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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/30/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the remarks filed 10/30/2025.
Claims 1-11 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 with respect to the 102 rejection(s) of claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Brown et al. (US 10,058,031 B1)
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Amended claim 1 recites “such that each controller does not require input from any of the other controllers to control the battery-supplied power to its respective motor.” This limitation does not appear to be supported by the instant specification. The remarks do not mention the specific support for the amended language. Para 37 states that “The PTO switch 64, and the battery gauge 98, along with the deck speed switch 108 (if in use) are each independently electrically coupled to, and supply inputs to, left blade controller 86 and right blade controller 88. The PTO switch 64 and the battery gauge 98 are also electrically coupled to, and supply inputs to, the implement controller 112.” However this paragraph does not appear to support that
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyatt in view of Shoemaker (US20060042212A1) Wyatt in view of Brown et al. (US 10,058,031 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Wyatt discloses: a control system for an electric, terrain-working vehicle having a left drive wheel powered by a left traction motor, a right drive wheel powered by a right traction motor (electric motor transaxles 40a and 40b, which each separately drive one of two rear wheels to implement zero turn vehicle functionality. The electric transaxles 40a and 40b utilize an electric motor to drive an associated axle and wheel, ¶0025; also see Figs. 2 & 3), at least a first implement powered at least by a first implement motor (the deck motors 34a and 34b. Each of the deck motors has a blade that is directly coupled to its rotor ¶0027; right and left deck motors 296a and 296b, ¶0028), and a battery supplying power to the left traction motor, the right traction motor and the first implement motor when certain conditions are met (if the ignition switch is opened by the user, the bias supply logic and the remainder of the deck controller will lose the 48V, DC voltage level from the battery, ¶0052; also see Fig. 7),
the control system comprising: a first implement controller comprising logic to control the battery-supplied power to the first implement motor a left traction controller comprising logic to control the battery-supplied power to the left traction motor, a right traction controller comprising logic to control the battery-supplied power to the right traction motor; wherein, the first implement controller, the left traction controller and the right traction controller are independent from one another (master traction controller 290a is in direct communication with transaxle 292a and slave traction controller 290b is in direct communication with transaxle 292b. Both master and slave controllers respectively control right and left deck motors 296a and 296b. A right drive lever position sensor 291a is associated with the right drive lever and is in communication with the master traction controller 290a. Similarly, a left drive lever position sensor 291b is associated with the left drive lever and is in communication with the slave traction controller 290b, ¶0028).
Wyatt does not appear to expressly teach: such that each controller does not require input from any of the other controllers to control the battery-supplied power to its respective motor
However Brown teaches that such that each controller does not require input from any of the other controllers to control the battery-supplied power to its respective motor (Brown, Col. 6 line 65 to Col.7 line 16, “An engine 102, such as a gasoline or diesel type internal combustion engine drives the alternators 106 via a belt and pulley assembly 104. Alternators 106 generate electric power to charge a battery 108. The alternators could be replaced with generators. Battery 108 supplies electric power to electric transaxles 110a, 110b. Electric transaxles 110a, 110b provide rotational output through a pair of output shafts 111a, 111b to rotationally drive a pair of driven wheels 114. Traction controllers 120a, 120b can control the speed and direction of driven wheels 114 by controlling the respective electric transaxles 110a, 110b, based on inputs from an operator (sitting in operator seat 130). Traction controllers 120a, 120b are mounted near the rear of vehicle 100 near electric transaxles 110a, 110b away from engine 102 to aid in cooling, although other locations are possible. The operator can provide speed and direction inputs through a pair of drive levers 132a, 132b. Each transaxle 110a, 110b may include a brake mechanism 107”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine electrical components of the utility vehicle of Brown with Wyatt’s system to have a system which can troubleshoot, setup, and/or repair the controllers, which requires little skill to operate, is highly portable, and which requires minimum cost. (Brown, Col. 4 lines 22-27)
Regarding claim 2, Wyatt in combination with Brown teaches the control system of claim 1, Wyatt further teaches wherein the first implement is a mower deck powered by the first implement motor and at least a second implement motor; wherein the first implement controller is a left-blade controller; the control system further comprising a second implement controller that is a right blade controller comprising logic to control the battery-supplied power to the right blade motor (the deck controller may comprise a pair of controllers to respectively control the deck motors 34a and 34b, ¶0027); wherein the first implement motor is a left blade motor powering a left mower blade; and wherein the second implement motor is a right blade motor powering a right mower blade (control a pair of auxiliary motors in the form of deck motors, which drive mower blades ¶0029).
Regarding claim 3, Wyatt in combination with Brown teaches the control system of claim 2, Wyatt further teaches wherein the left blade controller is independent from the right blade controller (both master and slave controllers respectively control right and left deck motors 296a and 296b, ¶0028; also see Figs. 2and 3).
Regarding claim 4, Wyatt in combination with Brown teaches the control system of claim 3, Wyatt further teaches comprising: a key switch independently communicatively coupled with, and supplying inputs to, each of the left traction controller, the right traction controller, the right blade controller and the left blade controller {vehicle 50 includes user interfaces, such as right and left drive levers 36a and 36b, an indicator LED or lamp 56, vehicle key switch 58…, ¶0025) & In a vehicle embodiment employing two auxiliary motors, such as deck motors associated with cutting blades of a mowing vehicle, the deck controller may be configured to have a first controller and a second controller, which may be integrated into one controller or may be separate controllers. FIG. 7 depicts a logic block diagram of a deck controller 530 for a vehicle utilizing two deck motors…, ¶0034)
Regarding claim 10, Wyatt in combination with Brown teaches the control system of claim 2, Wyatt further teaches wherein the electric, terrain-working vehicle has at least a second implement powered at least by a third implement motor. The control system further comprising at least a second implement controller comprising logic to control the battery-supplied power to the third implement motor. Wherein the second implement controller is independent from the left blade controller, the right blade controller, the left traction controller and the right traction controller (master traction controller 290a is in direct communication with transaxle 292a and slave traction controller 290b is in direct communication with transaxle 292b. Both master and slave controllers respectively control right and left deck motors 296a and 296b. A right drive lever position sensor 291a is associated with the right drive lever and is in communication with the master traction controller 290a. Similarly, a left drive lever position sensor 291b is associated with the left drive lever and is in communication with the slave traction controller 290b [each controller independently operates the respective motor] ¶0028).
Claim(s) 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyatt in view of Brown and further in view of Shoemaker (US20060042212A1).
Regarding claim 5, Wyatt in combination with Brown discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 4 above. Wyatt discloses each of the left traction controller, the right traction controller, the right blade controller and the left blade controller, (both master and slave controllers respectively control right and left deck motors 296a and 296b, ¶0028) Wyatt does not disclose the limitation an operator-presence switch independently communicatively coupled with, and supplying inputs to, {…} the operator- presence switch configured to signal a presence of an operator in an approved operating position of the electric, terrain-working vehicle. However, Shoemaker does (If the brake is off and the seat or operator presence switch indicates no operator. the magneto, start and fuel switches are turned off and the interlock circuit returns to the state of block 101. ¶0027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Wyatt to include the operator presence switch as taught in Shoemaker for the purpose of ensuring that an operator is present in order for safe operation of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 6, Wyatt in combination with Brown and Shoemaker discloses the control system of claim 5. Wyatt further teaches comprising: a power take-off switch independently communicatively coupled with, and supplying inputs to, the left blade controller and the right blade controller (vehicle 50 includes user interfaces, such as ... power take-off (PTO) switch 60, ¶0025; allow the operator of vehicle 50 to close PTO switch 60 to energize or allow activation of one or more functional outputs controlled by the deck controller 30 [controls blades] ¶0026).
Regarding claim 7, Wyatt in combination with Brown and Shoemaker discloses the control system of claim 6, wherein, when the key switch, the power take-off switch, […] the logic of the left blade controller instructs the left blade motor to operate and the logic of the right blade controller instructs the right blade motor to operate (when certain operational conditions are met, allow the operator of vehicle 50 to close PTO switch 60 to energize or allow activation of one or more functional outputs controlled by the deck controller 30. These functional outputs may include a variety of auxiliary equipment powered by electric auxiliary motors, such as deck motors 34a and 34b of mower deck 35, ¶0026). Wyatt fails to explicitly disclose the operator switch is an operator-presence switch. Shoemaker teaches the switch is an operator presence switch (an operator presence or seat switch, ¶0019).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Wyatt to include the operator presence switch as taught in Shoemaker for the purpose of ensuring that an operator is present in order for safe operation of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 8, Wyatt discloses the limitation when any one of the key switch, the power take-off switch, or the operator-presence switch is deactivated, the left blade controller ceases power to the left blade motor and the right blade controller ceases power to the right blade motor (if the ignition switch is opened by the user, the bias supply logic and the remainder of the deck controller will lose the 48V, DC voltage level from the battery [deck controller includes both left and right motors] ¶0052). Wyatt fails to explicitly disclose the operator-presence switch is deactivated. Shoemaker teaches the switch is an operator presence switch (an operator presence or seat switch, ¶0019).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Wyatt to include the operator presence switch as taught in Shoemaker for the purpose of ensuring that an operator is present in order for safe operation of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 9, Wyatt does discloses the limitation when the key switch is activated,[…] the operator presence switch is activated, and the power take-off switch is then activated, the logic of the left blade controller instructs the left blade motor to operate and the logic of the right blade controller instructs the right blade motor to operate (when certain operational conditions are met, allow the operator of vehicle 50 to close PTO switch 60 to energize or allow activation of one or more functional outputs controlled by the deck controller 30. These functional outputs may include a variety of auxiliary equipment powered by electric auxiliary motors such as deck motors 34a and 34b of mower deck 35, ¶ 0026; Other operator interfaces 298, such as, for example, key on/off, PTO, ¶0028). Wyatt fails to explicitly disclose the power take-off switch is first de-activated. Shoemaker teaches the switch is an operator presence switch (an operator presence or seat switch, ¶0019).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Wyatt to include the operator presence switch as taught in Shoemaker for the purpose of ensuring that an operator is present in order for safe operation of the vehicle.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyatt in view of Brown and further in view of Dettmann(US20030159417A1).
Regarding claim 11, Wyatt discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 2 above which discuses left and right controllers getting power in ¶0028. Wyatt does not disclose the limitation a battery charge indicator independently communicatively coupled with, and supplying inputs to, the left blade controller and the right blade controller, wherein if the battery charge indicator signals a battery charge below a predetermined threshold, the left blade controller ceases power to […] controller ceases power to the right blade motor. However, Dettmann does (upon the occasion of a predetermined low voltage, such as a depth of discharge (DOD) of seventy percent or full charge, a flashing light can signal the operator. At eighty percent of DOD the fuel gage 51 provides a double flashing light and a signal to the battery cutout relay 61 to activate the relay 61 and thereby terminate current to the reel motor ¶0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Wyatt to include the battery charge indicator as taught in Dettmann for the purpose of ceasing power in the left and right blade controllers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANISS CHAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3832 or email aniss.chad@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00pm EST.
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, James Trammell can be reached at 571-272-6712. 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.
/ANISS CHAD/
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3662