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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the front portion of the left and right frame arranged to contact the battery, as in claim 1, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the requirement that “the front portion of the pair of left and right main frames is arranged to contact the battery” is not described in the specification nor shown in the drawings. Figure 2 shows battery 16 above the front portion of the frame 10a, but does not indicate whether or not the battery contacts the front portion of the left and right main frames.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii, et al. US2008/0264026 in view of Reimers, et al. US5794422 and Lamb, et al. US5406778.
Regarding claim 1, Ishii, et al. teaches an electric grass cutting machine 10 comprising:
a traveling device (including frame 12) having a pair of left and right front wheels 12 and a pair of left and right rear wheels 14;
a mower device 20/40 (shown in Figure 1) of a rear discharge type (rear discharge is 46) disposed under a machine body frame 30;
a grass collecting container 48 supported to a rear portion (right side of Figure 1) of the machine body frame;
an electric motor 16/18 (wherein a fully electric machine is described in ¶0169) configured to drive the traveling device;
a gear transmission 154a (shown in Figure 21) configured to speed-change an output from the electric motor and to transmit the speed-changed output to the traveling device (¶0217 “two-stage planetary gear mechanisms 154a and 154b are provided to transmit the rotational force of a rotary shaft 152 of the first electric motor 16 (or the second electric motor 18) to the main drive wheel 12 (or 14) described in the first exemplary embodiment described with reference to FIGS. 1 and 2”); and
a conveying duct 46 extending rearward between the rear wheels (as shown in Figure 2) and configured to guide cut grass pieces from the mower device to the grass collecting container (wherein the conduit connects mower 20 to the grass collection container 48 as shown at least in Figure 1), wherein the conveying duct is disposed at a position on more left or right side (Figure 2 shows 46 more to the top of 10, which is the right side closer to wheel 12, than wheel 14) than a center position (centerline between wheels 12 and 14) between the left and right rear wheels, wherein the electric motor and the gear transmission are disposed between the left and right rear wheels at positions laterally of the conveying duct.
Ishii, et al. does not teach the electric motor and the gear transmission are arranged one after the other in a front/rear direction of a body of the electric grass cutting machine; and wherein the electric motor comprises an output shaft whose axial direction is aligned with the front/rear direction; a front hood provided at a front portion of the machine body frame, a battery is accommodated for feeding electric power to the electric motor, and wherein a left/right width of a pair of left and right main frames included in the machine body frame is set, at a front portion of the pair of left and right main frames, to a width approximating a left/right width of the battery and set, at a rear portion of the pair of left and right main frames, to a width which is greater than the width of the front portion of the pair of left and right main frames and approximates a sum total of a left/right width of the electric motor and a left/right width of the conveying duct, and the front portion of the pair of left and right main frames is arranged to contact the battery.
Reimers, et al. teaches an electric driven mower 10 with electric motor 118 and gear transmission 122 are arranged one after the other in a front/rear direction of a body of the electric grass cutting machine; and wherein the electric motor comprises an output shaft 120 whose axial direction is aligned with the front/rear direction (as shown in Figure 3a), to provide driving to wheels 126a and 126b.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the arrangement of the electric motor and gear transmission and output shaft alignment direction of Ishii, et al. in view of the electric motor and gear transmission series alignment in the front/rear direction, and front/rear direction aligned output shaft of Reimers, et al. with a reasonable expectation of success to provide driving force to the driven wheels.
Reimers, et al. teaches that it is known in the art for a front hood (Figure 5: 256) provided at a front portion of the machine body frame (as shown in Figure 5) to contain driving parts (such as the motor 252) to provide sound insulation to reduce operating noise Column 13: 14-16“Housing 256 preferably includes sound insulation capabilities so as to significantly reduce the sound emanating from the electrohydraulic mower 230”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the mower of Ishii, et al. in view of Reimer’s front hood at the machine body front with a reasonable expectation of success to house the battery and to provide sound insulation, making the mower quieter during operation.
Ishii, et al.’s embodiment in Figure 1 does not teach that a left/right width of a pair of left and right main frames included in the machine body frame is set, at its front portion, to a width approximating a left/right width of the battery and set, at its rear portion, to a width which is greater than the width of the front portion and approximates a sum total of a left/right width of the electric motor and a left/right width of the conveying duct.
Ishii’s embodiment in Figures 11-12 teaches a left/right width of a pair of left and right main frames (left side of Figure 12) included in the machine body frame is set, at its front portion, to a width approximating a left/right width of the battery 36 (wherein the term “approximating” is broad, thus given its broadest reasonable interpretation to mean generally around the same width) and set, at its rear portion, to a width which is greater than the width of the front portion (see Figure A below, annotated from Figure 12) and approximates a sum total of a left/right width of electric motor 38 and a left/right width of the conveying duct 46. The rear width is not necessarily approximating left/right widths of driving electric motors 16 and 18.
PNG
media_image1.png
349
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: annotated from Figure 12, Ishii, et al.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Figure 1 of Ishii’s frame in view of the frame of Figure 12 with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve a frame that provides sufficient width to accommodate the batteries at the front, and the conveying duct and electric motor at the rear.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the rear width to accommodate the combined left/right widths of the conveyance duct and the electric motor to accommodate the two in the frame to provide desired support and protection for these elements, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Note that those of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a modification such as a mere change in size of a component would be obvious. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See also, MPEP § 2144.04 which states: In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Lamb, et al. teaches that it is known in the art to select the width of a frame 12 to be approximately the width of batteries 24 to support the batteries. Column 5: 46-53 “Referring to FIGS. 7 and 14, battery power source 24 is secured to a battery support 40 which is made integral to a rearward portion of frame 12. Battery support 40 includes a plurality of transverse "L" shaped members 42 which define a pair of channels 44 and 46, respectively. Channels 44 and 46 are sized to receive the eight lead-acid batteries 26 of battery power source 24 in two rows of four”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ishii, et al.’s left and right main frames to have a width approximating the left/ right width of the batteries as taught by Lamb, et al. with a reasonable expectation of success to support and receive the batteries.
Regarding claim 2, Ishii, et al. teaches that the electric motor is supported to a transmission case (including 170, shown in Figure 21) that accommodates the gear transmission.
Regarding claim 7, Ishii, et al. teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above. Ishii, et al. further teaches the mower device comprises a cutter blade housing (deck 40 is described as a “cover of a mower 20” ¶0137) that covers a plurality of rotary blades ¶0138; the mower device is supported to be movable to/from between an upper position close to the machine body frame and a lower position away from the machine body frame ¶0139 (wherein adjusting the height of the mower 20 considered to be closer to the body frame when raised, or away from the body frame, when lowered); and the electric motor is disposed, relative to the mower device located at the upper position, at a position offset from rotational paths of the rotary blades as viewed in a plan view (as shown in Figure 2).
Ishii, et al. does not teach the electric motor is disposed at a position overlapped with the cutter blade housing in the front/rear direction.
Lamb, et al. teaches that it is known in the art to provide an electric mower with an electric motor 162 (Figure 4) overlapping with cutter blade housing 182 (wherein figure 4 shows the left end of motor 162 overlaps with the right end of 184, thus is considered overlapping) in the front-rear direction, and is offset from the rotational pathways of the rotary blades 18a/b (wherein reels necessarily have rotating blades) when viewed in the plan view (as in Figure 4); and is disposed at a position overlapped with the cutter blade housing in a vertical direction as viewed in a front view (as shown in figure 5, wherein motor 162 vertically overlaps 18b. See figure B below, annotated from Figure 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
174
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B: annotated figure 5, Lamb, et al.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the motor placement of Ishii, et al. in view of the motor placement of Lamb, et al. to be overlapping the cutter blade housing with a reasonable expectation of success to enable a front-wheel driven mower in a compact wheel base.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii, et al. in view of Reimers, et al. and Lamb, et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuda US2013/0270024.
Regarding claim 3, Ishii, et al. teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach that: the electric motor is an oil cooled type having a cooling jacket; and an amount of oil charged in the transmission case is supplied in circulation to the cooling jacket.
Ishii, et al., does, however, teach a radiator 50 that cools the electric motors 16/18, and that the radiator and radiator fan can be replaced with an oil cooler and an oil cooler fan ¶0171 “According to a modified embodiment, the radiator 50 and the radiator fan 68 can be replaced with an oil cooler and an electrically driven oil cooler fan to supply cooling oil to the first electric motor 16 and the second electric motor 18”.
Matsuda teaches that it is known in the art to use a cooling jacket that circulates charged oil to cool an electric motor unit including an electric motor and transmission ¶0019 “As the coolant used in the cooling jacket, the oil for cooling the electric motor or lubricating oil may be used. A motor unit including the electric motor and a power transmission mechanism for transmitting an output of the electric motor may be provided with an oil pump which discharges lubricating oil.”, which provides a “small-sized and lightweight cooling system” ¶0009.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cooling system of Ishii, et al. in view of the cooling jacket of Matsuda with a reasonable expectation of success to enable a small-sized cooling system for cooling the electric motor.
Regarding claim 4, Ishii, et al. teaches an oil cooler to cool oil ¶0171.
Ishii, et al. does not teach that the oil cooler is incorporated in an oil circulation circuit to the cooling jacket.
Matsuda teaches integrating a cooling jacket for circulating oil ¶0019 (as described above), the cooling is incorporated in an oil circulation circuit (including hose 72) for an electric motor system (as described above).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cooling system of Ishii, et al. in view of the cooling jacket of Matsuda to be integrated with an oil circulation circuit with a reasonable expectation of success to enable a small-sized cooling system for cooling the electric motor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 11/6/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 under 35 USC 103 in view of Ishii in view of Reimers and Ishimori have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the 35 USC 103 rejection including Lamb, et al, as described above.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 11/6/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1-7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 11/6/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 10 1 obvious-type double patenting rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
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 Cathleen Hutchins whose telephone number is (571)270-3651. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11am-9:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/CATHLEEN R HUTCHINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672 1/5/2026