise been amended to clarify that thrust urges the motor/blade assembly downward while the supporting springs oppose that thrust and return the assembly toward its elevated position as thrust decreases. None of the cited references teaches or suggests this force-balanced operating relationship.” Examiner disagrees.
As set forth above, Allard discloses a spring that moves the motor/blade assembly between a maximum and minimum ground clearance position, allowing the motor/blade assembly to float. Allard discloses that when the motor/blade assembly moves to the minimum ground clearance position, the spring biases the motor/blade assembly back upwards to the maximum ground clearance position, maintaining this position to cut the grass at the ideal height (see Allard Col. 3, lines 56-75 and Col. 4, lines 1-9). When the curved blade, creating a downward thrust, of Kuhn et al. is applied as the blade of Allard, the downward thrust forces the motor/blade assembly down to the minimum ground clearance height. When the thrust is reduced, the spring of Allard overcomes the thrust force, biasing the motor/blade assembly to the maximum ground clearance height for cutting the grass, creating the force-balanced operating relationship.
This relationship keeps the motor/blade assembly at the ideal height, cutting the grass at the desired length. It can be seen then that the combination of Allard and Kuhn et al. teaches the force-balanced operating relationship as disclosed in claim 11. The amendments are not persuasive and the application stands rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 19-20 are allowed.
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
