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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-17 and 21-23 are pending in this application. Claim 1 was amended in the amendment filed 12 January 2026, which also cancelled claims 18-20 and added claims 21-23. All pending claims are eligible for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-4 that describe a more narrow understanding of an “operator presence system” than that disclosed by the references used in the previous rejection, filed 12 January 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-17 under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of McCutcheon, IV et al. (US 2022/0174867).
While the below still uses Yokoyama, the rejections is no longer rely on Yokoyama to show multiple signals cuing engagement or disengagement of a parking brake. The claims to which Yokoyama is applied below are either, by the claim’s structure (3), consistent with inferring intent or merely an example of a mechanical article (11). Applicant’s comments about Yokoyama’s system inferring intent would therefore be unpersuasive if applied to the rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 12, 14-17, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stover et al. (US 6739116 hereinafter Stover).
With respect to claim 1, Stover discloses an electric terrain working vehicle (in the abstract, Stover discloses a lawn mower that has an electrically powered actuator system for its parking brake) comprising:
a frame (in lines 20-29 of column 2, Stover discloses a frame for the lawn mower);
a controller coupled to the frame (in figures 6 and 7, Stover discloses control circuits for the lawnmower and brake system that read on a controller coupled to the frame; in lines 54-58 of column 5, Stover specifically identifies a control chip or circuit 54);
an operator presence system configured to detect a presence or absence of an operator in relation to the electric terrain working vehicle (in the abstract, Stover discloses operator presence detection which is described further in lines 41-53 of column 5), the operator presence system also configured to provide a presence indication to the controller, wherein each presence indication comprises an indication of absence or an indication of presence (in lines 41-53 of column 5, Stover discloses electrical sensor SW4 that detects when an operator is sitting in – closed – or not sitting in – open – the seat); and
a parking brake configured to actuate between an engaged state and a disengaged state (in the abstract, Stover discloses a parking brake that can alternate between engaged and not engaged),
wherein the controller commands actuation of the parking brake to the engaged state after receiving the indication of absence thereby engaging the parking brake (in the abstract, Stover discloses engaging or disengaging the parking brake based on signals received from the seat switch that detects whether a person is sitting in the seat – see also lines 41-42 of column 5).
wherein the controller commands actuation of the parking brake to the disengaged state after receiving the indication of presence thereby disengaging the parking brake (in the abstract, Stover discloses engaging or disengaging the parking brake based on signals received from the seat switch that detects whether a person is sitting in the seat – see also lines 41-42 of column 5).
With respect to claim 2, Stover discloses the limitations of claim 1. Stover further discloses after receiving a first presence indication comprising an indication of absence, the controller does not command actuation of the parking brake to the engaged state until a second presence indication is received after a period of time has elapsed and the second presence indication matches the first presence indication (in lines 64 of column 5 through 7 of column 6, Stover discloses a predetermined time delay period – which reads on the claim’s period of time – that must elapse between a first indication that an operator is absent and a second indication that an operator is absent).
With respect to claim 4, Stover discloses the limitations of claim 1. Stover further discloses the operator presence system comprising a first sensor configured to provide a first presence indication to the controller and a second sensor configured to provide a second presence indication to the controller (in lines 41-63 of column 5, Stover discloses two presence indicators – a seat sensor and control sticks 14 in a certain position; the stick-type of operator presence indicator is consistent with the operator presence systems described in paragraphs 66 ad 67 of applicant’s specification – that said, Stover does not bias the second, lever-based operator presence indicator into an absence state if the operator is not present or thrown from the vehicle – in the context of Stover’s clear concern for safety, the control sticks 14 read on an operator presence system, but they differ from applicant’s specification in unclaimed ways),
wherein after receiving the first presence indication comprising an indication of absence from the first sensor the controller does not command actuation of the parking brake to the engaged state until the second presence indication is received from the second sensor and the second presence indication matches the first presence indication (in lines 54-63 of column 5, Stover discloses releasing the parking brake only when both presence indicators – operator in seat and control sticks in certain position – are aligned showing operator presence).
With respect to claim 10, Stover discloses the limitations of claim 4. Stover further discloses the electric terrain working vehicle comprises a riding mower having an operator seat coupled to the frame (in figure 1, Stover discloses that the mower is a riding mower with a seat 10), the operator seat configured to move between a first position associated with an operator being absent relative to the riding mower and a second position associated with the operator being present relative to the riding mower, wherein the first sensor is configured to detect the operator seat in the first position (in lines 41-53 of column 5, Stover discloses sensor SW4, which detects when the seat is empty by being in the open position).
With respect to claim 12, Stover discloses the limitations of claim 1. Stover further discloses the operator presence system comprising a first sensor configured to provide a presence indication to the controller and a second sensor configured to provide an operation indication to the controller (in lines 41-63 of column 5, Stover discloses two presence indicators – a seat sensor and control sticks 14 in a certain position; the stick-type of operator presence indicator is consistent with the operator presence systems described in paragraphs 66 ad 67 of applicant’s specification – that said, Stover does not bias the second, lever-based operator presence indicator into an absence state if the operator is not present or thrown from the vehicle – in the context of Stover’s clear concern for safety, the control sticks 14 read on an operator presence system, but they differ from applicant’s specification in unclaimed ways),
wherein after receiving the first presence indication comprising an indication of presence from the first sensor the controller does not command actuation of the parking brake to the disengaged state until after the operation indication is received from the second sensor (in lines 41-63 of column 5, Stover discloses three indicators – a seat sensor and one for each control stick 14; the stick-type of operator presence indicator is consistent with the operator presence systems described in paragraphs 66 ad 67 of applicant’s specification – the control sticks are used to operate the mower, so the signals that are sent to sensors SW3 and SW5 read on operation indications).
With respect to claim 14, Stover discloses the limitations of claim 1. Stover further discloses the parking brake is mechanically actuated between the engaged state and the disengaged state (in lines 54-58 of column 5, Stover discloses a signal energizing a solenoid to disengage the parking brake; because solenoids convert electrical energy into linear motion, and linear motion is mechanical, this solenoid 30 reads on both mechanical and electrical actuation of the parking brake).
With respect to claim 15, Stover discloses the limitations of claim 1. Stover further discloses the parking brake is electrically actuated between the engaged state and the disengaged state (in lines 54-58 of column 5, Stover discloses a signal energizing a solenoid to disengage the parking brake; because solenoids convert electrical energy into linear motion, and linear motion is mechanical, this solenoid 30 reads on both mechanical and electrical actuation of the parking brake).
With respect to claim 16, Stover discloses the limitations of claim 1. Stover further discloses the parking brake is electrically actuated to the engaged and mechanically actuated to the disengaged state (in lines 54-58 of column 5, Stover discloses a signal energizing a solenoid to disengage the parking brake; because solenoids convert electrical energy into linear motion, and linear motion is mechanical, this solenoid 30 reads on both mechanical and electrical actuation of the parking brake; in the abstract, Stover discloses that the solenoid both engages and disengages the parking brake).
With respect to claim 17, Stover discloses the limitations of claim 1. Stover further discloses the parking brake is operatively coupled to a transmission (in figure 5, Stover discloses the solenoid for engaging and disengaging the parking brake system and the transmission manual release – see also lines 1-6 of column 3).
With respect to claim 21, Stover discloses an electric terrain working vehicle comprising:
a frame (in lines 20-29 of column 2, Stover discloses a frame for the lawn mower);
a controller coupled to the frame (in figures 6 and 7, Stover discloses control circuits for the lawnmower and brake system that read on a controller coupled to the frame; in lines 54-58 of column 5, Stover specifically identifies a control chip or circuit 54);
an operator presence system configured to detect a presence or absence of an operator in relation to the electric terrain working vehicle (in the abstract, Stover discloses operator presence detection which is described further in lines 41-53 of column 5), the operator presence system also configured to provide a presence indication to the controller, wherein each presence indication comprises an indication of absence or an indication of presence (in lines 41-53 of column 5, Stover discloses electrical sensor SW4 that detects when an operator is sitting in – closed – or not sitting in – open – the seat);
a parking brake configured to actuate between an engaged state and a disengaged state (in the abstract, Stover discloses a parking brake that can alternate between engaged and not engaged); and
a steering lever configured to control one or more of propulsion and steering direction of the vehicle (in figure 1 and lines 41-53 of column 5, Stover discloses control stick 14, which is used to control the movement of the mower; as such, control stick 14 reads on a steering lever),
wherein the controller commands actuation of the parking brake to the engaged state after receiving the indication of absence thereby engaging the parking brake (in the abstract, Stover discloses engaging or disengaging the parking brake based on signals received from the seat switch that detects whether a person is sitting in the seat – see also lines 41-42 of column 5),
wherein the controller commands actuation of the parking brake to the disengaged state after receiving the indication of presence thereby disengaging the parking brake (in the abstract, Stover discloses engaging or disengaging the parking brake based on signals received from the seat switch that detects whether a person is sitting in the seat – see also lines 41-42 of column 5).
With respect to claim 22, Stover discloses the limitations of claim 21. Stover further discloses a second steering lever and a pair of drive wheels, wherein the steering lever and the second steering lever each control a respective one of the pair of drive wheels (in figure 1, Stover discloses two control sticks 14, which read on both the first and on a second steering lever; in lines 33-42 of column 3, Stover discloses each control stick controls an independent rear drive wheel 8).
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.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stover in view of Yokoyama et al. (US 2016/0339888 hereinafter Yokoyama).
With respect to claim 3, Stover discloses the limitations of claim 2. Stover does not disclose the period of time is at least half of one second. However, Yokoyama discloses vehicular parking brakes that are automatically applied after an absence of presence indicator has endured for a period of time that is at least half of one second (in paragraph 48, Yokoyama discloses using a combination of conditions to presume that a vehicle operator has left the vehicle and automatically hold a parking brake based on that absence; in paragraph 47, Yokoyama discloses that the absence of presence indicator lasts for about a minute, which is at least half of one second).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the extended absence of presence indicator that lasts for more than half of one second of Yokoyama with the automatic parking brake system of Stover as each element merely performs the same function as it does separately and the combination would yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(1)(A)). Note that Stover has taught the time delay but does not give any magnitude for its minimum other than more time than it would take an operator to leave and return to his or her seat when the lawnmower goes over bumps.
With respect to claim 11, Stover discloses the limitations of claim 4. Stover further discloses the electric terrain working vehicle comprises a riding mower (in figure 1, Stover discloses a riding mower) having an operator foot pedal (in lines 1-5 of column 10, Stover discloses substituting a pedal for the control sticks 14; the pedal reads on a foot pedal).
Stover does not disclose the operator foot pedal configured to move between a first position associated with an operator being absent relative to the riding mower and a second position associated with the operator being present relative to the riding mower, wherein the first sensor is configured to detect the operator foot pedal in the first position.
However, Stover does disclose the operator control stick configured to move between a first position associated with an operator being absent relative to the riding mower and a second position associated with the operator being present relative to the riding mower, wherein the first sensor is configured to detect the control stick in the first position (in lines 41-63 of column 5, Stover discloses SW3 and SW5, which monitor the position of a control stick to engage or disengage a parking brake). Stover also discloses substituting a pedal and steering when for the control sticks.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute Stover’s pedal for Stover’s control stick as the item sensed by sensor SW3 or SW5 because the substituted components and their functions were known in the art and Stover has generally taught this substitution. The predictable result of the combination would be a riding lawnmower that maintained the safety features of the control stick system but in a different control system that might be more familiar and appealing to some operators (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Stover does not disclose that an operator foot pedal is pivotally coupled to the frame. However, Yokoyama discloses an operator foot pedal that is pivotally coupled to the frame (in figure 1, Yokoyama discloses foot pedal 6, which is shown as pivotally attached and eventually connects to the frame).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the pivotal aspect of Yokoyama’s pedal with Stover’s general pedal because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The predictable result of the combination is a foot pedal that rotates with the pivot of an operator’s ankle (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Claims 5-7, 13, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stover in view of Arendt et al. (US 2021/0195834 hereinafter Arendt).
With respect to claim 5, Stover discloses the limitations of claim 4. Stover does not disclose a stand-on mower having an operator platform coupled to the stand-on mower and movable between a first position associated with an operator being absent relative to the stand-on mower and a second position associated with the operator being present relative to the stand-on mower, wherein the first sensor is configured to detect the operator platform in the first position.
However, Arendt discloses a stand-on mower having an operator platform coupled to the stand- on mower and movable between a first position associated with an operator being absent relative to the stand-on mower and a second position associated with the operator being present relative to the stand- on mower, wherein the first sensor is configured to detect the operator platform in the first position (in paragraph 40, Arendt discloses operator presence sensors that detect whether an operator is on the platform of a stand-on mower; the stand-on mower and platform 112 are shown in figure 3; weight on a platform will displace it from a first position associated with the absence of weight to a second position associated with the presence of that weight — a sensor that detects the presence at least renders obvious sensing the absence of the weight).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute the stand-on mower of Arendt for the mower of Stover as the substituted components and their functions are well known in the art and the substitution would yield predictable results, that is a stand-on mower with an automatic parking brake that actuates based on multiple signals (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
With respect to claim 6, Stover in view Arendt discloses the limitations of claim
5. Stover further discloses a steering lever coupled to the mower and movable between an operable state associated with an operator being present relative to the mower and an inoperable state associated with the operator being absent relative to the mower, wherein the second sensor is configured to detect the steering lever in the inoperable state (in figure 1, Stover discloses control sticks 14; in lines 41-63 of column 5, Stover discloses detecting when the control stick is in a non-operating state in which the parking brake will be engaged partly due to this position of the control stick). Please note that Arendt discloses control levers in figure 3 as element 110.
With respect to claim 7, Stover discloses the limitations of claim 4. Stover further discloses a mower having a steering lever coupled to the mower and movable between an operable state associated with an operator being present relative to the mower and an inoperable state associated with the operator being absent relative to the mower, wherein the first sensor is configured to detect the steering lever in the inoperable state (in figure 1, Stover discloses control sticks 14; in lines 41-63 of column 5, Stover discloses detecting when the control stick is in a non-operating state in which the parking brake will be engaged partly due to this position of the control stick). Stover fails to disclose that the mower is a stand-on mower.
However, Arendt discloses a stand-on mower with operator presence detection in figure 3 and paragraph 40.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute the stand-on mower of Arendt for the mower of Stover as the substituted components and their functions are well known in the art and the substitution would yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
With respect to claim 13, Stover discloses the limitations of claim 12. Stover further discloses a steering lever coupled to the mower and movable between an operable state associated with an operator being present relative to the stand-on mower and an inoperable state associated with the operator being absent relative to the mower (in figure 1, Stover discloses control sticks 14; in lines 41-63 of column 5, Stover discloses detecting when the control stick is in a non-operating state in which the parking brake will be engaged partly due to this position of the control stick),
wherein the second sensor is configured to detect the steering lever in the inoperable state (in figure 1, Stover discloses control sticks 14; in lines 41-63 of column 5, Stover discloses detecting when the control stick is in a non-operating state in which the parking brake will be engaged partly due to this position of the control stick; SW3 or SW5 reads on a second sensor as SW4 has read on the first sensor).
Stover does not disclose a stand-on mower having an operator platform coupled to the stand-on mower and movable between a first position associated with an operator being absent relative to the stand-on mower and a second position associated with the operator being present relative to the stand-on mower. This assumes that there is a material difference between an operator platform and a seat, which seems appropriate given this claim being limited to stand-on mowers.
However, Arendt discloses a stand-on mower having an operator platform coupled to the stand- on mower and movable between a first position associated with an operator being absent relative to the stand-on mower and a second position associated with the operator being present relative to the stand- on mower, wherein the first sensor is configured to detect the operator platform in the first position (in paragraph 40, Arendt discloses operator presence sensors that detect whether an operator is on the platform of a stand-on mower; the stand-on mower and platform 112 are shown in figure 3; weight on a platform will displace it from a first position associated with the absence of weight to a second position associated with the presence of that weight — a sensor that detects the presence at least renders obvious sensing the absence of the weight).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute the stand-on mower of Arendt for the riding mower of Stover as the substituted components and their functions are well known in the art and the substitution would yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
With respect to claim 23, Stover discloses the limitations of claim 22. Stover further discloses that the drive wheels are independently controlled. This likely makes the riding mower of Stover a zero-turn mower. But in the event that it does not, consider that Stover does not explicitly disclose that the vehicle comprises a zero-turn mower. However, Arendt discloses a zero-turn mower.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute the zero-turn mower of Arendt for the riding mower of Stover as the substituted components and their functions are well known in the art and the substitution would yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stover in view of Velke et al. (US 2007/0039301 hereinafter Velke).
With respect to claim 9, Stover discloses the limitations of claim 4. Stover does not disclose a walk-behind mower having one or more pistol grips, each pistol grip including a frame portion, a propulsion lever extending from the frame portion, and an operator presence lever extending from the frame portion, further comprising: each operator presence lever configured to move between a first position associated with an operator being absent relative to the walk-behind mower and a second position associated with the operator being present relative to the walk- behind mower, wherein the first sensor is configured to detect a first operator presence lever in the first position and the second sensor is configured to detect a second operator presence lever in the first position.
However, Velke discloses a walk-behind mower (title) having one or more pistol grips, each pistol grip including a frame portion, a propulsion lever extending from the frame portion, and an operator presence lever extending from the frame portion (in figure 3, Velke discloses a dashboard 53, handlebars 101, and hand grips 103 that read on a frame; Velke further discloses pistol grips PG extending from the frame; Velke also discloses operator presence control OPC - initialism defined in the abstract - levers 110 and 111, described in paragraph 38), further comprising: each operator presence lever configured to move between a first position associated with an operator being absent relative to the walk-behind mower and a second position associated with the operator being present relative to the walk-behind mower (in paragraph 7, Velke discloses that the OPC levers’ positions are associated with the presence or absence of an operator), wherein the first sensor is configured to detect a first operator presence lever in the first position and the second sensor is configured to detect a second operator presence lever in the first position (in paragraph 7, Velke discloses that the mower will not run if the OPC levers are not in the correct position, which renders obvious sensing the OPC levers’ position; Velke discloses that the OPC levers are connected in figure 4, which makes multiple sensors to detect the individual OPC levers redundant - however, the claim does not stipulate that the sensors are different).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute the push mower and pistol grip of Velke for the riding mower and steering levers of Stover because the substituted components and their functions are known in the art and the results of the substitution would be predictable (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. McCutcheon, IV et al. (US 2022/0174867) discloses an operator detector 950 in paragraphs 54 and 55 that operates as a dead man’s switch and applies brakes when the operator has departed. Braun et al. (US 5020308) discloses a walk-behind mower with a dead man’s switch in the abstract and lines 11-15 of column 6 where release of the dead man’s switch will apply a brake.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS JAMES MEISLAHN whose telephone number is (703)756-1925. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 EST M-Th, M-F.
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 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.
/DOUGLAS J MEISLAHN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671