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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 21, 23-27, and 29-40 are currently pending and are being hereby examined herein. Claims 1-20, 22, and 28, are canceled. Claims 21, 30, and 38 are amended.
Response to Amendment / Remarks
All mentions of the prior office action refer to the non-final rejection dated 23 December 2025.
All rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) from the prior office action are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, dated 20 March 2026, with respect to the prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 from the prior office action, have been fully considered.
Necessitated by amendments to the claims, examiner has added material to the prior art rejections (i.e., case law) to show obviousness of the design choice / rearrangement of parts for location of maximum speed control relative to the power button (see below), Applicant has provided no critical reason for the claimed location of the maximum speed control relative to the power button and center of the cross bar (see MPEP 2144.04).
In response to amending to include the term “forward”, the examiner notes “forward” has no frame of reference and for any two objects not in the same exact spot, one could be “forward” of another relative to some frame of reference.
All changes to the prior art rejections were necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims Objections
The claims are objected to for the following informalities:
Claims 21 and 30: “about the grip portion of distal bar” should be “about the grip portion of the distal bar”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21, 23-26, and 29-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0051848 (hereinafter, Bejcek) in view of E.P. Pub. No. 3 120 684 A1 (Cecchetto et al., hereinafter, Cecchetto) in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0252185 (hereinafter, Osborne).
Regarding Claim 21, Bejcek discloses A walk-behind lawnmower (see at least [0014]-[0015] and FIG. 1: “FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of a walk-behind self-propelled machine that is configured as a lawnmower 10”) comprising:
a mower deck (see at least [0015], [0018], and FIG. 1: cutter housing 12; “cutter housing 12 can be referred to as a mower deck”);
a plurality of wheels coupled to the mower deck (see at least [0026], FIG. 1, and FIG. 2: “The drive assembly 36 can be mounted to the cutter housing 12 at a position that is underneath the cutter housing 12. The drive assembly 36 can include a drive transmission 40 and a propulsion motor driver 42. The propulsion motor driver 42 can be in electrical communication with each of the battery pack 30 and the drive transmission 40. A drive shaft 44 can be connected to each of the drive transmission 40 and the rear wheels 16 in any appropriate manner such that the drive transmission 40 can cause the drive shaft 44 to rotate, which in turn can cause the rear wheels 16 to rotate”);
a drive motor configured to operate at a drive speed to drive at least one of the plurality of wheels (see at least [0027], [0053], and FIG. 2: “The drive transmission 40 can also include a propulsion motor 46 and a gear transmission 48 connecting the propulsion motor 46 to the drive shaft 44.”; “The main controller 60 can determine the drive speed V at which the propulsion motor driver 42 causes the propulsion motor 46 to operate”; in FIG 2, drive shaft 44 is shown attached to the pair of rear wheels 16);
a handle coupled to the mower deck (see at least [0015] and FIG. 1: handle 18), the handle including
a distal bar defining a grip portion and having a variable speed control configured to be actuated an actuation percentage, (see at least [0031]-[0033], FIG. 2, and FIG. 4: “The speed control selector 56 can be a lever that is pivotally mounted on the handle 18. The speed control selector 56 can be configured to permit the operator of the lawnmower 10 to adjust the speed at which the drive assembly 36 propels the lawnmower 10 between zero and the maximum speed set via the a speed limit dial 54. The speed control selector 56 can be referred to as a clutch lever. The speed control selector 56 can be configured to allow the operator of the lawnmower to continuously vary the speed at which the drive assembly 36 propels the lawnmower.”; in FIG 4, the speed control selector 56 is shown on a distal bar portion of the handle and the area that could be gripped is shown) and
a cross bar disposed below and forward from…the distal bar… the cross bar including a user interface having (see at least FIG. 4: the handle portion with reference numbers 54 and 58 is a cross bar; the area with reference number 54 is a user interface) having
a maximum speed control disposed forward of the grip portion…including a setting corresponding to a maximum drive speed (see at least [0018], [0031]-[0032], [0072]-[0073], and FIG. 4: “The speed limit dial 54 can be rotary encoder switch mounted on the handle 18. The speed limit dial 54 can be configured to permit the operator of the lawnmower 10 to set a maximum speed value from a range of possible maximum speed values at which the drive assembly 36 will propel the lawnmower 10.”; “The lawnmower 10 can include at least one input structure mounted on the handle 18 (or other location) that is configured to facilitate control of the drive assembly 36 by the operator of the lawnmower 10. Referring to FIGS. 1-3, the input structure can include a speed limit dial 54 and a speed control selector 56”; “exemplary embodiments can include any appropriate structure that can permit the operator to set the maximum speed at which the drive assembly 36 will propel the lawnmower”; in FIG. 4, the speed limit dial 54 is shown away from the grip portion, which is forward relative to certain orientations, furthermore, any position on the lawnmower would be reasonable for the speed limit dial 54: “The lawnmower 10 can include at least one input structure mounted on the handle 18 (or other location)”); and
wherein the drive speed of the drive motor is determined using the setting of the maximum speed control scaled by the actuation percentage of the variable speed control (see at least [0061] and FIG. 9: “The main controller 60 can be configured to determine the user request speed VU from the operator's input to each of the speed limit dial 54 and the speed control unit 56 based on the equation: VU =R × VM where VM is the maximum speed set by the user and R is a ratio that corresponds to a position of the speed control selector 56.”; “The ratio R can be a percentage of the fully engaged position where R can have a value of 100% when the speed control lever 56 is in the fully engaged position and a value of 0% when the speed control lever 56 is in fully disengaged position (or percentages therebetween)”; “The main controller 60 can determine the drive speed V at which the propulsion motor driver 42 causes the propulsion motor 46 to operate based on the user request speed V∪”).
Bejcek does not explicitly disclose a bail moveable between an open position distal to an outer surface of the handle and a closed position proximal to the outer surface of the handle, the variable speed control comprising a paddle-style lever comprising a sleeve rotatable about the grip portion of distal bar and a pair of paddles extending outwardly from the sleeve, and a cross bar disposed below and forward from both the distal bar and the bail, the cross bar including a user interface having a power button configured to be actuated to initiate operation of the walk- behind lawnmower, and a maximum speed control…laterally spaced apart from the power button and a center of the cross bar.
Cecchetto, in the same field of lawnmower controls, and therefore analogous art, teaches a cross bar disposed below and forward from…the distal bar…the cross bar including a user interface having a power button configured to be actuated to initiate operation of the walk- behind lawnmower (see at least [0015], FIG. 1, and FIG. 2: “The safety system 12 is configured to enable the ignition of the lawn mower 1 only if ….power button 10… pressed”; in FIG. 2, the power button 10 is shown on a cross bar).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the disclosure of Bejcek with the teachings of Cecchetto (specifically, to add the power button of Cecchetto the teachings of Bejcek) because “the cutting blades of the lawn mower may be a serious danger for the operator when they are operating” (see at least Cecchetto [0003]) and one of ordinary skill would be motivated to add additional features to reduce risk from inadvertent activation.
Osborne, in the same field of lawnmower controls, and therefore analogous art, teaches a bail moveable between an open position distal to an outer surface of the handle and a closed position proximal to the outer surface of the handle (see at least FIG. 1A and [0024]-[0025]: “operator presence control OPC in general is a safety feature that is typically movable between two states or positions, ON and OFF, and typically is biased towards its OFF state. When an operator is operating or manipulating lawnmower LM in an intended matter, such as by properly gripping handle H and pulling operator presence control OPC toward handle H, operator presence control OPC is in the ON position, and this action translates through the length of operator control cable OCC to machine control component MC. The ON position permits machine control component MC to activate motor M and cutting element CE and permits lawnmower LM to be propelled using the power generated by motor M as transferred by transmission T. When, on the other hand, an operator is not operating or manipulating lawnmower LM in an intended matter, such as by releasing or failing to properly grip operator presence control OPC, operator presence control OPC is in the OFF position. The OFF position disables machine control component MC and therein disables motor M, cutting element CE, and/or transmission T. In some embodiments and as known to those of skill in the art, a biasing mechanism (not shown) can be employed to bias operator presence control OPC to the OFF position. For example, operator control cable OCC could be biased at some point along its length to maintain a force that tends to pull operator presence control OPC away from handle H to the angled OFF position.”) and the variable speed control comprising a paddle-style lever comprising a sleeve rotatable about the grip portion of distal bar and a pair of paddles extending outwardly from the sleeve (see at least [0026]-[0035], FIG. 1A, FIG. 2A, and FIG. 2C: twist control 20 has engagement portions 26 (i.e., a pair of paddles); “elongate body 22 is capable of rotating around guide bracket 28 when twisted by a user”; elongate body 22 is a sleeve; “Actuation and the position of twist control 20 can determine the speed at which lawnmower LM is self-propelled”; “Engagement portions 26 can be elongated tabs fused to opposing ends of elongate body upper portion 22A, providing a surface that an operator can push with one or more of the operator's thumbs in order to rotate twist control 20 through the range of operational states”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the Bejcek and Cecchetto combination with the teachings of Osborne (specifically, to make the simple substitution of the twist control 20 in Osborne for the variable speed control of Bejcek and to make the simple substitution of the operator presence control OPC of Osborne for generically-defined-but-similarly-functioning portions of Bejcek) with the motivation of making activation of the features easy for an operator: “Typically, one or more controls are mounted toward the end of the handle in a convenient location for the user to manipulate while gripping the handle and operating the machine. One such control is the operator presence control or "dead man" control, which generally includes a spring-biased handle which can be grasped by the operator during normal operation of the machine to enable the motor of the machine. If the operator presence control handle is thereafter released, the machine action is rapidly terminated for reasons of safety” and “it would advantageous to employ a variable speed twist control that is operatively connected to a variable speed transmission of a self-propelled mowing machine to control the speed of propulsion. The twist control can allow for various hand positions for ease of operation and can be used in conjunction with an operator presence control for engine control and engagement of the speed system” (See at least Osborne [0007]-[0008]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have come to the conclusion a cross bar disposed below and forward from both the distal bar and the bail based upon the modifications included above.
Regarding the final limitation, a maximum speed control…laterally spaced apart from the power button and a center of the cross bar, modifying the position of these components would not modify the operation of the device. One of ordinary skill would have considered multiple locations on the lawn mower for both the maximum speed control and the power button and would have chosen a final location based on design choice. As part of the design choice, one of ordinary skill would have considered advantages to spacing the controls some distance apart so a user does not have confusion about which they’d be operating. Furthermore, as part of the design choice, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered avoiding the center for one or more controls so the control would be closer to a hand of a user at an outward sides of the lawnmower. Applicant has not demonstrated any critical reason for the claimed locations; therefore, a maximum speed control…laterally spaced apart from the power button and a center of the cross bar would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art as a design choice (see MPEP 2144.04 / Rearrangement of Parts / In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
Regarding Claim 23, Claim 21 is obvious in view of the Bejcek, Cecchetto, and Osborne combination. Additionally, Bejcek further discloses wherein the variable speed control is movable between a first variable speed position, in which the actuation percentage of the variable speed control is 0, and a second variable speed position, in which the actuation percentage of the variable speed control is 100 (see at least [0061]: “The main controller 60 can be configured to determine the user request speed VU from the operator's input to each of the speed limit dial 54 and the speed control unit 56 based on the equation: VU =R × VM where VM is the maximum speed set by the user and R is a ratio that corresponds to a position of the speed control selector 56.”; “The ratio R can be a percentage of the fully engaged position where R can have a value of 100% when the speed control lever 56 is in the fully engaged position and a value of 0% when the speed control lever 56 is in fully disengaged position (or percentages therebetween)”).,
Additionally, Osborne teaches the variable speed control is biased toward the first variable speed position (see at least [0037]-[0040] and FIG. 4A: “In some embodiments, twist control 20 can be biased to the NEUTRAL position by a biasing mechanism”; “FIG. 4A shows twist control 20 in a zero speed NEUTRAL position at which no power is transferred by transmission T from motor M to driving wheels WD”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the Bejcek, Cecchetto, and Osborne combination with additional teachings of Osborne with the motivation “Such an embodiment is useful for preventing lawnmower LM from jerking forward immediately upon startup or when an operator otherwise desires for lawnmower LM forward movement to cease” (see at least Osborne [0040]).
Regarding Claim 24, Claim 21 is obvious in view of the Bejcek, Cecchetto, and Osborne combination. Additionally, Cecchetto teaches (with the same motivation to combine as Claim 21) wherein the power button includes a switch configured to communicate a state of the power button to a controller (see at least [0012], [0018], and Claim 2: “The power button 10 here is an enabling switch and is a switch which is brought to the OFF state (open switch) within said period of time, after it has been arranged in ON state (closed switch) by pressing it. Thus, the safety system 12 is configured to enable the sending of said ignition signal only when at least the power button 10 is in ON state”; “In electrical terms, the electronic board is connected to the electronic control unit”; “said power button (10) is suitable to send an ignition signal to the electronic control unit (3) for actuating at least one blade”).
Regarding Claim 25, Claim 21 is obvious in view of the Bejcek, Cecchetto, and Osborne combination. Additionally, Cecchetto teaches wherein the cross bar includes one or more indicator devices (see at least [0023]-[0024] and FIG. 1: “Due to the back lighting, the power button 10 may also indicate to the operator the charge level of the battery of the lawn mower 1, e.g. by means of the three light signal of different color”; in FIG. 1, the power button 10 is shown on a cross bar).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the Bejcek, Cecchetto, and Osborne, combination with additional teachings of Cecchetto to “easily see the charge level of the battery” (see at least Cecchetto [0025]).
Regarding Claim 26, Claim 21 is obvious in view of the Bejcek, Cecchetto, and Osborne combination. Additionally, Bejcek further discloses wherein the maximum speed control is a dial coupled to the cross bar (see at least FIG. 4: the speed limit dial 54 is shown on the cross bar), and the dial is movable between a first maximum speed position and a second maximum speed position (see at least [0032]: “The speed limit dial 54 can be rotary encoder switch mounted on the handle 18. The speed limit dial 54 can be configured to permit the operator of the lawnmower 10 to set a maximum speed value from a range of possible maximum speed values at which the drive assembly 36 will propel the lawnmower 10.”).
Regarding Claim 29, Claim 21 is obvious in view of the Bejcek, Cecchetto, and Osborne combination. Additionally, Bejcek further discloses further comprising one or more cutting blades (see at least FIG. 2: blade 22). Cecchetto additionally teaches (with the same motivation to combine as Claim 21) actuation of the power button activates the one or more cutting blades (see at least Claim 2: “said power button (10) is suitable to send an ignition signal to the electronic control unit (3) for actuating at least one blade”).
Regarding Claim 30, for the limitations similar to Claim 21, Claim 30 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 21. Claim 30 has as alternate final limitation. With respect the alternate final limitation, Bejcek discloses a controller including an electronic processor and a memory (see at least [0065]: “Each of the drivers 34, 42 and the main controller 60 can be referred to as an electronic control unit (“ECU”) or as a central processing unit (“CPU”) or as a microcontroller. The drivers 34, 42 and the main controller 60 can be configured with hardware, with or without software, to perform the assigned task(s). The drivers 34, 42 and the main controller 60 can include or be electrically connected to any appropriate memory device that can store and retrieve programs and/or data for use by the drivers 34, 42 and the main 60. Although the propulsion motor driver 42 and the main controller 60 are referred to separately, a single controller (instead of separate propulsion motor driver 42 and controller 60) can be used to perform the same or similar functions as the driver 42 and the main controller 60 and other control mechanisms including the blade motor driver 34.”), the controller connected to the drive motor, the variable speed control, … and the maximum speed control (see at least [0036]: “The main controller 60 can be in electrical communication with battery pack 30, the propulsion motor driver 42, the speed limit dial 54, the speed control selector 56 and the sensor array 62”), the controller configured to determine the drive speed of the drive motor using setting of the maximum speed control scaled by the actuation percentage of the variable speed control (see at least [0061] and FIG. 9: “The main controller 60 can be configured to determine the user request speed VU from the operator's input to each of the speed limit dial 54 and the speed control unit 56 based on the equation: VU =R × VM where VM is the maximum speed set by the user and R is a ratio that corresponds to a position of the speed control selector 56.”; “The ratio R can be a percentage of the fully engaged position where R can have a value of 100% when the speed control lever 56 is in the fully engaged position and a value of 0% when the speed control lever 56 is in fully disengaged position (or percentages therebetween)”; “The main controller 60 can determine the drive speed V at which the propulsion motor driver 42 causes the propulsion motor 46 to operate based on the user request speed V∪”).
Bejcek does not explicitly disclose the controller connected to … the power button.
Cecchetto (with the same motivation to combine as Claim 21) teaches the controller connected to … the power button (see at least [0016]: “The power button 10 is an ignition button suitable to send an ignition signal to the electronic control unit 3 of engine 2.”).
Regarding Claim 31, Claim 30 is obvious in view of the Bejcek, Cecchetto, and Osborne combination. Additionally, Bejcek further discloses wherein the variable speed control is configured to provide a variable speed signal to the controller (see at least [0061]: “R is a ratio that corresponds to a position of the speed control selector 56”; R is used in an equation in the main controller 60), and
the variable speed signal includes an adjustment duty cycle (see at least [0061]: “The ratio R can be a percentage of the fully engaged position where R can have a value of 100% when the speed control lever 56 is in the fully engaged position and a value of 0% when the speed control lever 56 is in fully disengaged position (or percentages therebetween)”).
Regarding Claim 32, Claim 31 is obvious in view of the Bejcek, Cecchetto, and Osborne combination. Additionally, Bejcek further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to
compare the adjustment duty cycle to a minimum threshold value stored in the memory (see at least [0061]: the minimum threshold of 0% is provided; “a value of 0% when the speed control lever 56 is in fully disengaged position”), and
set, when the adjustment duty cycle is less than or equal to the minimum threshold value, the drive speed to zero (see at least [0061]: “The ratio R can be a percentage of the fully engaged position where R can have … a value of 0% when the speed control lever 56 is in fully disengaged position”; in the equation VU =R × VM, if R=0 (i.e., equal to the minimum threshold value), then VU =0).
Regarding Claim 33, Claim 32 is obvious in view of the Bejcek, Cecchetto, and Osborne combination. Furthermore, Bejcek further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to compare, when the adjustment duty cycle is greater the minimum threshold value, the adjustment duty cycle to a second threshold value stored in the memory (see at least [0061]: “The ratio R can be a percentage of the fully engaged position where R can have a value of 100% when the speed control lever 56 is in the fully engaged position and a value of 0% when the speed control lever 56 is in fully disengaged position (or percentages therebetween)”; at least one percentage between 0% and 100% is disclosed, assume that is the second threshold value),
set, when the adjustment duty cycle is less than or equal to the second threshold value, the drive speed to a first value, and set, when the adjustment duty cycle is greater than the second threshold value, the drive speed to a second value (see at least [0061]: “The ratio R can be a percentage of the fully engaged position where R can have a value of 100% when the speed control lever 56 is in the fully engaged position and a value of 0% when the speed control lever 56 is in fully disengaged position (or percentages therebetween)”; when R is the second threshold, the equation VU =R × VM sets a first value; if R is equal to 100% (greater than the second threshold), then a second value is set by the equation VU =R × VM).
Regarding Claim 34, Claim 30 is obvious in view of the Bejcek, Cecchetto, and Osborne combination. Additionally, Bejcek further discloses wherein, the maximum speed control is configured to provide a maximum speed signal to the controller (see at least [0062]: “The main controller 60 can determine the maximum speed VM based on a position of the speed limit dial 54 and a look-up table that includes a plurality of dial positions and a corresponding plurality of possible maximum speeds.”), and
the maximum speed signal includes an adjustment duty cycle (see at least [0062]: “The main controller 60 can determine the maximum speed VM based on a position of the speed limit dial 54 and a look-up table that includes a plurality of dial positions and a corresponding plurality of possible maximum speeds.”).
Regarding Claim 35, Claim 34 is obvious in view of the Bejcek, Cecchetto, and Osborne combination. Additionally, Bejcek further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to compare the adjustment duty cycle to a minimum threshold value stored in the memory (see at least [0032] and [0062]: “The speed limit dial 54 can be rotary encoder switch mounted on the handle 18. The speed limit dial 54 can be configured to permit the operator of the lawnmower 10 to set a maximum speed value from a range of possible maximum speed values at which the drive assembly 36 will propel the lawnmower 10”; “The main controller 60 can determine the maximum speed VM based on a position of the speed limit dial 54 and a look-up table that includes a plurality of dial positions and a corresponding plurality of possible maximum speeds.”).
Bejcek does not explicitly disclose set, when the adjustment duty cycle is less than or equal to the minimum threshold value, the maximum drive speed to zero, which could be shown by one of the dial positions would have been VM=0, this was not explicitly disclosed; however, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, that zero be one of the dial positions because to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is merely routine optimization (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”). Applicant has provided no particular advantage or unexpected result for including zero maximum speed as one of the conditions and, in fact, Applicant’s specification teaches this is only one option and not necessary for the invention, to quote paragraph [0037], “In other embodiments, … the maximum speed setting is never zero”. One may have been motivated to include a maximum drive speed of zero for so the operator would perceive satisfactory comfort, control and convenience while tilting and turning the lawnmower (see at least Bejcek [0054]).
Regarding Claim 36, Claim 35 is obvious in view of the Bejcek, Cecchetto, and Osborne combination. Additionally, Bejcek further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to compare, when the adjustment duty cycle is greater the minimum threshold value, the adjustment duty cycle to a second threshold value stored in the memory (see at least [0062]: “The main controller 60 can determine the maximum speed VM based on a position of the speed limit dial 54 and a look-up table that includes a plurality of dial positions and a corresponding plurality of possible maximum speeds.”; since there are a plurality of dial positions, there are at least two threshold values to compare against),
set, when the adjustment duty cycle is less than or equal to the second threshold value, the maximum drive speed to a first value memory (see at least [0062]: “The main controller 60 can determine the maximum speed VM based on a position of the speed limit dial 54 and a look-up table that includes a plurality of dial positions and a corresponding plurality of possible maximum speeds.”; since there are a plurality of dial positions, selecting one that is not the minimum would meet this criteria), and
Bejcek suggests set, when the adjustment duty cycle is greater than the second threshold value, the maximum drive speed to a second value memory. Bejcek indicates there are a plurality of possible maximum speeds. Literally, a plurality is two or more; however, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, that there be at least three dial positions because a dial has the benefit over other types of user interfaces of having a more than two options. Also, in FIG. 4, the at least five detents are shown on speed limit dial 54 and it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art for those to be a selection option. Accounting for the suggestion that there are at least three dial selections in the Bejcek, disclosure if the middle of three value is the second threshold, then when VM is greater than it, it’d be set to a second value in memory corresponding to the highest/third value. One would have been motivated to have these options “permit an operator of the machine to manually vary the speed at which the drive assembly propels the machine” (see at least [0002]). Additionally, applicant has provided no particular advantage unexpected result for having this number of threshold values.
Regarding Claim 37, Claim 30 is obvious in view of the Bejcek, Cecchetto, and Osborne combination. Additionally, Bejcek further discloses wherein the maximum speed control is a dial coupled to the cross bar (see at least FIG. 4: the speed limit dial 54 is shown on the cross bar), and the dial is movable between a first maximum speed position and a second maximum speed position (see at least [0032]: “The speed limit dial 54 can be rotary encoder switch mounted on the handle 18. The speed limit dial 54 can be configured to permit the operator of the lawnmower 10 to set a maximum speed value from a range of possible maximum speed values at which the drive assembly 36 will propel the lawnmower 10.”).
Regarding Claim 38, many of the limitations are substantially similar to limitations in Claim 21, and rejected for the same reasons as Claim 21. Furthermore, Bejcek discloses A method of controlling a walk-behind lawnmower, the lawnmower including a handle coupled to a mower deck (see at least FIG. 1 and FIG. 9: a lawnmower is shown; a method of control is shown), the method comprising:
detecting, with the controller, an actuation percentage of a variable speed control, the variable speed control being integrated into a distal bar of the handle, the distal bar defining a grip portion, (see at least [0061]: “R is a ratio that corresponds to a position of the speed control selector 56”; “R can be a percentage of the fully engaged position”; FIG. 4 shows the variable speed control 56 on the distal bar of the handle);
detecting, with the controller, a maximum speed setting of a maximum speed control, the maximum speed control being integrated into the cross bar of the handle (see at least [0062] and FIG. 4: “The main controller 60 can determine the maximum speed VM based on a position of the speed limit dial 54”; FIG. 4 shows speed limit dial 54 on the cross bar of the handle);
determining, with the controller, a speed output based on the actuation percentage and the maximum speed setting (see at least [0061]: “The main controller 60 can be configured to determine the user request speed VU from the operator's input to each of the speed limit dial 54 and the speed control unit 56 based on the equation: VU =R × VM where VM is the maximum speed set by the user and R is a ratio that corresponds to a position of the speed control selector 56.”; “The ratio R can be a percentage of the fully engaged position where R can have a value of 100% when the speed control lever 56 is in the fully engaged position and a value of 0% when the speed control lever 56 is in fully disengaged position (or percentages therebetween)”); and
transmitting, with the controller, a control signal to operate a drive motor at a drive speed corresponding to the speed output (see at least [0061] and FIG. 9: “The main controller 60 can determine the drive speed V at which the propulsion motor driver 42 causes the propulsion motor 46 to operate based on the user request speed V∪”; in Step S116, V= V∪).
Bejcek does not explicitly disclose detecting, with a controller, actuation of a power button, the power button being integrated into a cross bar of the handle; activating, with the controller, one or more cutting blades in response to actuation of the power button
Cecchetto further teaches (with the same motivation to combine as Claim 21) detecting, with a controller, actuation of a power button, the power button being integrated into a cross bar of the handle (see at least [0016] and FIG. 1: “the power button 10 is an ignition button suitable to send an ignition signal to the electronic control unit 3 of engine 2.”; the power button is on the upper portion of a cross bar of the handle);
activating, with the controller, one or more cutting blades in response to actuation of the power button (see at least Claim 2: “said power button (10) is suitable to send an ignition signal to the electronic control unit (3) for actuating at least one blade”).
Regarding Claim 39, Claim 38 is obvious in view of the Bejcek, Cecchetto, and Osborne combination. Additionally, Bejcek further discloses wherein detecting the maximum speed setting of the maximum speed control includes receiving, with the controller, a maximum speed signal from the maximum speed control (see at least [0036]: “The main controller 60 can be in electrical communication with battery pack 30, the propulsion motor driver 42, the speed limit dial 54, the speed control selector 56 and the sensor array 62.”),
comparing, with the controller, the maximum speed signal to a set of stored maximum speed signal values (see at least [0062]: “The main controller 60 can determine the maximum speed VM based on a position of the speed limit dial 54 and a look-up table that includes a plurality of dial positions and a corresponding plurality of possible maximum speeds.”),
Bejcek does not explicitly disclose wherein detecting the maximum speed setting of the maximum speed control includes
calculating, with the controller, a travel percentage of the maximum speed control based on comparing the maximum speed signal to the set of stored maximum speed signal values, and
storing the travel percentage of the maximum speed control as the maximum speed setting.
However, Bejcek teaches wherein detecting an actuation amount of a control includes
calculating, with the controller, a travel percentage …, and storing the travel percentage... (see at least [0061]: “The ratio R can be a percentage of the fully engaged position where R can have a value of 100% when the speed control lever 56 is in the fully engaged position and a value of 0% when the speed control lever 56 is in fully disengaged position”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the Bejcek, Cecchetto, and Osborne combination with changing the signal type of Bejcek’s speed limit dial 54 (a “base” device) to a percentage signal type taught with respect to Bejcek’s speed control selector 56 (a known technique applicable to the base device) one of ordinary skill would have found predictable results and an improved system because it is another method of switching and therefore this is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 40, Claim 38 is obvious in view of the Bejcek, Cecchetto, and Osborne combination. Additionally, Bejcek further discloses wherein detecting the actuation percentage of the variable speed control includes receiving, with the controller, a variable speed signal from the variable speed control (see at least [0036] and [0061]: “The main controller 60 can be in electrical communication with battery pack 30, the propulsion motor driver 42, the speed limit dial 54, the speed control selector 56 and the sensor array 62.”; the main controller receives a ratio R that corresponds to the a position of the speed control selector),
comparing, with the controller, the variable speed signal to a set of stored variable speed signal values (see at least [0061]: the main controller 60 compares to at least “fully engaged position where R can have a value of 100%” and “a value of 0% when the speed control lever 56 is in fully disengaged position”);
calculating, with the controller, a travel percentage of the variable speed control based on t(see at least [0061]: “R is a ratio that corresponds to a position of the speed control selector 56”; “The ratio R can be a percentage of the fully engaged position”), and
storing, with the controller, the travel percentage of the variable speed control as the actuation percentage (see at least [0061]: “The ratio R can be a percentage of the fully engaged position”; as R is used in an equation, it is therefore stored as well).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bejcek in view of Cecchetto in view of Osborne in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0324065 (Smith et al., hereinafter, Smith).
Regarding Claim 27, Claim 26 is obvious in view of the Bejcek, Cecchetto, and Osborne combination. The Bejcek, Cecchetto, and Osborne combination does not explicitly teach wherein a rotational axis of the dial is parallel to an axis defined by the cross bar and an axis defined by the wheels.
Smith, in the same field of lawnmowers, and therefore analogous art, teaches wherein a rotational axis of the dial is parallel to an axis defined by the cross bar and an axis defined by the wheels (see at least [0021]-[0022], [0027], FIG. 1, FIG. 2A, and FIG. 2B: “A third operating element 25 is arranged at the holding element 24, which is used to control a third function of the lawn mower 100. For example, the third function may be adjusting the walking speed of the wheels 3. The third operating element 25 is connected rotatably with the holding element 24 about a fifth axis 108. The fifth axis 108 is substantially perpendicular to the first axis 103”; “The third axis 105 is substantially parallel to a line, such as the line defined by the second axis 104, that is perpendicular to the fist axis 103.”; “The fourth axis 106 is substantially perpendicular to the first line 101”; the third axis 105 is the axis defined by the wheels, the fourth axis 106 is the axis defined by the cross bar, the fifth axis 108 is the rotational axis of the dial and the three are parallel).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the Bejcek, Cecchetto, and Osborne combination (specifically, to substitute the rotation axis) with the teachings of Smith so the operating elements can be operated conveniently (see at least Smith [0004]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA ROBYN MORFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/A.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights