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 Objections
Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-4 are generally awkwardly worded and lacking in proper grammar. For example, claim 1 recites “cutter for a mower capable of replacing a cord”, which is confusing as the mower is capable of feeding out cord, not replacing it. An additional example – claim 1 could be interpreted as positively claiming “a finger”, which would be improper.
Claim 2 appears to contain a Markush group, however it is written incorrectly and should instead be in the format of e.g., should be "selected from the group consisting of a, b, c,".
Appropriate correction is required.
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 capable of replacing a cord, the rotary cutter comprising: the 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) that covers the case main body; 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 housed in the cover during grass mowing (Fig. 5(b)), 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.
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).
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 controller delivery the cord (Arnetoli; Col. 8, lines 1-7).
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 any of a fixing method, an adhering method, and 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 a rotary cutter for a mower capable of replacing a cord, the rotary cutter comprising: the cord configured to mow grass by rotating; a reel that houses the cord and configured to feed out the cord while intermittently rotating; a case main body that houses the reel; a cover that covers the case main body; and 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 (See the rejection of claim 1 above).
The existing combination of Nagoshi and Arnetoli does not teach wherein an upper end portion of the pressing body has a concave-convex shape.
However, Arnetoli further teaches wherein an upper end portion of the pressing body (Fig. 10, top half of Portion 5.4) has a concave-convex shape.
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 and Arnetoli such that to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date as taught by Arnetoli as it has been held that a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Conclusion
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