,
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Submissions
The preliminary amendment filed on May 1, 2025 has been entered.
Restriction Requirement
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Reissue claims 19-39 and 45-58, drawn to a combination of (i) a tractor device with a first hydraulic assembly that moves a main frame from a generally horizontal position to an intermediate position, and (ii) a mower/attachment with a second hydraulic assembly that moves the main frame from the intermediate position to a generally vertical position, classified in A01D 34/64.
Reissue claims 40-42, drawn to a method for moving a mower attachment from a generally horizontal position to a generally vertical position using a first hydraulic assembly of the mower attachment and a second hydraulic assembly of a tractor, classified in A01D 34/64.
Reissue claims 43 and 44, drawn to a first subcombination of a mower that (i) is configured to be moveable from a generally horizontal position to a generally vertical position, and (ii) has a hydraulic piston and cylinder assembly configured to move the mower to the generally vertical position, classified in A01D 34/76.
Reissue claims 61-76 and 78, drawn to a second subcombination of a mower having a hydraulic piston and cylinder assembly that moves a main frame from a generally horizontal position to a generally vertical position, classified in A01D 34/76.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and III and Inventions I and IV are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the combination does not require a mower having a hydraulic piston and cylinder assembly that moves a main frame from a generally horizontal position to a generally vertical position. The subcombination has separate utility such as with a tractor does not include a first hydraulic assembly that moves a main frame from a generally horizontal position to an intermediate position.
Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case, the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product such as (i) a mower attachment that does not include a main frame and an attachment arm pivotably connected with the main frame, or (ii) a tractor that does not include an articulating tractor frame and a power takeoff pulley.
Inventions III and IV are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed having a materially different design and mode of operation because Invention III does not require the hydraulic piston and cylinder assembly to move the main frame from the generally horizontal position to the generally vertical position, but Invention IV does require such a design and mode of operation. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Should applicant traverse this restriction requirement on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Constructive Election
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.176, the subject matter of reissue claims 61-76 and 78 is held to be constructively elected since a disclaimer of all the patent claims has not been filed in the instant reissue application. While patent claims 1-18 have been canceled, reissue claims 61-69 are identical to patent claims 1-9, reissue claims 70-76 are broadened versions of patent claims 10-16, and reissue claim 78 is a broadened version of patent claim 18.
Accordingly, new reissue claims 19-60 and 77 are constructively non-elected and withdrawn from examination in this reissue application because these claims are drawn to a new independent and distinct invention.
As explained in MPEP 1450, applicant is advised that:
The claims to the original patented invention will continue to be examined in the instant reissue application and the non-elected claims will be held in abeyance in a withdrawn status.
In certain cases (see exception explained below), a divisional reissue application directed to the constructively non-elected invention may be filed, and the non-elected claims will only be examined if filed in a divisional reissue application.
If the original patent claims are found allowable in the instant reissue application and no error (other than the failure to present the non-elected claims) is being corrected in this application, and if a divisional application has been filed for the non-elected claims, further action in the instant reissue application will be suspended pending resolution of the divisional application.
As explained in MPEP 1402 and MPEP 1412.01, section II, where a restriction (or an election of species) requirement was made in an application and applicant permitted the elected invention to issue as a patent without filing a divisional application covering the non-elected invention(s), the failure to timely file a divisional application is not considered to be error causing a patent granted on elected claims to be partially inoperative by reason of claiming less than the applicant had a right to claim. Thus, such applicant’s error is not correctable by reissue of the original patent under 35 U.S.C. 251, i.e., the non-elected invention(s) and non-claimed, distinct subject matter cannot be recovered by filing a reissue application.
During the earlier-concluded examination of Application No. 16/739,223, the previous examiner made a restriction requirement that was documented in the Examiner-Initiated Interview Summary mailed on July 13, 2022. In response to the restriction requirement, applicant withdrew non-elected claim 20 from consideration and later canceled non-elected claim 20. Non-elected claim 20 was directed to a combination of a (i) tractor with a first hydraulic assembly to lift an attachment from a generally horizontal position to raised and tilted (intermediate) position, and (ii) a second hydraulic assembly carried by the attachment to lift the attachment from the intermediate position to a generally vertical position.
Since applicant failed to timely file a divisional application covering the non-elected invention(s), the non-elected invention(s) cannot be recovered by filing a divisional reissue application.
Claims Subject to Examination
Reissue claims 61-76 and 78 are subject to examination. Reissue claims 19-60 and 77 are withdrawn for the reasons given above.
Objection to Re-Presentation of Patent Claims as Reissue Claims
The claim amendments filed on May 1, 2025 is objected to because, while patent claims 1-9 have been canceled, reissue claims 61-69 are identical to patent claims 1-9. Such a re-presentation of original patent claims as new reissue claims is improper. See 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g). Applicant should either retain patent claims 1-9 in unamended form, or amend reissue claims 61-69 such that they differ from patent claims 1-9.
Objection to Amendment - Formalities
The specification amendments filed on May 1, 2025 are objected to because: in the 2nd line of the amended first paragraph, “11,638,396 C1” should read “11,638,396 C1”. While the prior reexamination certificate modifies the patent, the instant reissue application will not result in reissue of the reexamination certificate.
The claim amendments filed on May 1, 2025 are objected to because: in claim 67, “cross” (l. 3) should read “crosses”.
Application Data Sheet
The Application Data Sheet (ADS) filed on May 1, 2025 is defective because of the following inaccuracies in the Domestic Benefit Information:
Patent No. 11,638,396 is inaccurately identified as “11638369”.
The issue date of Patent No. 10,561,065 is inaccurately identified as “02/20/2018”. It should read “02/18/2020”.
Correction of the ADS is required in response to this Office action.
Claim Construction
During examination, the pending claims are normally interpreted according to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (hereinafter, the “BRI standard”). That is, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2111 et seq.
An exception to the BRI standard occurs when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer. For this exception to apply, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. See MPEP 2111.01, subsection IV.
Another exception or special case occurs when a claim recites a means-plus-function limitation that must be interpreted in accordance with 35 USC 112 ¶ 6, or 35 USC 112(f). See MPEP 2181. According to the guidance provided by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), 35 USC 112 ¶ 6 applies when the claim term fails to recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, and/or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
The current claim limitations are construed under the BRI standard. No explicit claim construction is deemed to be necessary.
Original Disclosure – Definition
The instant application seeks reissue of US Patent No. 11,638,396 B2, which issued from US Application No. 16/739,223, which was a continuation of US Application Nos. 15/802,977 and 15/803,161. The “original disclosure” is the disclosure of US Application Nos. 15/802,977 and 15/803,161 as filed on November 3, 2017. Any subject matter added to the disclosure (including the claims) during the examination of the instant reissue application or during the earlier-concluded examination of any of US Application Nos. 15/802,977, 15/803,161 and 16/739,223 does not constitute a part of the “original disclosure”.
Prohibition of New Matter
35 USC 132(a) states, in part, that “No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.”
35 USC 251(a) states, in part, that “No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.”
Objection to Amendment - New Matter
The amendment filed on May 1, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows.
The first paragraph of the specification is amended to incorporate by reference “the entirety of” US Application No. 16/739,223. There is no support in the original disclosure for incorporation of the entirety of this prior application. The examiner suggests replacing “the entirety of” with “the entire disclosure of”.
New claim 63 recites “wherein the tension wheel is rotatable about the longitudinal pivot axis”. New claim 63 depends from new claim 61, which recites “wherein the longitudinal pivot axis is orthogonal to the transverse pivot axis” (last line). However, there is no support in the original disclosure for a tension wheel that is rotatable about a longitudinal pivot axis that is orthogonal to a transverse pivot axis. While longitudinal pivot axis 152 is disclosed as being orthogonal to transverse pivot axis 168, the tension wheel is disclosed as being rotatable about the axis 152. Further, while the tension wheel (more accurately, its bracket 124) is disclosed as being rotatable about the longitudinal axis 126, the axis 126 is not disclosed as being orthogonal to the transverse pivot axis 168.
New claim 65 recites “a chain connected to the extension coil spring defining a linkage, wherein the linkage is transversely aligned relative to the longitudinal axis”. New claim 65 depends from new claim 61, which recites “wherein the longitudinal pivot axis is orthogonal to the transverse pivot axis” (last line). The original disclosure states that the connection of chain 134 with extension coil spring 132 creates a transversely aligned linkage. However, there is no support in the original disclosure for this linkage being transversely aligned relative to any longitudinal axis, including the longitudinal pivot axis 152 that is disclosed as being orthogonal to transverse pivot axis 168.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Reissue Oath/Declaration
OBJECTION 1: The Reissue Application Declaration By The Assignee (Form PTO/AIA /06) filed on May 1, 2025 is defective because it fails to accurately identify all of the inventors. The box is checked stating that “Additional Inventors are named on separately numbered sheets attached hereto”. But, rather than attaching a supplemental sheet identifying the additional inventors, applicant improperly filed three separate declarations, with each declaration only naming one inventor.
OBJECTION 2: The Reissue Application Declaration By The Assignee (Form PTO/AIA /06) filed on May 1, 2025 is defective because it fails to identify an original patent claim that the instant broadening reissue application seeks to broaden. See 37 CFR 1.175(b) and MPEP 1414-1414.01. As required by 37 CFR 1.175(b), for an application that seeks to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent, the reissue oath or declaration must identify a claim that the application seeks to broaden. A general statement, e.g., that all claims are broadened, is not sufficient to satisfy this requirement.
OBJECTION 3: The Reissue Application Declaration By The Assignee (Form PTO/AIA /06) filed on May 1, 2025 is defective because it fails to properly and specifically identify at least one error which can be relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP 1414-1414.01.
As required by 37 CFR 1.175(a), the reissue oath/declaration must specifically identify at least one error pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 251 being relied upon as the basis for reissue. In identifying the error, it is sufficient that the reissue oath/declaration identify a single word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in an original claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid. It is not sufficient to merely state that applicant seeks to broaden or narrow the scope of a patent claim. Further, a statement in the reissue oath/declaration of “…failure to include a claim directed to…” and then reciting all the limitations of a newly added claim would not be considered a sufficient error statement because applicant has not pointed out what the other claims lacked that the newly added claim has, or vice versa.
In the present case, the declaration’s error statement reads as follows:
The patentees have claimed less than they had the right to claim and have filed a broadening reissue. At least one error is limiting the mower to require a rocker arm.
This statement fails to properly identify an error which can be relied upon to support this reissue application because (i) it fails to identify where the purported error is found, i.e., what patent claim(s) unnecessarily requires a rocker arm, and (ii) none of the patent claims actually recite “a rocker arm”. Rather, certain patent claims recite a rocker arm assembly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 251:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(b) MULTIPLE REISSUED PATENTS.—The Director may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(c) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.—The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent or the application for the original patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS. No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.
GROUND 1: Claims 61-76 and 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon a defective reissue oath/declaration. See 37 CFR 1.175. See the explanation above.
GROUND 2: Claims 63-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought. See the explanation above. Claims 64 and 66-69 are included in the rejection because of their dependencies.
GROUND 3: Claim 78 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the earlier-concluded reexamination proceeding.
During the earlier-concluded examination of US Application No. 16/739,223 (which issued as US Patent No. 11,638,396 B2):
Applicant responded to the previous examiner’s restriction requirement by amending original claim 11 to require a tensioner assembly coupled to the main frame, wherein the tensioner assembly applies tension to a belt in operable communication with the at least one rotatable mower cutting blade, wherein a portion of the tensioner assembly is moveable between a tensioned first position and a relaxed second position See the amendment filed on June 28, 2022.
Applicant responded to the previous examiner’s prior art rejection of claim 11 and the previous examiner’s indication that claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form by rewriting claim 19 as new independent claim 22, which included all the limitations of previously amended independent claim 11 and the limitation of original dependent claim 19.
Upon allowance of US Application No. 16/739,223, independent claim 22 was renumbered as patent claim 18.
As a result of the amendments made by applicant to secure allowance during the earlier-concluded examination, the following limitation of patent claim 18 (which was the limitation of original dependent claim 19) constitutes a surrender-generating limitation: a lock plate on the lock assembly including an end of the lock plate that engages an annular endwall on the hydraulic piston and cylinder assembly in a locked position.
Reissue claim 78 is a broadened version of patent claim 18. Specifically, reissue claim 78 broadens the surrender-generating limitation of patent claim 18 by requiring “a lock plate on the lock assembly including an end of the lock plate that operatively locks a portion of the hydraulic piston and cylinder assembly in a locked position.
As explained in MPEP 1412.02, when a reissue claim retains a surrender-generating limitation in broadened form, the reissue claim is barred by the recapture rule if the broadened form of the surrender-generating limitation was well known in the prior art. In this case, the prior art teaches a lock plate on the lock assembly including an end of the lock plate that operatively locks a portion of the hydraulic piston and cylinder assembly in a locked position. See the explanation concerning the teachings of Browning et al. Vandermark below. Thus, reissue claim 78 constitutes impermissible recapture.
Reissue claim 78 does not avoid recapture based on overlooked aspects because it is not directed to a separate invention/embodiment/species that was never presented in the original application.
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.
GROUND 4: Claims 63-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement because these claims recite new matter. See the explanation above. Claims 64 and 66-69 are included in the rejection because of their dependencies.
GROUND 5: Claims 61-76 and 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The written description requirement serves both to satisfy applicant’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could theoretically construct his/her own version of the claimed invention. Rather, applicant bears the burden of setting forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Thus, the written description requirement requires applicant to go beyond a discussion of mere concepts and suggestions. It is not sufficient to merely outline desired results that the claimed invention is expected to achieve. Rather, the specification must explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. While subject matter that is conventional or well known in the art need not be described in detail, the specification must provide a complete description of each of the essential features recited in the claims which cause the claimed invention to achieve the desired results.
Reissue claims 61, 70 and 78 each recite “A mower…comprising…a hydraulic piston and cylinder assembly that moves the main frame from the generally horizontal first position to the generally vertical second position” (ll. 1 and 7-8). The specification discloses a preferred embodiment in the form a combination comprising (i) a tractor device with a first hydraulic assembly that moves a main frame from a generally horizontal first position to an intermediate (tilted and raised) second position, and (ii) a mower/attachment with a second hydraulic assembly that moves the main frame from the intermediate second position to a generally vertical third position. The specification also states that the mower transitions between the generally horizontal first position and a generally vertical second position, which may also be referred to as a third position when there is an intermediate tilted and raised second position. Thus, the specification indicates that the intermediate position is optional. However, there is no disclosure of any working embodiment in which the mower has a hydraulic piston and cylinder assembly that moves the main frame from the generally horizontal first position to a generally vertical second position. Instead, the drawings only show and the specification only describes a working embodiment that relies on a hydraulic piston and cylinder assembly of the tractor device to move the main frame from the generally horizontal first position to an intermediate second position prior to the hydraulic piston and cylinder assembly of the mower moving the main frame from the intermediate second position to a generally vertical third position.
Thus, the disclosure fails to explain how an embodiment, as defined by claims 61, 70 and 78, would be structured and how it would function. Absent a complete description of these essential features, the written description fails to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed.
Claims 62-69 and 71-76 are included in the rejection because of their dependencies.
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.
GROUND 6: Claims 61-76 and 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 61, 70 and 78 each recite “A mower…comprising…a hydraulic piston and cylinder assembly that moves the main frame from the generally horizontal first position to the generally vertical second position” (ll. 1 and 7-8). As explained in GROUDN 5, there is no disclosure of any working embodiment in which the mower has a hydraulic piston and cylinder assembly that moves the main frame from a generally horizontal first position to a generally vertical second position. Absent the necessary supporting disclosure, it is impossible to interpret the claims in a manner consistent with the specification. Thus, the scope of the claims cannot be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty.
Claim 61 recites “wherein the tensioner assembly applies tension to the belt in operable communication with the at least one rotatable mower cutting blade” (ll. 10-12). This subject matter is indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation “in operable communication with the at least one rotatable mower cutting blade” applies to the recited tensioner assembly, or whether it applies to the recited belt. The examiner suggests amending “belt in” (l. 11) to read “belt which is in”.
Claim 61 introduces “a belt” (l. 9) and refers to “the belt” (l. 11). However, claim 62 re-introduces “a belt” (l. 3), which creates confusion as to whether one belt is claimed, or two belts are claimed. The examiner suggests amending claim 62 to read “the belt”.
Claim 63 recites “a pivot connection of the support flange to the main frame” (l. 2). This subject matter is indefinite it fails to conform to the description of the invention in the specification. According to the specification, the support flange 122 extends from the main frame 14, and the bracket 124 is pivoted to the support flange 122. There is no pivot connection of the support flange 122 to the main frame 14.
Claim 64 recites “an extension coil spring coupled to the support flange” (l. 3). This subject matter is indefinite it fails to conform to the description of the invention in the specification. According to the specification, the support flange 122 extends from the main frame 14, the bracket 124 is pivoted to the support flange 122, and the extension coil spring 132 has an end connected to the bracket 124. The spring 132 is not disclosed as being coupled to the support flange 122.
In claim 65, the term “the longitudinal axis” is indefinite because (i) this term lacks proper antecedent basis, and/or (ii) it is unclear whether or not “the longitudinal axis” of claim 65 refers to the same axis as “a longitudinal pivot axis” in claim 60 (l. 14).
In claim 67, the term “the longitudinal axis” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this refers to (i) only the “longitudinal pivot axis” of claim 60, or (ii) only “the longitudinal axis” of claim 65, or (iii) both the “longitudinal pivot axis” of claim 60 and “the longitudinal axis” of claim 65.
Claims 70 and 78 each recite “wherein the tensioner assembly applies tension to a belt in operable communication with the at least one rotatable mower cutting blade” (ll. 10-12). See the explanation above with respect to essentially the same subject matter in claim 61.
Claims 72 and 74 each recite “a second transverse axis” (claim 72, l. 3; claim 74, ll. 1-2). Due to the use of the ordinal “second”, each claim implies that the invention also includes a first transverse axis. However, no first transverse axis is explicitly recited in either claim 72 or claim 74 (or prior claims 70 and 71). Thus, it is unclear whether claims 72 and 74 should be interpreted to require only one transverse axis, or two transverse axes.
Claim 75 recites “a second flange and a third flange” (ll. 2-3). Due to the use of the ordinals “second” and “third”, the claim implies that the invention also includes a first flange. However, no first flange is explicitly recited in claim 75 (or prior claims 70 and 71). Thus, it is unclear whether claim 75 should be interpreted to require only two flanges, or three flanges.
Dependent claims are included in the rejection at least because of their dependencies.
Listing of Prior Art
The following is a listing of the prior art cited in this Office action together with the shorthand reference used for each document (listed alphabetically):
“Bartel et al.”
US Publication No. 2016/0050847 A1
“Browning et al.”
GB Publication No. 2505460 A
“Koehn”
US Publication No. 2004/0221561 A1
“Papke et al.”
US Patent No. 7,451,586 B1
“Samejima et al.”
US Publication No. 2006/0288682 A1
“Thatcher et al.”
US Publication No. 2005/0016143 A1
“Vandermark”
US Patent No. 5,069,022
AIA – First to File
The present reissue application contains claims to a claimed invention having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. Accordingly, this application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 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.
GROUND 7: Claim 78 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Browning et al. in view of Samejima et al. and Thatcher et al.
Browning et al. discloses a mower 100 for attachment with a tractor device (not shown), the mower 100 comprising:
A main first frame 120 carrying at least one rotatable mower cutting blade (not shown), wherein the main frame is moveable between a generally horizontal first position (shown in Figs. 1-2) and a raised and tilted second position (shown in Fig. 3). See Figs. 1-3; p. 8, ll. 10-19; p. 10, l. 26 to p. 11, l. 4.
A second frame 110 pivotably connected (via pivotal couplings 15a, 15b) to the main frame 120, and a hitch arm 111 extending from the second frame 110, with the hitch arm 111 adapted to connect with the tractor device (not shown). See Figs. 1-4; p. 8, ll. 10-32; p. 9, ll. 18-27; p. 10, ll. 16-24. The hitch arm 111 is pivotably connected to the main frame 120 via the second frame 110 and the pivotal couplings 15a, 15b.
Hydraulic piston and cylinder assemblies 21a, 21b that move the main frame 120 from the generally horizontal first position (shown in Figs. 1-2) to the generally vertical second position (shown in Fig. 3). See Figs. 1-3; p. 10, l. 26 to p. 11, l. 4.
A lock assembly 200 having a lock plate 204 that includes an end 201 that operatively locks a portion (i.e., a piston rod end) of the hydraulic piston and cylinder assembly 21b in a locked position. See Figs. 1-3; p. 13, ll. 8-31.
Browning et al. teaches that the second position facilitates transport and storage of the mower but fails to teach that the second position is a generally vertical position.
Samejima et al. teaches: hitch arms (links) 22 pivotally connected (about pivot axis P1) to a main frame 12 of a mower unit 10 and adapted to connect with a tractor device (see Fig. 1); a lift cylinder(s) 24 on the tractor device that moves the main frame 12 from a generally horizontal first position (shown in Figs. 1, 4 and 7) to an intermediate (tilted and raised) second position (not shown); a piston and cylinder assembly 41 that moves the main frame 12 from the intermediate second position (not shown) to a generally vertical third position (shown in Figs. 6 and 8); and a lock assembly 50 that locks the main frame 12 in the generally vertical position. See Figs. 1-4 and 6-8; ¶¶ 0023-0027, 0030-0045. In the generally vertical position, the mower unit may be cleaned or inspected. See ¶¶ 0003, 0045.
From the teachings of Samejima et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Browning et al. by configuring the main frame and the hydraulic piston and cylinder assemblies such that the main frame pivots to a generally vertical position because such a position facilitates cleaning and inspection of the mower.
Further, if Browning et al. is considered to fail to fully teach a first hitch arm pivotably connected to the main frame and adapted to connect with the tractor device, then such a hitch arm is taught by Samejima et al. See the explanation of the teachings of Samejima et al. above. The skilled artisan would appreciate that such a hitch arm is well-known in the art for facilitating easy attachment of the mower to and detachment of the mower from the tractor.
Browning et al. also fails to teach tensioner assembly coupled to the main frame, wherein the tensioner assembly applies tension to a belt in operable communication with the at least one rotatable mower cutting blade, and wherein a portion of the tensioner assembly is moveable between a tensioned first position and a relaxed second position.
Thatcher et al. teaches a mower unit comprising: a main frame 6 carrying rotatable cutting blades 44; arms 75, 76 pivotably connected to the main frame 6 and adapted to connect with a tractor device (see Figs. 1-2); and a tensioner assembly (see Figs. 8 and 10) coupled to the main frame 6, wherein the tensioner assembly applies tension to a belt 65 that is in operable communication with the rotatable cutting blades 44 (via pulleys 47), and wherein a portion (i.e., a tension control pulley 54) of the tensioner assembly is moveable (via a handle 60 and linkage members 55, 57-59 between a tensioned first position (solid line position of Fig. 10) and a relaxed second position (phantom line position of Fig. 10). See Figs. 1-2 and 6-10; ¶¶ 0023-0025, 0029-0030, 0032-0035, 0041.
From the teachings of Thatcher et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Browning et al. by providing a tensioner assembly coupled to the main frame, wherein the tensioner assembly applies tension to a belt in operable communication with the at least one rotatable mower cutting blade, and wherein a portion of the tensioner assembly is moveable between a tensioned first position and a relaxed second position. Such a tensioner assembly is advantageous because (i) it facilitates removal and replacement of the belt, and (ii) it allows the belt tension to be relaxed in order to facilitate pivoting of the mower’s main frame to the generally vertical position.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Bartel et al. teaches an actuator 80 (which can be a hydraulic piston and cylinder assembly) that moves a main frame 50 of a mower between a generally horizontal position and a generally vertical position, and a lock assembly 380 that locks the main frame 50 in the generally vertical position.
Koehn teaches hitch arms 68 pivotally connected to a main frame 10 of a mower and adapted to connect with a tractor 14, wherein the main frame 10 is moveable between a generally horizontal position and a generally vertical position.
Papke et al. teaches hitch arms 40 pivotally connected to a main frame 6 of a mower and adapted to connect with a tractor 4, and a hydraulic piston and cylinder assembly 58 that moves the main frame 6 between a generally horizontal position and a raised and tilted position.
Vandermark teaches a piston and cylinder assembly 52 that moves a main frame 84 of a mower 22 between a generally horizontal position and a raised and tilted position, and a lock assembly including a lock plate 110 that locks a portion (i.e., a piston rod end) of the piston and cylinder assembly 52 in a locked position to hold the main frame 84 in the raised and tilted position.
Specification
The specification is objected to because:
At col. 9, l. 30 to col. 10, l. 3, the brief description of each of Figs. 1-17 recites the figure number and then repeats the figure number in parentheses, e.g., “FIG. 1 (FIG. 1)”. The repeated figure numbers (in parentheses) should be omitted.
At col. 13, l. 43, “terminal end 146” should read “terminal end 148”.
At col. 14, l. 22, “frame 42” should read “frame 14”.
At col. 14, l. 39, “axis 186” should read “axis 168”.
At col. 14, l. 44, “axis 186” should read “axis 168”.
At col. 17, l. 20, “tractor device 240” should read “tractor device 40”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for failing to show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “A mower…comprising…a hydraulic piston and cylinder assembly that moves the main frame from the generally horizontal first position to the generally vertical second position” (claims 61, 70 and 78) must be shown in the drawings or canceled from the claims. See the further explanation in GROUND 5. No new matter should be entered.
Response Period
A shortened statutory period for reply is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Amendments in Reissue Applications
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification, claims or drawings must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g).
Failure to fully comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g) will generally result in a notification to applicant that an amendment before final rejection is not completely responsive. Such an amendment after final rejection will not be entered.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Disclosure Obligations
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the patent for which reissue is sought is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Filing and Contact Information
All correspondence relating to this reissue application should be directed:
By Patent Center1: Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
By Mail2 to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
By hand: Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter English whose telephone number is (571)272-6671. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis, can be reached at 571-272-6928
/PETER C ENGLISH/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees: /WILLIAM C DOERRLER/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/Patricia L Engle/SPRS, Art Unit 3991
1 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).
2 Mail Stop REISSUE should only be used for the initial filing of reissue applications, and should not be used for any subsequently filed correspondence in reissue applications. See MPEP 1410.
Prosecution Insights