DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 22, 2026 has been entered.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because many of the lead lines are not clearly visible / reproducible in a printed patent.
Additionally, regarding the above, 37 CFR 1.84 (p)(3), available in MPEP 608.02, provides:
“Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct.”
Examiner accordingly suggests Applicant utilize black and white drawings with the numerals and lines being clearly shown. See, MPEP 608.02. Additionally, please see below, regarding the use of Black and White Photographs (emphasis added):
37 C.F.R. 1.84 Standards for drawings.
(a) Drawings. There are two acceptable categories for presenting drawings in utility and design patent applications.
(1) Black ink. Black and white drawings are normally required. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings; or
*****
(b) Photographs.—
(1) Black and white. Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. For example, photographs or photomicrographs of: electrophoresis gels, blots (e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern), auto- radiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo imaging, thin layer chromatography plates, crystalline structures, and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects, are acceptable. If the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent.
*****
The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In claim 13, the phrase “oriented substantially parallel with a direction of movement of the plurality of drive elements” is confusing because the drive elements are taught as wheels or tracks, and wheels move via circular motion and tracks move rotationally around respective track wheels. As such, track or wheel drive elements would have horizontal and vertical motion components and circular motion associated there with, which seems inconsistent with the direction taught by Applicant’s push-pull cables (which seem to be orientated substantially in the front-rear direction of the equipment). In this regard, the movement of a wheel or track is a combination of rotational and translational motion and the phrase substantially parallel is unclear in this context. As an alternative, Applicant could consider claiming the orientation of the push-pull cables relative to the surfaces of the stand platform / controls.
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 1-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (US 8,844,657) in view of Wright (US 5,507,138), Zwieg et al. (US 9,066,468), and Wuertz et al. (US 7,172,041).
With respect to claim 1, Clark discloses an outdoor power equipment (in figure 1, Clark discloses a stand-on lawnmower, which reads on outdoor power equipment), comprising:
a frame (in figure 1, Clark discloses a stand on lawnmower 100 that has a mowing deck 103, wheels 110 and 112, an operator platform 101 all connected together; the apparatus on which these elements reside reads on a frame);
a plurality of drive elements coupled to the frame (in figure 1, Clark discloses wheels 110 and 112 as well as hydraulic motor 108 that drives the right wheel; hydraulic motor 106 that drives the left wheel is disclosed in figure 2; the wheels and/or wheel motor read on a plurality of drive elements);
a prime mover configured to provide power to the plurality of drive elements (in figure 2, Clark discloses that the mower is self-propelled and includes a hydraulic pump 114, which provides power to motors 108 and 106; see also Col. 2, Lines 26-39);
an operator standing platform secured to a rear of the frame and behind the prime mover (in figures 1-3, Clark discloses a platform 101 with foot pedals 102 and 104 that is located behind the prime mover/hydraulic pump 114), the operating standing platform comprising one or more controls integrated with the operator standing platform configured to receive foot-based inputs from an operator of the outdoor power equipment (in figure 1, Clark discloses pedals 102 and 104 which read on controls that receive foot-based inputs – see also the abstract of Clark and Col. 2, Lines 49-67); and
a control system configured to control a steering and a speed of the outdoor power equipment based on the foot-based inputs (in figures 1-3 – 2 in particular – Clark discloses a control system by which adjustment of the pedals 102 and 104 steers and accelerates or brakes the lawnmower; see also the abstract which explains that the drive wheels are controlled by the foot pedals, see also Col. 2, Lines 4-16 and Col. 3, Lines 36-49).
Clark arguably discloses a “prime mover” in that Clark is self-propelled and as such must include some mechanism for powering the hydraulic motors, so as to provide the recited self-propulsion. However, it is recognized that Clark does not specifically mention a “prime mover” in that Clark does not specifically mention something like an engine or battery, which are examples of what Applicant considers to be a prime mover. Nevertheless, Wright discloses the use of an engine as a “prime mover” in a stand on self-propelled mower. (Col. 4, Lines 58-68 discussing engine 7 as a “conventional gasoline engine 7 (e.g. 2 cylinder, 22 HP, V-twin)” and Col. 5, Lines 34-39) 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 Clark, so as to utilize a “prime mover” in view of Wright, so as to provide an effective way to power the vehicle using known and conventional means that would achieve the benefit of ensuring that the mower is able to travel and provide effective mobile mowing.
Clark does not specifically disclose that the integrated operator standing platform and the one or more controls are coupled to the rear of the frame in part by a suspension system and are positioned at least in part rearward of the plurality of drive elements.
Zwieg discloses an integrated operator standing platform (130) coupled to the rear of the frame in part by a suspension system (172) that is positioned at least in part rearward of the plurality of drive elements (Figs. 1-3 and 5 and Col. 6, Lines 35-65).
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 Clark’s integrated operator standing platform with the one or more controls, such that the integrated operator standing platform and the one or more controls are coupled to the rear of the frame in part by a suspension system and are positioned at least in part rearward of the plurality of drive elements, in view of Zwieg, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of more operator room while using the mower (because the operator would be further outside of the confines of the wheels) and also increased operator comfort (due to the cushioning effect of the suspension which would absorb some of the dynamic stresses and vibrations as the mower moves over bumpy terrain).
It is recognized that Clark teaches the use of what appears to be mechanical linkages composed of rigid mechanical links (126, 128, 130, 132) between the one or more controls on the integrated operator standing platform and Clark’s hydraulic pump (114). A reasonable argument could be made that such rigid links would need modification or replacement to work with a suspended platform, so as to alleviate concerns related to binding, damage, etc. However, it is also well known in the prior art to replace mechanical linkages with “by-wire” controls that utilize a microprocessor so as to avoid the drawbacks of mechanical linkages. In this regard, Wuertz teaches replacing mechanical linkages for hydraulic motors with a “by-wire” microprocessor controlled arrangement where a pedal (Element 88 which is part of controller 66’’ - Figs. 4 and 7) is electrically connected to a microprocessor (64) to control hydraulic motors (48, 50). 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 Clark such that the mechanical linkages were replaced with “by-wire” controls in view of Wuertz, so as to avoid the drawbacks of mechanical linkages (including the ability to avoid difficult and time consuming adjustments) along with the benefits of improved flexibility and control (See, Wuertz Col. 1, Line 65 to Col. 2, Line 31, and Col. 19, Lines 29-33). As an additional basis for determining that it would have been obvious to use the by-wire control system of Wuertz in place of the mechanical linkage control system of Clark, it is determined that the above modification amounted to the obvious simple substitution of one known element (by-wire controls as control elements) for another (mechanical linkages composed of rigid links as control elements) to obtain predictable results (the predictable transmission of pedal position information to control hydraulic drives using by-wire controls).
In this regard, the situation is analogous to that of KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) and Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In KSR, the Supreme Court “concluded that it would have been obvious to upgrade Asano’s fixed pivot point adjustable pedal by replacing the mechanical assembly for throttle control with an electronic throttle control and to mount the electronic sensor on the pedal support structure.” “The Leapfrog case involved a determination of obviousness based on application of modern electronics to a prior art mechanical children’s learning device. In Leapfrog, the court noted that market pressures would have prompted a person of ordinary skill to use modern electronics in the prior art device.” Quotes, from MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 2, Clark as part of the combination of Clark in view of Wright, Zwieg, and Wuertz, further teaches that the one or more controls comprise a left control and a right control (in the abstract, Clark discloses that the foot pedals control either the left or the right wheel).
Regarding claim 3, Clark as part of the combination of Clark in view of Wright, Zwieg, and Wuertz, further teaches that the plurality of drive elements comprises one or more left drive elements and one or more right drive elements (in figure 1, Clark discloses that left and right wheels as well as right wheel motor 108; figure 2 discloses left wheel motor 106), wherein the control system is configured to control a left speed of the one or more left drive elements based on foot-based inputs received via the left control, wherein the control system is configured to control a right speed of the one or more right drive elements based on foot-based inputs received via the right control (in col. 2, line 49 – col. 3, line 4, Clark discloses controlling each of the driving wheels by the foot pedal that is on the same side as the wheel), and wherein the steering and the speed of the outdoor power equipment are based on the left speed and the right speed (in the abstract, Clark discloses that the wheels can be driven in forward and reverse; in col. 2, lines 26-39, Clark discloses that the wheels can be driven at a desired speed and that they are independent; a system like this where the wheels can be driven in opposite rotations will turn, which teaches steering).
Regarding claim 4, Clark as part of the combination of Clark in view of Wright, Zwieg, and Wuertz, further teaches that the one or more controls are configured to be operated by the operator in a standing position on the operator standing platform (in col. 2, lines 44-48 Clark discloses that the operator is in a standing position).
Regarding claim 6, Clark as part of the combination of Clark in view of Wright, Zwieg, and Wuertz, further teaches that the foot-based inputs comprise rotations of the one or more controls (in figure 3, Clark discloses bar 120 about which the foot pedals rotate).
Regarding claim 7, Clark as part of the combination of Clark in view of Wright, Zwieg, and Wuertz, further teaches one or more mechanisms to bias each control of the one or more controls to a neutral position of that control (in figures 2 and 3, Clark discloses biasing springs 145 and 147 that bias the foot pedals back to their neutral positions, as described in col. 3 lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 8, Clark as part of the combination of Clark in view of Wright, Zwieg and Wuertz, further teaches that the foot-based inputs comprise pressures applied to the one or more controls (in the abstract, Clark discloses independently moving pedals which, as shown in figures 1-3 by their ability to be rotated, are responsive to foot-based inputs where the inputs push on the controls, which reads on applying pressure).
Regarding claim 9, Clark as part of the combination of Clark in view of Wright, Zwieg and Wuertz, further teaches that the control system is one or more of mechanical, electrical, electromechanical, hydraulic, hydrostatic, or pneumatic (in col. 2 lines 26-30 Clark discloses that the system can be hydraulic).
Regarding claim 10, Clark as part of the combination of Clark in view of Wright, Zwieg, and Wuertz, further teaches that the plurality of drive elements are one of a plurality of wheels or a plurality of tracks (in figure 1, Clark discloses that the drive elements are wheels).
Regarding claim 11, Clark as part of the combination of Clark in view of Wright, Zwieg, and Wuertz, further teaches that the outdoor power equipment is a lawn maintenance apparatus (in the abstract, Clark discloses that the machine is a lawn mower, which is a type of lawn maintenance apparatus).
Claims 1-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (US 8,844,657) in view of Wright (US 5,507,138), Zwieg et al. (US 9,066,468), and Sugden et al. (US 8,186,475).
With respect to claim 1, Clark discloses an outdoor power equipment (in figure 1, Clark discloses a stand-on lawnmower, which reads on outdoor power equipment), comprising:
a frame (in figure 1, Clark discloses a stand on lawnmower 100 that has a mowing deck 103, wheels 110 and 112, an operator platform 101 all connected together; the apparatus on which these elements reside reads on a frame);
a plurality of drive elements coupled to the frame (in figure 1, Clark discloses wheels 110 and 112 as well as hydraulic motor 108 that drives the right wheel; hydraulic motor 106 that drives the left wheel is disclosed in figure 2; the wheels and/or wheel motor read on a plurality of drive elements);
a prime mover configured to provide power to the plurality of drive elements (in figure 2, Clark discloses that the mower is self-propelled and includes a hydraulic pump 114, which provides power to motors 108 and 106; see also Col. 2, Lines 26-39);
an operator standing platform secured to a rear of the frame and behind the prime mover (in figures 1-3, Clark discloses a platform 101 with foot pedals 102 and 104 that is located behind the prime mover/hydraulic pump 114), the operating standing platform comprising one or more controls integrated with the operator standing platform configured to receive foot-based inputs from an operator of the outdoor power equipment (in figure 1, Clark discloses pedals 102 and 104 which read on controls that receive foot-based inputs – see also the abstract of Clark and Col. 2, Lines 49-67); and
a control system configured to control a steering and a speed of the outdoor power equipment based on the foot-based inputs (in figures 1-3 – 2 in particular – Clark discloses a control system by which adjustment of the pedals 102 and 104 steers and accelerates or brakes the lawnmower; see also the abstract which explains that the drive wheels are controlled by the foot pedals, see also Col. 2, Lines 4-16 and Col. 3, Lines 36-49).
Clark arguably discloses a “prime mover” in that Clark is self-propelled and as such must include some mechanism for powering the hydraulic motors, so as to provide the recited self-propulsion. However, it is recognized that Clark does not specifically mention a “prime mover” in that Clark does not specifically mention something like an engine or battery, which are examples of what Applicant considers to be a prime mover. Nevertheless, Wright discloses the use of an engine as a “prime mover” in a stand on self-propelled mower. (Col. 4, Lines 58-68 discussing engine 7 as a “conventional gasoline engine 7 (e.g. 2 cylinder, 22 HP, V-twin)” and Col. 5, Lines 34-39) 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 Clark, so as to utilize a “prime mover” in view of Wright, so as to provide an effective way to power the vehicle using known and conventional means that would achieve the benefit of ensuring that the mower is able to travel and provide effective mobile mowing.
Clark does not specifically disclose that the integrated operator standing platform and the one or more controls are coupled to the rear of the frame in part by a suspension system and are positioned at least in part rearward of the plurality of drive elements.
Zwieg discloses an integrated operator standing platform (130) coupled to the rear of the frame in part by a suspension system (172) that is positioned at least in part rearward of the plurality of drive elements (Figs. 1-3 and 5 and Col. 6, Lines 35-65).
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 Clark’s integrated operator standing platform with the one or more controls, such that the integrated operator standing platform and the one or more controls are coupled to the rear of the frame in part by a suspension system and are positioned at least in part rearward of the plurality of drive elements, in view of Zwieg, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of more operator room while using the mower (because the operator would be further outside of the confines of the wheels) and also increased operator comfort (due to the cushioning effect of the suspension which would absorb some of the dynamic stresses and vibrations as the mower moves over bumpy terrain).
It is recognized that Clark teaches the use of what appears to be mechanical linkages composed of rigid mechanical links (126, 128, 130, 132) between the one or more controls on the integrated operator standing platform and Clark’s hydraulic pump (114). A reasonable argument could be made that such rigid links would need modification or replacement to work with a suspended platform, so as to alleviate concerns related to binding, damage, etc. However, it is also well known in the prior art to utilize push-pull cables to connect between mower controls and hydraulic drives. Specifically, Sugden teaches push-pull cables to connect between mower controls and hydraulic drives (Col. 5, Lines 1-19).
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 Clark such that the mechanical linkages composed of rigid mechanical links are replaced with push-pull cables controls in view of Sugden, so as to allow for the use of a known readily available control structure that is known to be effectively used in the field. As an additional basis for determining that it would have been obvious to use the push-pull cables of Sugden in place of the mechanical linkages composed of rigid mechanical links of Clark, it is determined that the above modification would have amounted to the obvious simple substitution of one known element (push-pull cables as control elements) for another (mechanical linkages composed of rigid links as control elements) to obtain predictable results (the predictable transmission of pedal position information to control hydraulic drives using push-pull cables as it is known to transmit position information of mower controls to a hydraulic drive using push-pull cables).
Regarding claim 2, Clark as part of the combination of Clark in view of Wright, Zwieg, and Sugden further teaches that the one or more controls comprise a left control and a right control (in the abstract, Clark discloses that the foot pedals control either the left or the right wheel).
Regarding claim 3, Clark as part of the combination of Clark in view of Wright, Zwieg, and Sugden, further teaches that the plurality of drive elements comprises one or more left drive elements and one or more right drive elements (in figure 1, Clark discloses that left and right wheels as well as right wheel motor 108; figure 2 discloses left wheel motor 106), wherein the control system is configured to control a left speed of the one or more left drive elements based on foot-based inputs received via the left control, wherein the control system is configured to control a right speed of the one or more right drive elements based on foot-based inputs received via the right control (in col. 2, line 49 – col. 3, line 4, Clark discloses controlling each of the driving wheels by the foot pedal that is on the same side as the wheel), and wherein the steering and the speed of the outdoor power equipment are based on the left speed and the right speed (in the abstract, Clark discloses that the wheels can be driven in forward and reverse; in col. 2, lines 26-39, Clark discloses that the wheels can be driven at a desired speed and that they are independent; a system like this where the wheels can be driven in opposite rotations will turn, which teaches steering).
Regarding claim 4, Clark as part of the combination of Clark in view of Wright, Zwieg, and Sugden, further teaches that the one or more controls are configured to be operated by the operator in a standing position on the operator standing platform (in col. 2, lines 44-48 Clark discloses that the operator is in a standing position).
Regarding claim 6, Clark as part of the combination of Clark in view of Wright, Zwieg, and Sugden, further teaches that the foot-based inputs comprise rotations of the one or more controls (in figure 3, Clark discloses bar 120 about which the foot pedals rotate).
Regarding claim 7, Clark as part of the combination of Clark in view of Wright, Zwieg, and Sugden, further teaches one or more mechanisms to bias each control of the one or more controls to a neutral position of that control (in figures 2 and 3, Clark discloses biasing springs 145 and 147 that bias the foot pedals back to their neutral positions, as described in col. 3 lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 8, Clark as part of the combination of Clark in view of Wright, Zwieg, and Sugden, further teaches that the foot-based inputs comprise pressures applied to the one or more controls (in the abstract, Clark discloses independently moving pedals which, as shown in figures 1-3 by their ability to be rotated, are responsive to foot-based inputs where the inputs push on the controls, which reads on applying pressure).
Regarding claim 9, Clark as part of the combination of Clark in view of Wright, Zwieg, and Sugden, further teaches that the control system is one or more of mechanical, electrical, electromechanical, hydraulic, hydrostatic, or pneumatic (in col. 2 lines 26-30 Clark discloses that the system can be hydraulic).
Regarding claim 10, Clark as part of the combination of Clark in view of Wright, Zwieg, and Sugden, further teaches that the plurality of drive elements are one of a plurality of wheels or a plurality of tracks (in figure 1, Clark discloses that the drive elements are wheels).
Regarding claim 11, Clark as part of the combination of Clark in view of Wright, Zwieg, and Sugden, further teaches that the outdoor power equipment is a lawn maintenance apparatus (in the abstract, Clark discloses that the machine is a lawn mower, which is a type of lawn maintenance apparatus).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 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.
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner’s Note
In the interests of compact prosecution, the Examiner welcomes discussion of the application via a telephonic or in-person interview.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 and 6-11 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. In this regard, while the PG Pub. version of Sugden et al. was previously applied to reject claim 5 (as noted by Applicant), Sugden et al. as applied in the current Office action is only being utilized to show that the use of push-pull cables to control a hydraulic drive on a mower with suspended controls is well-known and understood in the prior art. In this regard, in the current Office action, the Office is not incorporating the teachings of Sugden’s suspended seated operator platform into the combination of Clark in view of Wright, Zwieg, and Sugden, rather the Office is relying on Zwieg to teach a suspended operator standing platform (as discussed in more detail in the rejections above) and is further relying on Sugden’s teaching of using push-pull cables to transmit control position information between a suspended mower control and a hydraulic drive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Joseph M Rocca at telephone number (571)272-8971.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights