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 Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendment of claim(s) 1, 7-8, 11-12 and 15-17; and cancellation of claim 14 in Applicant’s Response to Official Action dated 08/18/2026 (“Response”). Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are currently pending in this application and are subject to examination herein.
Based upon Applicant’s amendment of Claims 7-8 and 11-12 recite “10%” rather than “10”, the Examiner’s prior objection to Claims 7-8 and 11-12 on that ground are withdrawn.
Based upon Applicant’s amendment of Claim 19 to recite “a motor” rather than “an motor”, the Examiner’s prior objection to Claim 19 on that ground is withdrawn.
Based upon Applicant’s amendment of Claim 20 to remove the dependency to Claim 1, the Examiner’s prior rejections of Claim 20 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and as failing to further limit the claim from which it depends under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-17 and 19-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0321564 to Yamaoka et al. (hereinafter Yamaoka) (cited by Applicant in IDS filed on 08/27/2024).
Regarding claim 20, Yamaoka discloses a method of producing a mower blade (cutting blade 300) (Abstract; Figs. 2-5, 12-13; Paras. [0048]-[0055]), comprising:
providing or forming a body portion (see Figs. 2-5, 12-13) from a base metal layer having a first hardness (Para. [0052]), wherein the body portion (see Figs. 2-5, 12-13) includes a top surface (see Figs. 2-5, 12-13), a bottom surface (see Figs. 2-5, 12-13), a first side edge (see Figs. 2-5, 12-13), a second side edge (see Figs. 2-5, 12-13), and an aperture (mounting hole 320) (Fig. 5; Paras. [0049], [0057]) configured to mount the mower blade (cutting blade 300) (Abstract; Figs. 2-5, 12-13; Paras. [0048]-[0055]) to a rotary power output (output shaft 510) (Fig. 2; Para. [0047]) of a mower (lawn mower 100) (Abstract; Fig. 1; Paras. [0045]-[0047]) to provide the body (see Figs. 2-5, 12-13) rotary movement, the aperture (mounting hole 320) (Fig. 5; Paras. [0049], [0057]) dividing the body portion(see Figs. 2-5, 12-13) into a first end (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka infra) and a second end (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka infra);
the first end (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka infra) including the first side edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka infra) and a first leading edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka infra) including a first cutting edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka infra) arranged opposite a first trailing edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka infra), the first trailing edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka infra) having a first upturned portion (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka infra);
the second end (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka infra) including the second side edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka infra) and a second leading edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka infra) including a second cutting edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka infra) arranged opposite a second trailing edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka infra), the second trailing edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka infra) having a second upturned portion (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka infra); and
depositing a hard-facing material (e.g., titanium) having a second hardness (Para. [0052]) on the first cutting edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka infra), the second cutting edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka infra), and at least a portion of the top surface (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka infra);
wherein the second hardness is larger than the first hardness (Para. [0052]).
PNG
media_image1.png
432
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 15-17, 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0321564 to Yamaoka et al. (hereinafter Yamaoka) (cited by Applicant in IDS filed on 08/27/2024) and further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2006/0213342 to Turner et al. (hereinafter Turner).
Regarding claim 1, Yamaoka discloses a mower blade (cutting blade 300) (Abstract; Figs. 2-5, 12-13; Paras. [0048]-[0055]), comprising:
a body portion (see Figs. 2-5, 12-13) formed from a base metal layer having a first hardness (Para. [0052]), wherein the body portion includes a top surface (see Figs. 2-5, 12-13), a bottom surface (see Figs. 2-5, 12-13), a first side edge (see Figs. 2-5, 12-13), a second side edge (see Figs. 2-5, 12-13), and an aperture (mounting hole 320) (Fig. 5; Paras. [0049], [0057]) configured to mount the mower blade (cutting blade 300) (Abstract; Figs. 2-5, 12-13; Paras. [0048]-[0055]) to a rotary power output (output shaft 510) (Fig. 2; Para. [0047]) of a mower (lawn mower 100) (Abstract; Fig. 1; Paras. [0045]-[0047]) to provide the body (see Figs. 2-5, 12-13) rotary movement, the aperture (mounting hole 320) (Fig. 5; Paras. [0049], [0057]) dividing the body portion into a first end (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra) and a second end (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra);
the first end (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra) including the first side edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra) and a first leading edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra) including a first cutting edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra) arranged opposite a first trailing edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra), the first trailing edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra) having a first upturned portion (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra) defining a first uplift portion (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra);
the second end (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra) including the second side edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra) and a second leading edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra) including a second cutting edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra) arranged opposite a second trailing edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra), the second trailing edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra) having a second upturned portion (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra) defining a second uplift portion (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra); and
a hard-facing material (e.g., titanium) having a second hardness (Para. [0052]) and disposed on the first cutting edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra), the second cutting edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra), and at least a portion of the top surface (see Figs. 2-5, 12-13);
wherein the second hardness is larger than the first hardness (Para. [0052]).
However, Yamaoka does not expressly disclose:
wherein the hard-facing material deposited onto the first cutting edge, the second cutting edge or both has a first average thickness, and the hard-facing material deposited onto the top surface of the first uplift portion, the second uplift portion, or both has a second average thickness, wherein the first average thickness is the larger than the second average thickness.
Nevertheless, Turner teaches a mower blade (See Figs. 9-11; Paras. [0032]-[0033], [0051]-[0059]) wherein the hard-facing material (thermal spray material 50) (Figs. 9-11; Paras. [0051]-[0059]) deposited onto the first cutting edge (see Annotated Figs. 10-11 of Turner infra), the second cutting edge (see Annotated Figs. 10-11 of Turner infra) or both has a first average thickness, and the hard-facing material deposited onto the top surface of the first uplift portion (see Annotated Figs. 10-11 of Turner infra), the second uplift portion (see Annotated Figs. 10-11 of Turner infra), or both has a second average thickness, wherein the first average thickness is the larger than the second average thickness (Para. [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the mower blade disclosed in Yamaoka with the coating taught in Turner in order to cause the mower blade to experience a more preferred and even wear pattern, wherein the intermediate surface portion (uplift portion) wears at substantially the same rate, or even a slower rate, than the first surface portion (cutting edge), including the cutting edge and to preclude the wear from occurring substantially earlier in the life of the blade than the wearing of the cutting edge, as taught in Turner (Paras. [0038], [0058]).
[AltContent: textbox (Uplift Portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Cutting Edge)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second Uplift Portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second Cutting Edge)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First Cutting Edge)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
466
614
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figs. 10-11 of Turner.
Regarding claim 2, Yamaoka in view of Turner teaches the mower blade of claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Turner teaches a mower blade (See Figs. 9-11; Paras. [0032]-[0033], [0051]-[0059]), wherein the hard-facing material is disposed on first side edge, the second side edge, or both (Paras. [0038], [0052]).
Regarding claim 3, Yamaoka in view of Turner teaches the mower blade of claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Turner teaches a mower blade (See Figs. 9-11; Paras. [0032]-[0033], [0051]-[0059]), wherein a first distance between the aperture (mounting hole 18, 158) (Figs. 1-2, 10; Paras. [0024], [0053]) and the first side edge defines a first length (inherent), and wherein the hard-facing material is disposed on the top surface (Figs. 9-11; Paras. [0038], [0052]) and defines a first coating area extending from the first leading edge to the first trailing edge (Paras. [0038], [0052]). Furthermore, Turner teaches that the coating extends from the first side edge (end of blade 150) inwardly (Figs. 1, 2, 10; Para. [0034]) towards the aperture (mounting hole 18, 158) (Figs. 1-2, 10; Paras. [0024], [0053]). However, Turner does not expressly disclose or teach that the coating extends from the first side edge inwardly towards the aperture along 10% to 100% of the first length. Nevertheless, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 4, Yamaoka in view of Turner teaches the mower blade of claim 3 (see above). Furthermore, Turner discloses a mower blade (See Figs. 9-11; Paras. [0032]-[0033], [0051]-[0059]) wherein the hard-facing material is disposed on the top surface and defines a first coating area extending from the first leading edge to the first trailing edge (Figs. 1-2, 9-11; Paras. [0038], [0052]). However, Turner does not expressly disclose or teach that the first coating area extends from the first side edge inwardly towards the aperture along 20% to 60% of the first length. Nevertheless, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 5, Yamaoka in view of Turner teaches the mower blade of claim 4 (see above). Furthermore, Turner teaches a mower blade (See Figs. 9-11; Paras. [0032]-[0033], [0051]-[0059]) wherein a second distance between the aperture (mounting hole 18, 158) (Figs. 1-2, 10; Paras. [0024], [0053]) and the second side edge defines a second length (inherent), and wherein the hard-facing material is disposed on the top surface and defines a second coating area (Figs. 1-2, 9-11; Paras. [0038], [0052]). However, Turner does not expressly disclose or teach that the second coating area extends from the second leading edge to the second trailing edge and from the second side edge inwardly towards the aperture along 10% to 100% of the second length. Nevertheless, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 6, Yamaoka in view of Turner teaches the mower blade of claim 5 (see above). Furthermore, Turner discloses a mower blade (See Figs. 9-11; Paras. [0032]-[0033], [0051]-[0059]) wherein the hard-facing material is disposed on the top surface (Figs. 1-2, 9-11; Paras. [0038], [0052]). However, Turner does not expressly disclose or teach that the second coating area extends from the second leading edge to the second trailing edge and from the second side edge inwardly towards the aperture along 20% to 60% of the second length. Nevertheless, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 7, Yamaoka in view of Turner teaches the mower blade of claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Turner discloses a mower blade (See Figs. 9-11; Paras. [0032]-[0033], [0051]-[0059]), wherein the top surface (see Annotated Figs. 10-11 of Turner supra) includes a first top surface portion and first lift portion (see Annotated Figs. 10-11 of Turner supra). Furthermore, Turner teaches that the coating extends from the first side edge (end of blade 150) inwardly (Figs. 1, 2, 10; Para. [0034]) towards the aperture (mounting hole 18, 158) (Figs. 1-2, 10; Paras. [0024], [0053]). However, Turner does not expressly disclose or teach that from about 10% to about 100% of the first top surface portion has the hard-facing material disposed thereon. Nevertheless, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 8, Yamaoka in view of Turner teaches the mower blade of claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Turner teaches a mower blade (See Figs. 9-11; Paras. [0032]-[0033], [0051]-[0059]), wherein the top surface (see Annotated Figs. 10-11 of Turner supra) includes a second top surface portion and the second lift portion (see Annotated Figs. 10-11 of Turner supra). However, Turner does not expressly disclose or teach that from about 10% to about 100% of the second top surface portion has the hard-facing material disposed thereon. Nevertheless, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 9, Yamaoka in view of Turner teaches the mower blade of claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Turner teaches a mower blade (See Figs. 9-11; Paras. [0032]-[0033], [0051]-[0059]), wherein the first uplift portion (see Annotated Figs. 10-11 of Turner supra) has a first uplift angle (α) as measured from (i) a first imaginary line (L1) that starts at a first point (P1) defined by the intersection of the first cutting edge and the first side edge and extends towards the first trailing edge alone an imaginary plane that is parallel to a planar central body portion surrounding the aperture of the body portion, and (ii) a second imaginary line (L2) that starts at the first point (P1) and extends in a straight path to an uppermost point (P2) of the first upturned portion. However, Turner does not expressly disclose or teach the first uplift angle (α) of 20 to 60 degrees as measured from (i) a first imaginary line (L1) that starts at a first point (P1) defined by the intersection of the first cutting edge and the first side edge and extends towards the first trailing edge alone an imaginary plane that is parallel to a planar central body portion surrounding the aperture of the body portion, and (ii) a second imaginary line (L2) that starts at the first point (P1) and extends in a straight path to an uppermost point (P2) of the first upturned portion. Nevertheless, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 10, Yamaoka in view of Turner teaches the mower blade according to claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Turner discloses a mower blade (See Figs. 9-11; Paras. [0032]-[0033], [0051]-[0059]), wherein the second uplift portion has a second uplift angle (see Annotated Figs. 10-11 of Turner supra) that is the same as the first uplift angle (see Annotated Figs. 10-11 of Turner supra).
Regarding claim 11, Yamaoka in view of Turner teaches the mower blade according to claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Turner teaches a mower blade (See Figs. 9-11; Paras. [0032]-[0033], [0051]-[0059]), wherein the first cutting edge extends inwardly from the first side edge and wherein the hard-facing material is disposed onto the first cutting edge (see Annotated Figs. 10-11 of Turner supra). However, Turner does not expressly disclose or teach that the first cutting edge extends inwardly from the first side edge and comprises from 10% to about 70% of first leading edge. Nevertheless, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 12, Yamaoka in view of Turner teaches the mower blade according to claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Turner teaches a mower blade (See Figs. 9-11; Paras. [0032]-[0033], [0051]-[0059]), wherein the second cutting edge extends inwardly from the second side edge and wherein the hard-facing material is disposed onto the second cutting edge (see Annotated Figs. 10-11 of Turner supra). However, Turner does not expressly disclose or teach that the second cutting edge extends inwardly from the second side edge and comprises from 10% to about 70% of second leading edge. Nevertheless, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 13, Yamaoka in view of Turner teaches the mower blade according to claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Turner discloses the hard-facing material has a thickness between about 0.005-0.020 inches (about 127 microns to about 5080 microns) (Para. [0036]). However, Turner does not expressly disclose or teach that the hard-facing material has an average thickness from about 50 microns to about 3000 microns. Nevertheless, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 15, Yamaoka in view of Turner teaches the mower blade according to claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Turner teaches a mower blade (See Figs. 9-11; Paras. [0032]-[0033], [0051]-[0059]), wherein the hard-facing material deposited onto planar portions of the top surface that are parallel to a ground being traversed has a third average thickness (inherent). However, Turner does not expressly disclose or teach that the third average thickness is smaller than the first average thickness, the second average thickness, or both. Nevertheless, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 16, Yamaoka in view of Turner teaches the mower blade according to claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Turner discloses the hard-facing material has a thickness between about 0.005-0.020 inches (about 127 microns to about 5080 microns) (Para. [0036]), which would give an upper limit of the thickness ratio of 4:1. However, Turner does not expressly disclose a first ratio between the first average thickness and the second average thickness is from 1:1 to 10:1. Nevertheless, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 17, in view of Turner teaches the mower blade according to claim 15 (see above). Furthermore, Turner discloses the hard-facing material has a thickness between about 0.005-0.020 inches (about 127 microns to about 5080 microns) (Para. [0036]), which would give an upper limit of the thickness ratio of 4:1. However, Turner does not expressly disclose or teach a second ratio between the second average thickness and the third average thickness is from 1:1 to 10:1. Nevertheless, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 19, Yamaoka in view of Turner teaches the mower blade according to claim 1. Furthermore, Yamaoka discloses a lawn mower (lawn mower 100) (Abstract; Fig. 1; Paras. [0045]-[0047]), comprising: a motor (motor 500) (Fig. 2; Para. [0046]-[0048]) coupled to a rotary power output (output shaft 510) (Fig. 2; Para. [0047]), and mower blade (cutting blade 300) (Abstract; Figs. 2-5, 12-13; Paras. [0048]-[0055]) according to claim 1 coupled to the rotary power output (output shaft 510) (Fig. 2; Para. [0047]).
Regarding claim 21, Yamaoka discloses a mower blade (cutting blade 300) (Abstract; Figs. 2-5, 12-13; Paras. [0048]-[0055]), comprising:
a body portion (see Figs. 2-5, 12-13) formed from a base metal layer having a first hardness (Para. [0052]), wherein the body portion includes a top surface (see Figs. 2-5, 12-13), a bottom surface (see Figs. 2-5, 12-13), a first side edge (see Figs. 2-5, 12-13), a second side edge (see Figs. 2-5, 12-13), and an aperture (mounting hole 320) (Fig. 5; Paras. [0049], [0057]) configured to mount the mower blade (cutting blade 300) (Abstract; Figs. 2-5, 12-13; Paras. [0048]-[0055]) to a rotary power output (output shaft 510) (Fig. 2; Para. [0047]) of a mower (lawn mower 100) (Abstract; Fig. 1; Paras. [0045]-[0047]) to provide the body (see Figs. 2-5, 12-13) rotary movement, the aperture (mounting hole 320) (Fig. 5; Paras. [0049], [0057]) dividing the body portion into a first end (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra) and a second end (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra);
the first end (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra) including the first side edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra) and a first leading edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra) including a first cutting edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra) arranged opposite a first trailing edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra), the first trailing edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra) having a first upturned portion (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra) defining a first uplift portion (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra);
the second end (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra) including the second side edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra) and a second leading edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra) including a second cutting edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra) arranged opposite a second trailing edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra), the second trailing edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra) having a second upturned portion (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra) defining a second uplift portion (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra); and
a hard-facing material (e.g., titanium) having a second hardness (Para. [0052]) and disposed on the first cutting edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra), the second cutting edge (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamaoka supra), and at least a portion of the top surface (see Figs. 2-5, 12-13);
wherein the second hardness is larger than the first hardness (Para. [0052]).
However, Yamaoka does not expressly disclose:
wherein the hard-facing material deposited onto the first cutting edge, the second cutting edge or both has a first average thickness; and
the hard-facing material deposited onto the top surface of the first uplift portion, the second uplift portion, or both has a second average thickness, wherein the first average thickness is the same as or larger than the second average thickness, and
wherein the hard-facing material deposited onto planar portions of the top surface that are parallel to a ground being traversed has a third average thickness that is smaller than the first average thickness and the second average thickness.
Nevertheless, Turner teaches a mower blade (See Figs. 9-11; Paras. [0032]-[0033], [0051]-[0059]) wherein the hard-facing material (thermal spray material 50) (Figs. 9-11; Paras. [0051]-[0059]) deposited onto the first cutting edge (see Annotated Figs. 10-11 of Turner infra), the second cutting edge (see Annotated Figs. 10-11 of Turner infra) or both has a first average thickness, and the hard-facing material deposited onto the top surface of the first uplift portion (see Annotated Figs. 10-11 of Turner infra), the second uplift portion (see Annotated Figs. 10-11 of Turner infra), or both has a second average thickness, wherein the first average thickness is the larger than the second average thickness (Para. [0057]), and wherein the hard-facing material (thermal spray material 50) (Figs. 9-11; Paras. [0051]-[0059]) deposited onto planar portions of the top surface (see Annotated Figs. 10-11 of Turner infra) that are parallel to a ground being traversed has a third average thickness that is smaller than the first average thickness and the second average thickness (Para. [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the mower blade disclosed in Yamaoka with the coating taught in Turner in order to cause the mower blade to experience a more preferred and even wear pattern, wherein the intermediate surface portion (uplift portion) wears at substantially the same rate, or even a slower rate, than the first surface portion (cutting edge), including the cutting edge and to preclude the wear from occurring substantially earlier in the life of the blade than the wearing of the cutting edge, as taught in Turner (Paras. [0038], [0058]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaoka in view of Turner, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0360311 to Zheng et al. (hereinafter Zheng).
Regarding claim 18, Yamaoka in view of Turner teaches the mower blade of claim 1 (see above). However, neither Yamaoka nor Turner expressly discloses or teaches that the hard-facing material comprises tungsten carbide, tungsten carbide having a cobalt content, boron carbide, nickel bonded carbide, stellite, titanium carbide, chrome carbide, iron carbide, diamond, ceramics, or combinations thereof. Nevertheless, Zheng teaches a deposited coating for a hard-facing material that comprises tungsten carbide (Para. [0003]), stellite (Para. [0003]), titanium carbide (Para. [0003]), diamond (Para. [0003]), ceramics (Para. [0003]), or combinations thereof (Para. [0042]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the mower blade taught by Yamaoka in view of Turner with the use of any of the deposited coatings taught in Zheng with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the operational life of equipment and provide wear resistance, as taught in Zheng. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the mower blade taught by Yamaoka in view of Turner with the use of any of the deposited coatings taught in Zheng, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaoka in view of Turner, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,326,645 to Ashary et al. (hereinafter Ashary).
Regarding claim 18, Yamaoka in view of Turner teaches the mower blade of claim 1 (see above). However, neither Yamaoka nor Turner expressly discloses or teaches that the hard-facing material comprises tungsten carbide, tungsten carbide having a cobalt content, boron carbide, nickel bonded carbide, stellite, titanium carbide, chrome carbide, iron carbide, diamond, ceramics, or combinations thereof. Nevertheless, Ashary teaches a deposited coating for a hard-facing material that comprises tungsten carbide (Col. 2, lines 5-24), tungsten carbide having a cobalt content (Col. 2, lines 5-24), nickel bonded carbide (Col. 2, lines 5-24), titanium carbide (Col. 2, lines 5-24), chrome carbide (Col. 2, lines 5-24), ceramics (Col. 2, lines 5-24), or combinations thereof (Col. 2, lines 5-24). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the mower blade taught by Yamaoka in view of Turner with the use of any of the deposited coatings taught in Ashary with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the operational life of equipment and provide wear resistance, as taught in Ashary (Col. 2, lines 5-24). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the mower blade taught by Yamaoka in view of Turner with the use of any of the deposited coatings taught in Ashary, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Y Yamaoka in view of Turner, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2002/0098392 to Oyelayo et al. (hereinafter Oyelayo).
Regarding claim 18, Yamaoka in view of Turner teaches the mower blade of claim 1 (see above). However, neither Yamaoka nor Turner expressly discloses or teaches that the hard-facing material comprises tungsten carbide, tungsten carbide having a cobalt content, boron carbide, nickel bonded carbide, stellite, titanium carbide, chrome carbide, iron carbide, diamond, ceramics, or combinations thereof. Nevertheless, Oyelayo teaches a deposited coating for a hard-facing material that comprises boron carbide (Para. [0008], [0023], [0029]-[0030], [0033], [0035]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the mower blade taught by Yamaoka in view of Turner with the use of boron carbide deposited coatings taught in Oyelayo with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve wear and pitting resistance, as taught in Oyelayo (Abstract; Paras. [0001], [0010]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the mower blade taught by Yamaoka in view of Turner with the use of boron carbide deposited coatings taught in Oyelayo, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Pat. Nos. 10,440,885 to Shiotsuki et al.; 5,906,053 to Turner et al.; 5,775,078 to Warren; 4,532,708 to Mensing; 5,148,660 to Will; 5,899,053 to Roth; and U.S. Pat. Pub. Nos. 2011/0277438 to Perruso, Jr.; 2015/0047308 to Schreiner; and European Pat. Pub. No. 0 300 642 A1 to Dunn; and Canadian Pat. No. CA 2,220,608 A1 to Hopkins et al. relate to mower blades having a body portion, a first end including a first leading edge including a first cutting edge and a first trailing edge having a first upturned portion, a second end including a second leading edge including a second cutting edge and a second trailing edge having a second upturned portion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAUDE J BROWN whose telephone number is (571)270-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8AM-5PM.
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, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at (571) 272-8971. 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.
/CLAUDE J BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights