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 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.
Claim 4 is 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.
The term “approximately” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
It is unclear what “approximately” 30 degrees entails. For example, it is unclear if 25 degrees is “approximately” 30 degrees or 35 degrees is “approximately” 30 degrees; 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) 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike et al. (US 7437865 B2) in view of Klas et al. (US 4426831 A).
Regarding claim 1, Koike et al. teaches a lawn mower blade (three identical blades present [22L, 22C, and 22R], see Col. 2, lines 64-67) comprising:
a convex center part (see below) with a central hole (see below) formed where a bolt (see below and Col. 4, lines 41-51) can be fastened from below;
a curved part (see below; one shown in annotated drawing but identical on other side) formed on both sides of the convex center part and bent downward;
a blade body (see below; one shown in annotated drawing but identical on other side) extending from both sides of the curved part;
a side edge [28] formed on the blade body with a sharp surface for cutting grass (see Col. 4, lines 51-53); and
a side groove (see below) recessed inward from a side of the blade body in a semicircular shape (see below); and
a lifting part [29] formed by bending or folding (bent or folded upwards from the blade body, see Fig. 5) a portion of the blade body to protrude to a certain height (see height of [29] in Fig. 5) and create whirling wind (see Col. 4, lines 53-54 and Col. 7, lines 33-41),
wherein the lifting part is folded from the blade body along a bending line (see below) that originates from one side of the side groove (see below and Fig. 5),
an imaginary horizontal center line (see below) that equally divides an upper part (lifting part [29]) and a lower part (cutting part [28] opposite the lifting part) of the blade based on a center (see below) of the central hole,
wherein, among inner surfaces of the side groove, a first inner surface (see below) is positioned at the same height as the blade body, and a second inner surface (see below) is positioned higher than the blade body due to the bending of the lifting part.
PNG
media_image1.png
340
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
547
523
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
547
523
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
325
611
media_image4.png
Greyscale
But Koike et al. fails to disclose the bending line is not parallel to the horizontal center line, such that a height of the lifting part gradually increases with increasing distance from the side groove.
Klas et al. discloses a similar lawn mower blade (see Fig. 2) wherein, with respect to an imaginary horizontal center line [13] that equally divides an upper part (lifting portions [33 and 34]) and a lower part (cutting portions [28 and 29]) of the blade based on a center [17] of the central hole [22], the bending line ([36 or 37]; identical on either side, see Col. 3, lines 5-14) is not parallel to the horizontal center line (see Fig. 2), such that a height of the lifting part gradually increases (see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fold the lifting part of Koike et al. at the bending line as taught by Klas et al. in order to form the lifting part at an angle and radially outward for improving the efficiency of air movement and discharge of grass clippings (see Klas et al. Col. 3, lines 5-22 and Col. 4, lines 2-11).
Regarding claim 2, Koike et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the blade has a centrally symmetric shape (see Fig. 3; each side is symmetric) with the central hole (see above) of the convex center part (see above) as the origin (each side is identical on either side of the central hole; therefore, the central hole of the convex center part is the origin).
Regarding claim 3, Koike et al. discloses the mower blade as applied above, as well as, wherein, when the blade is viewed in plan, an imaginary vertical center line (see below) equally divides left and right sides (see below) of the blade, and an upper right of the central hole is defined as an R1 region (see below), a lower right of the central hole as an R2 region (see below), an upper left of the central hole as an L1 region (see below), and a lower left of the central hole as an L2 region (see below) by the horizontal center line and the vertical center line,
wherein the side groove is a first side groove (see below) formed in the R1 region, the lifting part [29] is a first lifting part (see below) formed in the R1 region, and
the blade further comprises a second side groove (see below) formed in the L2 region and a second lifting part (see below) formed in the L2 region.
PNG
media_image5.png
610
671
media_image5.png
Greyscale
But Koike et al. fails to disclose part of the first lifting part is also formed in the R2 region and part of the second lifting part is also formed in the L1 region.
However, Klas et al. discloses part of the first lifting part [34] is also formed in the R2 region (see below) and part of the second lifting part [33] is also formed in the L1 region (see below; identical to the R side) due to the bending edge ([36 or 37]; identical on either side, see Col. 3, lines 5-14).
PNG
media_image6.png
253
827
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It can be seen then that when the lifting part of Koike et al. is folded at the bending line of Klas et al. that a part of the lifting part is also formed in the R2 region and L1 region of Koike et al. as disclosed by Klas et al. (see above).
Examiner's Note: Koike et al.'s Fig. 3 is a plan view from the bottom of the blade as viewed from underneath the mower; therefore, in order to view the regions as defined by the application, the examiner is interpreting the regions as though the blade was viewed from the top instead of the bottom.
Regarding claim 5, Koike et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses the bending line (see above) originates from one side of the first side groove (see above) in the R1 region (see above), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein only an end portion of the bending line extends into the R2 region.
However, Klas et al. discloses wherein only an end portion (see overlapping section above) of the bending line ([36 or 37]; identical on either side, see Col. 3, lines 5-14) extends into the R2 region (see above).
It can be seen then that when the lifting part of Koike et al. is folded at the bending line of Klas et al. that only an end portion of the bending line extends into the R2 region of Koike et al. as disclosed by Klas et al. (see above).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike et al. (US 7437865 B2) and Klas et al. (US 4426831 A) as applied to claims 1-3 and 5 above, and further in view of Campione (US 8615977 B2).
Regarding claim 4, the above combination discloses the mower blade as applied above, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the lifting part is bent or folded at an angle of approximately 30 degrees from the blade body.
Campione discloses a similar lawn mower blade [14] wherein the lifting part [5] is bent or folded at an angle of approximately 30 degrees from the blade body (bent at bending line [8], see Col. 3, lines 57-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to bend the lifting part of the mower blade of Koike et al. and Klas et al. at approximately 30 degrees from the blade body as taught by Campione in order to provide vacuum and lift on the vegetation prior to being cut (see Campione Col. 3, lines 49-59).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks in pages 2-3 set forth “Koike does not disclose the claimed side groove, the first and second inner surfaces of the side groove, or a bending line originating from one side of the side groove”. And “The specification of Koike nowhere mentions any groove, notch, recess, slot, or cutout in the blade body.” Examiner disagrees with this argument.
From MPEP 2125: “Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). The origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979).”
As set forth in the MPEP above, “When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification.”; therefore, the argument that Koike et al. does not show the claimed side groove, the first and second inner surfaces of the side groove, or a bending line originating one from one side of the side groove due to the above references not being stated within the specification is moot.
Also, in page 3 of the remarks, Applicant states “what the annotations (of the blade of Koike et al.) mark is a height transition on a continuous blade surface at the base of the bent-up vane 29. A height transition is not a groove “recessed inwards from a side of the blade body in a semicircular shape””. Examiner disagrees.
As can be seen below in the annotated drawing of Applicant’s Fig. 2, the side groove of Applicant’s blade forms a height transition between the base of the blade to the lifting part. This is further confirmed by the Applicant’s own remarks in page 5, “Moreover, the specification assigns the side groove a specific technical role: the side groove “facilitates the smooth bending of the blade during the formation of the lifting part 40”, and the side groove creates "two distinct inner surfaces within the side groove 50: a first inner surface 51 that aligns with the height of the blade body 2, and a second inner surface 52 that rises above the blade body 2 due to the curvature of the lifting part 40" (paragraphs [0037]-[0038] of the specification, published application).” It is shown above, by Applicant’s own words, that the first inner surface aligns with the height of the blade body while the second inner surface rises above the blade body; therefore, the side groove of the claimed invention forms a height transition and this argument is not persuasive.
Koike et al. forms a blade with a side groove recessed inwards from a side of the blade body. This is clearly shown in Fig. 3 in which the blade body dips inwards from the side groove.
PNG
media_image7.png
157
362
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Page 6 of Applicant’s remarks sets forth “Neither Koike nor Klas discloses a bending line that originates from one side of a side groove, or the resulting first and second inner surfaces”. Examiner disagrees.
As stated above, Koike et al. discloses a side groove, and, as clearly shown in Fig. 5 and the annotated drawings above, the bending line originates from one side of the side groove, resulting in the first and second inner surfaces; therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Also in page 6, Applicant sets forth “The modification proposed in the Office Action does not arrive at the claimed structure.” And “the rejection appears to rest on impermissible hindsight reconstruction, using the Applicant’s own disclosure as a roadmap (MPEP 2142)”. Examiner disagrees.
The blade of Koike et al. discloses a convex center part, a curved part, a blade body, a side edge, a lifting portion, and a side groove all similar to Applicant’s claimed invention. The only limitation taken from Klas et al. is the bending line, also well known within the art. All of the above listed features are well known within the art, as can be seen by the list of references attached in the 892. Therefore, there is no hindsight reconstruction as all of the features that Applicant is claiming are well known, and the combination of references is not new.
And finally, in page 7, Applicant sets forth “The claimed structure provides an integrated function not suggestion by Koike or Klas.” And “Neither Koike, which shows a wind vane behind a cutting edge, nor Klas, which shows a triangular end fold on a bar blade, teaches or suggests this integrated relationship among the side groove, the origin of the bending line, the non-parallel orientation of the bending line, and the two inner surfaces of the side groove.”
As disclosed above, Koike et al. discloses the integrated relationship among the side groove, the origin of the bending line, and the two inner surfaces of the side groove, and Klas et al. discloses the non-parallel orientation of the bending line. Therefore, it can be seen that the structure of Koike et al. and Klas et al. discloses the same integrated function as the claimed invention, and this argument is not persuasive.
Due to the above-mentioned reasons, the arguments are not persuasive, and the claimed invention stands rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights