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 .
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 1-2, 5-7, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desai et al. (US 20200260642 A1) in view of Weihl (US 20190380272 A1) and Desai '094 (US 20200352094 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Desai teaches an assembly (Desai figure 5 element 85 "cutter housing assembly"), comprising: a substantially circular baffle body (Desai figure 6 element 89 "conversion assembly") configured to at least partially surround a blade (Desai figure 5 element 68,69, and 70 "rotating blades") and defining a cutting chamber (Desai figure 5 element 85 "cutter housing assembly"), the baffle body including an intake side (Desai figure 5 element 81 "front lower flange") and a discharge side (Desai figure 5 element 71 "discharge opening").
Desai fails to disclose wherein an upper portion of the baffle body includes a discharge opening proximate the discharge side and a diameter of the baffle body is less than or equal to approximately one half of an inch larger than a diameter of the blade, and the baffle body further comprises adjustable slats disposed within the discharge opening.
Weihl however teaches wherein an upper portion of the baffle body includes a discharge opening proximate the discharge side and a diameter of the baffle body is less than or equal to approximately one half of an inch larger than a diameter of the blade, and the baffle body further comprises adjustable slats disposed within the discharge opening.
Weihl states “In the illustrated embodiment, the rear edge 153 of the mower deck 150 (or baffle) is spaced substantially evenly from the rear cutting space of the respective cutting blades 180, 182, 184. This spacing may be between ⅛ inch and 2 inches, or between ⅛ inch and ½ inch, or approximately 5/16 inch.” (Weihl [0065] "spacing")
Desai ‘094 teaches the baffle body further comprises adjustable slats disposed within the discharge opening.
Desai ‘094 states, "The shutter fence 111 can include a plurality of shutter slats 120. The shutter slats 120 can be linked or connected together in sequence so as to form the shutter fence 111…Rotation of the roller cylinder 180 can selectively provide a discharge arrangement 105, shown in FIG. 5, and a mulch arrangement 106, shown in FIG. 6, as well as partial mulch arrangements at positions there between" (Desai ‘094 [0058]).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the conversion assembly as taught by Desai so as to utilize the spacing in view of Weihl, since doing so would allow the discharge side direct grass clippings out of the deck more efficiently, reducing clogging, and maintaining a smooth air flow. Thus, enhancing the mower’s performance by minimizing turbulence and maintaining a laminar flow.
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the conversion assembly as taught by Desai so as to utilize the slats in view of Desai ‘094, in order to regulate the discharge flow area and improve control over output conditions.
Regarding claim 2, Desai teaches, wherein the intake side of the baffle body includes a diffuser configured to promote laminar flow. (Desai [0041] figure 5 element 82 "flow channel")
Regarding claim 5, Desai teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein the discharge opening is adjustable in size. (Desai [0047] figure 7 element 71 "first discharge opening")
Regarding claim 6, Desai teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein the baffle body is configured to at least partially surround a second blade and a third blade. (Desai figure 7 element 89 "conversion assembly" and 90 "adjustable wall")
Regarding claim 7, Desai teaches the assembly of claim 1, further comprising a rounded insert disposed proximate an upper end of a sidewall of the baffle body. (Desai [0037] figure 4 element 56 "sidewall(s)")
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desai et al. (US 20200260642 A1) in view of Weihl (US 20190380272 A1) and Desai '094 (US 20200352094 A1), as applied to claims 1, 2, and 5-7 above, and further in view of Rukamp et al. (WO 2020167825 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Desai, as part of the assembly taught by the combined teachings of Desai in view of Weihl and Desai ‘094, teaches the assembly of claim 2.
Desai in view of Weihl and Desai ‘094 does not teach wherein the diffuser comprises one or more of a bell mouth.
Rukamp however teaches wherein the diffuser comprises one or more of a bell mouth.
Rukamp states “The curved segment of the front baffle wall portion 56 extends from the drooped, contoured segment 98 of the second transition area 78 to form the apex 100 approximately midway within the first cutting chamber 62 while conforming to a portion of the circumference of baffle circle 104.” (Rukamp [0022] figure 4 element 56 "front baffle wall")
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have further modified the assembly as taught by Desai in view of Weihl and Desai ‘094, so as to utilize the front baffle wall having a diffuser comprising one or more of a bell mouth, in view of Rukamp, since doing so would allow a smooth, low resistance inflow while lifting the grass before cutting. Thus, creating a venturi throat, speeding up flow and helping eject clippings more forcefully.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desai et al. (US 20200260642 A1) in view of Weihl (US 20190380272 A1) and Desai '094 (US 20200352094 A1), as applied to claims 1, 2, and 5-7 above, and further in view of (EP 1731013 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Desai, as part of the assembly taught by the combined teachings of Desai in view of Weihl and Desai ‘094, teaches the assembly of claim 1.
Desai in view of Weihl and Desai ‘094 fails to disclose further comprising an angled surface coupled to the baffle and configured to eject smaller clippings and redirect larger clippings back into the cutting chamber.
EP 1731013 A1 however teaches further comprising an angled surface coupled to the baffle and configured to eject smaller clippings and redirect larger clippings back into the cutting chamber.
“The transfer devices 50 are formed in the mulching mower deck 10 as baffles, which deliberately and horizontally abstrebend a transfer of a portion of the grass clippings of a cutting chamber 22 in an adjacent cutting chamber 23 lead.” (As described in EP1731013 A1 machine translation page 5 line 38-40 figure 3 element 50 "transfer devices")
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the assembly as taught by Desai in view of Weihl and Desai ‘094 so as to utilize the transfer devices in view of EP 1731013 A1, since doing so would allow guided sorting to create a uniform mulch size, improving decomposition, reducing clumps, and improving the appearance on the lawn.
Regarding claim 8, Desai, as part of the assembly taught by the combined teachings of Desai in view of Weihl and Desai ‘094, teaches the assembly of claim 1.
Desai in view of Weihl and Desai ‘094 does not teach wherein an inner surface of the cutting chamber includes an angled surface disposed proximate a lower end of a sidewall of the cutting chamber.
EP 1731013 A1 however teaches wherein an inner surface of the cutting chamber includes an angled surface disposed proximate a lower end of a sidewall of the cutting chamber.
“The transfer devices 50 has in each case one of the cutting chambers 22, 23, or 23, 24, between which it extends, in each case a first guide wall 72 and in the other of the two adjacent cutting chambers, a second guide wall 73rd.” (As described machine translation page 5 line 21-22 figure 3 element 50 "transfer devices")
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the assembly as taught by Desai in view of Weihl and Desai ‘094 so as to utilize the transfer devices in view of EP 1731013 A1, since doing so would allow smooth clipping recirculation, promotes efficient discharge, reduces buildup, and enhance airflow quality within the cutting chamber.
Claims 9,11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desai et al. (US 20200260642 A1) in view of Desai '094 (US 20200352094 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Desai teaches a deck assembly (Desai figure 5 element 85 "cutter housing assembly") for a mower, comprising:
a deck housing (Desai figure 5 element 58 "cutter housing") having an upper plate and sidewalls extending down from the upper plate to define an interior volume of the deck housing; and (Desai [0039] figure 5 element 74 "top wall" and 75 "front wall" and 59 "sidewalls")
a baffle body coupled to the deck housing within the interior volume defining a cutting chamber and having a substantially circular structure with a diameter approximately equal to a diameter of a blade to be used with the mower and at least partially encircling the blade, wherein an upper portion of the baffle body comprises a discharge opening proximate a discharge side. (Desai figure 7 element 89 "conversion assembly" and 71 "discharge opening")
Desai fails to disclose wherein an upper portion of the baffle body comprises a discharge opening proximate a discharge side and the baffle body further comprises adjustable slats disposed within the discharge opening.
Desai ‘094 teaches to disclose wherein an upper portion of the baffle body (111) comprises a discharge opening (81) proximate a discharge side and the baffle body further comprises adjustable slats (120) disposed within the discharge opening.
Desai ‘094 states, "The shutter fence 111 can include a plurality of shutter slats 120. The shutter slats 120 can be linked or connected together in sequence so as to form the shutter fence 111…Rotation of the roller cylinder 180 can selectively provide a discharge arrangement 105, shown in FIG. 5, and a mulch arrangement 106, shown in FIG. 6, as well as partial mulch arrangements at positions there between" (Desai ‘094 [0058] and annotated Fig. 6 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
587
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the conversion assembly as taught by Desai so as to utilize the slats in view of Desai ‘094, in order to regulate the discharge flow area and improve control over output conditions.
Regarding claim 10, Desai teaches the deck assembly (Desai figure 5 element 85 "cutter housing assembly") of claim 9, wherein:
the baffle body further comprises slats disposed within the discharge opening. (Desai figure 7 element 91 "first adjustable chamber wall")
Regarding claim 11, Desai teaches the deck assemble of claim 9, wherein a portion of the baffle body is adjustable to modify one or more of a length or a height of the discharge opening. (Desai [0045] figure 7 element 90 "adjustable wall assembly")
Regarding claim 12, Desai teaches the deck assembly (Desai figure 5 element 85 "cutter housing assembly") of claim 9, wherein a forward-facing portion of the baffle body (Desai figure 7 element 90 "adjustable wall") comprises one or more of:
a curved structure along the portion of the body coupled to the deck housing, or a diffuser to promote laminar airflow in a vertical direction. (Desai [0041] figure 5 element 82 "flow channel")
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desai et al. (US 20200260642 A1) in view of Desai '094 (US 20200352094 A1), as applied to claims 9,11-12 above, and further in view of Rukamp et al. (WO 2020167825 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Desai, as part of the assembly taught by the combined teachings of Desai in view of Desai '094 the deck assembly of claim 12.
Desai in view of Desai '094 fails to disclose wherein the diffuser comprises a bell mouth.
Rukamp however teaches wherein the diffuser comprises a bell mouth.
Rukamp states, “The curved segment of the front baffle wall portion 56 extends from the drooped, contoured segment 98 of the second transition area 78 to form the apex 100 approximately midway within the first cutting chamber 62 while conforming to a portion of the circumference of baffle circle 104.” (Rukamp [0022] figure 4 element 56 "front baffle wall")
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Desai in view of Desai '094 so as to utilize the front baffle wall in view of Rukamp, since doing so would allow a smooth, low resistance inflow while lifting the grass before cutting. Thus, creating a venturi throat, speeding up flow and helping eject clippings more forcefully.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desai et al. (US 20200260642 A1) in view of Desai '094 (US 20200352094 A1), as applied to claims 9,11-12 above, and further in view of Iida et al. (US 6705068 B2).
Regarding claim 14, Desai, as part of the assembly taught by the combined teachings of Desai in view of Desai '094 teaches the deck assembly of claim 9.
Desai in view of Desai '094 fails to disclose further comprising a vent disposed on the deck housing above the cutting chamber.
Iida however teaches further comprising a vent disposed on the deck housing above the cutting chamber.
Iida states “The air return passage 33 has a plurality of cutter deck-facing openings 35 communicating with the inside of the cutter deck 12 and a grass bag-facing opening 36 communicating with the grass bag 24.” (Iida column 3 lines 38-41 figure 4 element 35 "cutter deck-facing openings")
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Desai in view of Desai '094 so as to utilize the cutter deck-facing openings in view of Iida, since doing so would allow the cutting chamber to regulate internal pressure, promote controlled airflow circulation, enhance cutting and mulching performance, and reduce clogging during operation.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desai et al. (US 20200260642 A1) in view of Desai '094 (US 20200352094 A1) and Iida et al. (US 6705068 B2), as applied to claims 14 above, and further in view of Heisman et al. (US 5499495 A).
Regarding claim 15, Desai, as part of the assembly taught by the combined teachings of Desai in view of Desai ‘094 and Iida teaches the deck assembly of claim 14.
Desai in view of Desai ‘094 and Iida fails to disclose wherein the vent comprises an adjustable louver facing in a direction opposite a blade spin direction.
Iida however teaches wherein the vent comprises a louver facing in a direction opposite a blade spin direction.
Iida states, “As shown in FIG. 7B, rotation of the cutter blade 14 produces a swirling flow shown by arrow 6 inside the cutter deck 12, and grass clippings are carried through the grass carrying passage 32 into the grass bag 24 with carrier air as shown by arrow 7. Return air is drawn from the cutter deck-facing openings 35 of the air return passage 33 into the cutter deck 12 as shown by arrows 8.” (Iida column 5 lines 50-56 figure 7B element 35 "cutter deck-facing openings"), as both references are in the same field and address similar problems.
Heisman teaches an adjustable louver.
Heisman states, “The unique advantages provided by this invention are the result of the novel adjustable vent, the first embodiment being identified generally by reference numeral 16 in FIG. 1. Vent 16 is configured to fit between engine 12 and cutting deck 14.” (Heisman column 3 lines 9-13 figure 1 element 16 "vent")
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Desai in view of Desai '094 and Iida so as to utilize the cutter deck-facing openings in view of Iida in combination of the vent in further view of Heisman, since doing so would allow an adjustable regulation of internal deck pressure, disrupt excessive vortex buildup, and enhance airflow control for mulching or discharging.
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desai et al. (US 20200260642 A1) in view of Uemura (US 11119495 B2).
Regarding claim 16, Desai teaches a method for adjusting one or more of baffles or vents of a mower (Desai [0003] figure 6 element 89 "conversion assembly"), comprising: using a sensor to measure a parameter within a deck of a mower; and (Desai [0058] figure 6 "sensors")
Desai fails to disclose automatically modifying, by one or more processors associated with the mower and based on the measured parameter, one or more of: a length or a height of a discharge opening of the deck, or an opening size of the vents, the vents disposed on an upper surface of the deck.
Uemura however teaches automatically modifying, by one or more processors associated with the mower and based on the measured parameter, one or more of: a length or a height of a discharge opening of the deck, or an opening size of the vents, the vents disposed on an upper surface of the deck.
Uemura states, "Further, the cockpit 421 can accommodate the work area determination system 2 (see always FIG. 3 in the following discussion) and the riding type grass mower 4 can be autonomously controlled by the work area determination system 2 as well. The cut grass discharging outlet 44 includes a shutter 441 capable of opening/closing this outlet by pivoting about an axis provided substantially parallel with the forward traveling direction of the traveling machine body 42. Opening/closing of the shutter 441 can be controlled by the work area determination system 2 or by a manual operation, whereby discharging of cut grass clippings and stopping of discharging can be switched over." (Uemura Col. 8, lines 37-48)
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the baffles and sensor as taught by Desai so as to use the processor and measured parameter in further view of Uemura to autonomously adjust the baffles depending on operating conditions.
Regarding claim 19, while the combination of Desai in view of Uemura shows a discharge opening above the cutting plane of the mower. (i.e. see figure 5 element 17 “first discharge opening” in Desai which is well above the cutting plane)
Desai in view of Uemura is silent on the opening being 0.5 inches or more above the cutting plane.
Nevertheless, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the height of such an opening is a result effective variable that effects the rate of grass that can be discharged from the mower and further they would have understood that a height of 0.5 inches or more above the cutting plane does not provide any unexpected results or benefits. Further, Applicant has not pointed to any criticality for use a height of 0.5 inches or more above the cutting plane.
Based on the above, it 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have further modified Desai in view of Uemura such that the discharge opening is disposed about 0.5 inches or more above a cutting plane of the mower, since doing so would have amounted to nothing more than the obvious optimal sizing of the opening for a specific amount of grass to be discharged.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desai et al. (US 20200260642 A1) in view of Uemura (US 11119495 B2), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Iida et al. (US 6705068 B2) and Heisman et al. (US 5499495 A).
Regarding claim 20, Desai, as part of the assembly taught by the combined teachings of Desai in view of Uemura, teaches the method of claim 16.
Desai in view of Uemura fails to disclose wherein the vent comprises an adjustable louver facing in a direction opposite a blade spin direction.
Iida however teaches wherein the vent comprises an adjustable louver facing in a direction opposite a blade spin direction.
Iida states, “As shown in FIG. 7B, rotation of the cutter blade 14 produces a swirling flow shown by arrow 6 inside the cutter deck 12, and grass clippings are carried through the grass carrying passage 32 into the grass bag 24 with carrier air as shown by arrow 7. Return air is drawn from the cutter deck-facing openings 35 of the air return passage 33 into the cutter deck 12 as shown by arrows 8.” (Iida column 5 lines 50-56 figure 7B element 35 "cutter deck-facing openings"), as both references are in the same field and address similar problems.
Heisman teaches an adjustable louver.
Heisman states, “The unique advantages provided by this invention are the result of the novel adjustable vent, the first embodiment being identified generally by reference numeral 16 in FIG. 1. Vent 16 is configured to fit between engine 12 and cutting deck 14.” (Heisman column 3 lines 9-13 figure 1 element 16 "vent")
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the assembly as taught by Desai in view of Uemura so as to utilize the cutter deck-facing openings in view of Iida in combination of the vent in further view of Heisman, since doing so would allow an adjustable regulation of internal deck pressure, disrupt excessive vortex buildup, and enhance airflow control for mulching or discharging.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US Pub. App. 20080047249) in view of Uemura (US 11119495) and Conrad (US Pub. App. 20200120866).
Regarding Claims 16-18, Davis teaches a mower with blades that may be powered by a variety of alternatives including an electric motor (Davis, Para. 0017). Davis teaches adjusting baffles on the mower (i.e. using a larger or smaller discharge opening by adjusting a flow control baffle) depending on mowing conditions (Para. 0021). Specifically, Davis teaches changing the length of the discharge opening of the deck (compare sizes of discharge opening between Fig. 5 of Davis and Fig. 6 of Davis). Davis further teaches that it is desirable to use a larger discharge opening (i.e. that shown in Davis Figure 5), “during mowing operations under wet conditions.” (Davis, Para. 0021).
Davis does not however teach measuring a parameter or automatically changing discharge opening size using automatic adjustment of the baffle.
Uemura teaches automatically controlling the size of a discharge opening - via shutter 441. (Uemura, Col. 8, Lines 45-48). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that Uemura’s teaching of automatically controlling the size of a discharge opening could also be implemented to automatically change the size of the discharge opening on a mower of the type taught by Davis (via automatic control of the baffle), so as to reduce the need for an operator to make manual adjustments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Davis, so as to utilize automatically controlled baffles, in view of Uemura, since doing so would have achieved the desirable result of reducing the need for an operator to make manual adjustments.
Regarding the above, it is recognized that the combined teachings of Davis in view of Uemura teach both automatic baffle adjustment and the desirability of moving a baffle to a position that allows a larger discharge opening in the event that wet grass is being mowed (i.e. the position shown in Fig. 5 of Davis, as discussed in para. 0021 of Davis). It is nevertheless recognized that the combination of Davis in view of Uemura does not specifically teach the measurement of a parameter or automatically modifying the discharge opening size based on this parameter. Similarly, regarding claims 17 and 18, while increasing a discharge opening size for wet grass and automatic adjustment of a discharge opening size is taught by Davis in view of Uemura, there is no teaching of using a parameter of strain on the motor, wherein exceeding threshold strain on the motor indicates that the mower is being operated under wet grass conditions.
Conrad teaches using a parameter of strain on a motor, wherein exceeding threshold strain on the motor indicates that Conrad’s mower is being operated under wet grass conditions. Specifically, Conrad teaches “sens[ing] a high power load on one or more of the blade motors 11” (Conrad, Para. 0042), which is reasonably construed as exceeding a threshold strain on the motor (i.e. anything below the high power load is reasonably construed as below the threshold strain on the motor and the high power load and anything above that load is reasonably construed as exceeding the threshold strain on the motor). Moreover, Conrad teaches that this high power load (threshold strain on the motor) is sensed “for example, when a particularly dense, tall, or wet patch of grass is encountered by the mower 2.” Conrad further teaches making automatic adjustments in view of the high power load condition (i.e. Conrad teaches making adjustments based on exceeding a threshold strain on the motor under wet grass conditions). Specifically, Conrad adjusts a mower deck height rather than adjusting a discharge opening size. Nevertheless, as discussed above, Davis teaches adjusting discharge opening size as a way of improving operation under wet grass conditions. Accordingly, in view of the combined teachings of Davis, Uemura, and Conrad, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood raising height and increasing discharge opening size as two alternatives for better handling the mowing of wet grass. Moreover, Conrad’s measurement of “sens[ing] a high power load on one or more of the blade motors 11” (exceeding a threshold strain on the motor), would have been understood as an effective way to determine that the mower is encountering wet grass conditions.
Based on the foregoing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Davis in view of Uemura, so as to utilize measuring a parameter of strain on the motor, wherein exceeding threshold strain on the motor indicates that the mower is being operated under wet grass conditions, in view of Conrad, so as to provide an effective way to determine when the baffles should be adjusted to allow for the discharge opening to be increased in size to better handle mowing operations under wet grass conditions.
Regarding claim 19, while the combination of Davis in view of Uemura and Conrad shows a discharge opening above the cutting plane of the mower. (see figures 5-6 of Davis)
Davis in view of Uemura and Conrad is silent on the opening being 0.5 inches or more above the cutting plane.
Nevertheless, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the height of such an opening is a result effective variable that effects the rate of grass that can be discharged from the mower and further they would have understood that a height of 0.5 inches or more above the cutting plane does not provide any unexpected results or benefits. Further, Applicant has not pointed to any criticality for use a height of 0.5 inches or more above the cutting plane.
Based on the above, it 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have further modified Davis in view of Uemura and Conrad such that the discharge opening is disposed about 0.5 inches or more above a cutting plane of the mower, since doing so would have amounted to nothing more than the obvious optimal sizing of the opening for a specific amount of grass to be discharged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 and 11-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE ANTONIO MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5896. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-5.
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.
JOSE ANTONIO. MARTINEZ
Examiner
Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671