Harvesters – Motorized harvester – Having motor on ground-supported carrier
Reexamination Certificate
2000-11-10
2003-02-11
Pezzuto, Robert E. (Department: 3671)
Harvesters
Motorized harvester
Having motor on ground-supported carrier
C172S017000, C056S012700
Reexamination Certificate
active
06516598
ABSTRACT:
CROSS REFERENCES TO CO-PENDING APPLICATIONS
None.
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates to powered brush cutters, string trimmers, etc, hereafter referred to as cutting devices. In particular, the present invention relates to a safe, compact and streamlined, powered cutting device which is maneuverable in the manner of a wheelbarrow, brush cutter, or stick edger.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Hitherto, powered cutting device have been able to be divided into several categories. The first is a multi-wheeled carriage which is self-supporting on its wheel and which is pushed along its intended path. A known member of this class is essentially a conventional domestic lawn mower type but with a cutting element of nylon or like filaments rotating in a horizontal plane. Another member of this class is the 3 (or 4) wheel lawn edger which can pivot its cutter blade 90 degrees to a horizontal position. The best known category is a hand held device which does not have any ground engaging wheels and which is carried by the operator. The best known of these devices are the various types of brush cutter (or string trimmer) devices.
The brush cutter type of device generally includes a nylon filament as a cutting element. This cutting element is attached to a cutter head which is set at one (lower) end of a long drive shaft. The drive shaft is carried by the operator at an angle of approximately 35° to 45° to the horizontal. The shaft has an engine at its other (upper) end with the engine mostly situated behind the operator and in some other cases beside the operator. The cutter head rotates about a substantially horizontal plane in normal use and is intended, for example, to trim grass growing adjacent tree trunks, to mow vegetation, mostly grass and/or weeds in small and/or awkward areas, and the like. Therefore, it is necessary for such an apparatus to be completely carried in a generally out of balance position. Therefore, it is both difficult and tiring to use.
As a consequence, any health problem of the operator, such as common backache, can be exacerbated by the stooped and unnatural position which the operator is obligated to adopt. The fatigue of the operator is further increased by the need to actually carry, and therefore support the entire weight of, the device during its operation.
Another known device is a stick edger which is constructed similarly to a brush cutter but with a cutting blade rotating in a fixed vertical plane and with a small wheel attached to the blade cover.
It is also known for some prior art cutting devices to be fitted with one or several rollers attached to the device near the cutter head or for the device to be fitted to a dolly. Some of these devices still have their engine alongside, or behind, the operator, so the majority of the weight is still supported by the operator with the same generally awkward stance and movement as described above. One hand of the operator carries the majority of weight whilst the other hand of the operator guides the dolly. Again, this can cause stooping, which exacerbates any back problem. Back problems are a major source of health insurance injury claim and are a major source of injury for manual laborers. In all instances, these dollies, or wheel mounted arrangements, suffer the problem of lack of maneuverability. As a consequent, they are all difficult and awkward to use.
Various prior art devices in the form of a wheeled dolly have been proposed in order to support such brushcutter devices. The following U.S. patents are typical of such devices: U.S. Pat. No. 4,182,100 (Letter); U.S. Pat. No. 4,442,659 (Enbusk); U.S. Pat. No. 4,531,350 (Huthmacher); U.S. Pat. No. 4,803,831 (Carmine); U.S. Pat. No. 4,879,869 (Buckendorf, Jr.); U.S. Pat. No. 4,894,916 (Nimz et al.); U.S. Pat. No. 4,922,694 (Emoto); U.S. Pat. No. 4,936,886 (Quillen); U.S. Pat. No. 5,029,435 (Buchanan); and U.S. Pat. No. 5,095,687 (Andrew et al.).
A further problem to be considered is the restrictions to be placed on small two-stroke (two-cycle) engines because of the pollution such engines create over and above that created by four-stroke engines. As a consequence, the light weight two-stroke power units currently used in brushcutters and similar devices are likely to be banned in some jurisdictions in the future for anti-pollution reasons. The engineering result of this is that commercially acceptable power units are henceforth likely to be restricted to four-stroke internal combustion engines and electric motors, both of which are substantially heavier than two-stroke engines. It follows, therefore, that in the future those brush cutters in which the operator carries the weight of the apparatus will become impractically heavy.
The wheeled carriage class of lawn edger typically has three (or sometimes four) wheels arranged so as to enable the edger to be free standing, with upstanding handles, and also self-supporting on its wheels. Some of these edgers can swivel their vertical blades to a horizontal plane to trim grass and vegetation in a horizontal manner. The device is pushed in a manner analogous to that of a lawn mower. Because these self-supporting 3 and 4 wheeled carriage grass edgers have a long wheel base to self-support the apparatus, when pushed (forward) their natural track is straight. Therefore, to push around a curve is difficult with the operator having to “bounce”, or reciprocate, or drag, the apparatus around, to try to approximate the desired curve which the non-steerable carriage wheels will not follow.
These prior art lawn edgers, to cut horizontally, have mechanisms that take the form of a tiltable axis of rotation of the cutter, and a V-belt drive which is able to accommodate the necessary twisting required whilst still transmitting power. The power unit remains untilted. Whilst such arrangements are functional, the devices are heavier, more complicated and more expensive. In addition, the (often exposed) V-belt drives are dangerous.
Examples of prior art wheeled carriage devices which have attempted to deal with this problem include: U.S. Pat. No. 2,680,945 (Reed); U.S. Pat. No. 2,791,875 (Faas); U.S. Pat. No. 2,847,813 (Hansen, Jr. et al.); U.S. Pat. No. 2,855,742 (Cooper); U.S. Pat. No. 3,090,186 (Dykes); U.S. Pat. No. 3,193,996 (Wellborn); U.S. Pat. No. 3,490,213 (Pinto); U.S. Pat. No. 3,743,028 (McCloud); U.S. Pat. No. 4,962,631 (Braun et al.); U.S. Pat. No. 5,156,217 (Hirata et al.); and U.S. Pat. No. 5,165,485 (Fujikawa et al.). The MASPORT (Registered Trade Mark) model 6002 DLX which is commercially available in the USA also has a blade tilting arrangement. All of these “heavy duty” wheeled edgers are heavy and bulky, difficult to transport, cannot fit into a boot or trunk of even a large car, and require a great deal of room for storage.
Another example of a prior art device in which the cutting blades are able to be tilted out of the vertical plane is provided by U.S. Pat. No. 2,970,419 (Lieberman). This device enables a cut to be achieved both in a horizontal plane and in a vertical plane. When cutting in a horizontal plane the device is supported by a pair of wheels 40, and when cutting in a vertical plane the device is supported by a roller 54. U.S. Pat. No. 2,672,002 (Nelson) discloses a somewhat similar device which, when cutting in the vertical plane, is supported by single wheel 15 in front of the cutter blade, but when cutting in the horizontal plane is supported by a skid bar 28. Because of the skid bar 28, it is necessary to “shove or push” the device in the direction of the skid bar 28 utilizing a handle of which only the stem 31 is illustrated. The handle is said to have “any desirable cross-head” and, therefore, is presumably generally T-shaped in configuration.
U.S. Pat. No. 2,621,463 (Skillman) discloses a similar arrangement in which the device is supported in both cutting actions by a roller 11 having a substantial axial extent. Again, the cutting blades are able to be pivoted so as to cut in either a horizontal plane or a vertical plane. U.S. Pat. No. 2,632,990 (Stricklen et al.) discloses a
Notaras Angelo L.
Notaras John A.
Notaras William P.
Jaeger Hugh D.
Pezzuto Robert E.
LandOfFree
Powered vegetative cutting device does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Powered vegetative cutting device, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Powered vegetative cutting device will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3118666