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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 16th, 2026 has been entered. The claim objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 12/29/2025 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-4 remain pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/7/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on 12/29/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masao
Nagoshi (US 20150271992 A1 – hereinafter Nagoshi) in view of Fabrizio Arnetoli (US
11109530 B2 – hereinafter Arnetoli).
Regarding claim 1, Nagoshi teaches a rotary cutter for a mower comprising: a cord (Fig. 5(b), Cord 9; [0025]) configured to mow grass by rotating; a reel (Fig. 5(b), Reel 2) that houses the cord and configured to feed out the cord while intermittently rotating ([0025]); a case main body (Fig. 5(b), Flange 13) that houses the reel; a cover (Fig, 5(b), Upper Cap 5); and a flange protruding body (Fig. 5(b), Ring 4) that protrudes from a surface of a reel flange (Fig. 5(b), upper horizontal portion of Reel 2) of the reel and has a concave-convex shape on an outer circumferential side (Fig. 2, outer circumference of Ring 4) surface of the flange protruding body, wherein the flange protruding body and the reel are covered by the cover from above and laterally during grass mowing (Fig. 5(b) – it can be seen that Upper Cap 5 extends above both of Reel 2 and Ring 4, in addition to at least partially covering Reel 2 and Ring 4 in a lateral direction), the concave-convex shape is a shape for rotating the reel by being gripped by a finger ([0026] – examiner interprets that the ring is intended to be rotated by hand, and doing so by gripping the concave-convex shape is intended use, the concave-convex shape of Nagoshi being capable of being gripped by a finger to rotate the reel), and a region where there is no obstacle to a movement of the finger (Fig. 5(b), region immediately adjacent to the outer circumference of the ring in a horizontal direction) when the reel is rotated by gripping the concave-convex shape by the finger is provided outside an outer circumferential surface having the concave-convex shape.
Nagoshi does not teach a pressing body that protrudes from the case main body and
configured to move in an axial direction by pressing the pressing body to intermittently rotate the
reel, and that the mower is configured for replacement of the cord in the mower.
However, Arnetoli teaches a rotary cutter for a mower capable of replacing a cord (Fig. 4,
Line F) with a pressing body (Fig. 4, Lower Portion 5.4) that protrudes from the case main body
(Fig. 4, Portion 3.2) and configured to move in an axial direction by pressing the pressing body
to intermittently rotate the reel (Fig. 4, Spool 5; Col. 7, lines 52-67 and Col. 8, lines 1-7), and that the mower is configured for the replacement of the cord in the mower (Col. 1, lines 20-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the device of Nagoshi such that a pressing body that protrudes
from the case main body and configured to move in an axial direction by pressing the pressing
body to intermittently rotate the reel as taught by Arnetoli. Doing so is beneficial as it results in a
controlled delivery of the cord (Arnetoli; Col. 8, lines 1-7). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Nagoshi such that the mower is configured for the replacement of the cord in the mower as taught by Arnetoli. Doing so is beneficial as the cord can be replaced when it runs out without opening the trimmer head (Arnetoli; Col. 1, lines 20-23).
Regarding claim 2, Nagoshi further teaches the rotary cutter for the mower according to
claim 1, wherein the flange protruding body is provided on the reel flange of the reel by a fixing method, an adhering method, or a fastening method (Fig. 1(b); [0022] – the two are attached by securing the Projection 41 in Notch 23).
Regarding claim 3, the existing combination of Nagoshi and Arnetoli does not teach the
rotary cutter for the mower according to claim 1, wherein the flange protruding body is integrally
formed with the reel flange of the reel. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Nagoshi and Arnetoli such
that the flange protruding body is integrally formed with the reel flange of the reel it has been
held that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art]
would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice."); see Schenck v. Nortron Corp., 713
F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Regarding claim 4, the existing combination of Nagoshi and Arnetoli already teaches the rotary cutter for the mower according to claim 1, wherein an upper end portion of the pressing body has a concave-convex shape (Arnetoli; Fig. 6 – it can be seen that Lower Portion 5.4 has a concave-convex shape at least partially on what the examiner interprets to be an upper end portion).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Nagoshi does not teach the limitation “the flange protruding body and the reel are covered by the cover from above and laterally during grass mowing” since the Ring 4 of Nagoshi (which is drawn to the claimed flange protruding body) is exposed to the outside. Merriam-Webster defines cover as “to place or set a cover or covering over”, with the example of covering a pot. This definition does not require that the item being covered is completely covered to the point where there is not exposure of the item to the outside world. Further, the claim language does not require that the flange protruding body is not exposed to the outside. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that Arnetoli is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Arnetoli and Nagoshi are both in the inventive field of rotary cutters for mowers.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Arnetoli teaches a benefit to both the incorporation of the pressing body (doing so is beneficial as it results in a controlled delivery of the cord (Arnetoli; Col. 8, lines 1-7)) and the mower being configured for replacement of the cord in the mower (doing so is beneficial as the cord can be replaced when it runs out without opening the trimmer head (Arnetoli; Col. 1, lines 20-23)) – see the rejection of claim 1 above.
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 ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights