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 § 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.
Claim 27 is 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. New claim 27 requires wherein the rollable element has a fixed, non-swiveling axis of rotation. However, there is no support in the original disclosure for such a limitation and it therefore comprises new subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-13, 23, 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Piontek 8,167,324.
Independent Claim 1: Piontek discloses a wheeled lawn care machine (10) for moving over a ground, the wheeled lawn care machine comprising:
a drive apparatus (motor, not shown) for propelling the wheeled lawn care machine over the ground;
a lower deck (unnumbered, shown in Figs. 1-2) powered by the drive apparatus and positioned above the ground; and
an anti-scalp system (14, 16) mounted to the lower deck (via frame 12) and configured to prevent the lower deck from contacting the ground, the anti-scalp system including –
a first shaft (40) attached to the lower deck (via 20 and 12),
a second shaft (42) at least partly received within the first shaft and shiftable relative to the first shaft between an extended position (Fig. 3) and a retracted position (Fig. 4),
a resistance element (46) positioned within at least one of the first and second shafts and biasing the second shaft toward the extended position (Fig. 3), and
a rollable element (30, 32) rotatably coupled (about its own horizontal, transverse central axis) with a lower end of the second shaft,
wherein the rollable element has an axis of rotation (its horizontal, transverse central axis) that is substantially perpendicular to a direction of motion of the second shaft (the vertical direction) when the second shaft is shifted between the extended and retracted positions, and
wherein when the lower deck reaches a minimum height above the ground, the rollable element contacts the ground, the second shaft slides within the first shaft toward the retracted position and compresses the resistance element (seen in Fig. 4), and the resistance element resists further upward movement of the second shaft so that the anti-scalp system prevents the lower deck from contacting the ground, as per claim 1.
Dependent Claims 2-6, 9-11, 25-26: Piontek further discloses wherein the wheeled lawn care machine (10) is a riding lawn mower (as seen in Fig. 1), as per claim 2;
wherein the riding lawn mower (10) is a zero-turn riding lawn mower (col. 2, lns. 63-64), as per claim 3;
wherein the rollable element (30, 32) is selected from the group consisting of wheels (30, 32), rollers (30, 32), and balls, as per claim 4;
wherein the resistance element (46) is a coil spring (as seen in Fig. 3), as per claim 5;
wherein the resistance element (46) is a resilient material or structure (a coil spring) that automatically returns to an original shape (seen in Fig. 3) after being compressed by upward movement (Fig. 4Fig. 4) of the second shaft (42) into the first shaft (40), as per claim 6;
wherein the resistance element (46) remains in contact with an upper end of the second shaft (42) at a maximum extension (as shown in Fig. 3, the element 46 remains in contact with the tup surface of 42) of the second shaft relative to the first shaft (35), as per claim 9;
the anti-scalp system (14, 16) further including a mechanical stop structure (48) defining a maximum (seen in Fig. 3) and/or minimum extension of the second shaft (42) relative to the first shaft (40), as per claim 10;
further including between two (14, 16) and six of the anti-scalp systems mounted to the lower deck (seen in Figs. 1-2), as per claim 11;
wherein the first shaft (40), the second shaft (42), the resistance element (46), and the rollable element (30, 32) together form a self-contained anti-scalp module that is attached to the lower deck (the unnumbered mower deck) as a unit (as seen between Figs. 1 and 3), as per claim 25;
wherein the resistance element (46) is enclosed within the first shaft (40, as seen in Fig. 3), as per claim 26;
Independent Claim 12: Piontek discloses a zero-turn riding lawn mower (10, col. 2, lns. 63-64) for moving over a ground, the zero-turn riding lawn mower comprising:
a drive apparatus (motor, not shown) for propelling the zero-turn riding lawn mower over the ground;
a lower deck (unnumbered, shown in Figs. 1-2) driven by the drive apparatus and positioned above the ground; and
an anti-scalp system (14, 16) mounted to the lower deck and preventing the lower deck from contacting the ground, the anti-scalp system including –
a first shaft (40) attached to the lower deck,
a coil spring (46) positioned within the first shaft,
a second shaft (42) slidably received within the first shaft and including an upper end and a lower end, with the upper end being located proximate to the coil spring within the first shaft (as seen in Figs. 3-4), and
a wheel (30) rotatably coupled with the lower end of the second shaft,
wherein when the lower deck reaches a minimum height of between one and six inches above the ground, the wheel contacts the ground, the second shaft slides upwardly within the first shaft so that the upper end of the second shaft compresses the coil spring (the position of Fig. 4), and the coil spring resists further upward movement of the second shaft so that the anti-scalp system prevents the lower deck from contacting the ground, as per claim 12.
Dependent Claims 13, 23: Piontek further includes between two (14, 16) and six of the anti-scalp systems mounted to the lower deck (Figs. 1-2), as per claim 13;
wherein the wheel (30) has an axis of rotation (its transverse, horizontal center axis) that is substantially perpendicular to a direction of sliding (the vertical direction) of the second shaft (42) within the first shaft (40), as per claim 23.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-11, 14, 16-21, 24-26, 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimamura et al. 4,829,754 in view of Le Gloan 5,628,377.
Independent Claims 1, 14: Shimamura discloses a wheeled lawn care machine (1) for moving over a ground used by the anti-scalp method of claim 14, the wheeled lawn care machine comprising:
a drive apparatus (inherent motor or engine for providing the wheel drive and PTO) for propelling the wheeled lawn care machine over the ground;
a lower deck (11) powered by the drive apparatus (via PTO, col. 3, lns. 53-58) and positioned above the ground; and
an anti-scalp system (28, Fig. 16) mounted to the lower deck and configured to prevent the lower deck from contacting the ground, the anti-scalp system including –
a shaft (101) attached to the lower deck,
a resistance element (100), and
a rollable element (28) rotatably coupled with a lower end of the shaft and suspended above generally flat ground while the lower deck mows the generally flat ground, as per claim 14,
wherein when the lower deck reaches a minimum height above the ground, the rollable element contacts the ground, the shaft slides toward the retracted position and compresses the resistance element, and the resistance element resists further upward movement of the shaft so that the anti-scalp system prevents the lower deck from contacting the ground (col. 4, lns. 27-30), as per claims 1, 14.
However, Shimamura fails to specifically disclose wherein the anti-scalp system includes:
a first shaft attached to the lower deck,
a second shaft at least partly received within the first shaft and shiftable relative to the first shaft between an extended position and a retracted position,
a resistance element positioned within at least one of the first and second shafts and biasing the second shaft toward the extended position, and
a rollable element rotatably coupled with a lower end of the second shaft,
wherein the rollable element has an axis of rotation that is substantially perpendicular to a direction of motion of the second shaft when the second shaft is shifted between the extended and retracted positions, and
wherein when the rollable element contacts the ground, the second shaft slides within the first shaft toward the retracted position and compresses the resistance element, and the resistance element resists further upward movement of the second shaft, as per claims 1, 14.
Le Gloan discloses a similar system including a first shaft (11),
a second shaft (9) at least partly received within the first shaft and shiftable relative to the first shaft between an extended position (right-side position of Fig. 3) and a retracted position (left-side position of Fig. 3),
a resistance element (16) positioned within at least one of the first and second shafts and biasing the second shaft toward the extended position, and
a rollable element (3A, 3B) rotatably coupled with a lower end of the second shaft,
wherein the rollable element has an axis of rotation (horizontal axis through its rotational center) that is substantially perpendicular to a direction of motion of the second shaft (the vertical direction) when the second shaft is shifted between the extended and retracted positions, and
wherein when the rollable element contacts the ground, the second shaft slides within the first shaft toward the retracted position and compresses the resistance element, and the resistance element resists further upward movement of the second shaft, as per claims 1, 14.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the stabilizing wheel of Le Gloan for that of Shimamura’s lawn care machine since both references disclose spring-loaded wheels for providing supplemental or compensating support as needed and such a predictable result would be achieved.
Dependent Claims 2, 4-6, 8, 10-11, 16-21, 24-26, 28-29: Shimamura further discloses wherein the wheeled lawn care machine (1) is a riding lawn mower (as seen in Fig. 1), as per claim 2;
wherein the rollable element (28) is selected from the group consisting of wheels, rollers (28), and balls, as per claims 4, 16;
wherein the resistance element (100) is a coil spring (as seen in Figs. 15-16), as per claims 5, 17;
wherein the resistance element (100) is a resilient material or structure (a coil spring) that automatically returns to an original shape after being compressed, as per claims 6, 18;
further including between two and six of the anti-scalp systems (28, three of them, as seen in Fig. 2) mounted to the lower deck (11), as per claims 11, 20;
wherein the anti-scalp system (28) is configured such that the rollable element (also 28) is suspended above the ground when the ground is generally flat (as seen in Fig. 1), as per claim 21.
Le Gloan further discloses wherein the resistance element (16) is spaced apart from an upper end of the second shaft (9) at a maximum extension of the second shaft relative to the first shaft (11, as seen in the right-side position of Fig. 3), as per claim 8;
the system further including a mechanical stop structure (14, 15) defining a maximum and/or minimum extension (“in both directions”, col. 3, lns. 15-19) of the second shaft (9) relative to the first shaft (11), as per claims 10, 19;
wherein the rollable element (3A, 3B) has an axis of rotation (its horizontal central rolling axis) that is substantially perpendicular to a direction (the vertical direction) of the sliding of step (c), as per claim 24;
wherein the resistance element (16) is enclosed within the first shaft (11, as seen in Fig. 3), as per claim 26.
Regarding claims 25 and 28, in the resultant combination it can be seen that the first shaft (Le Gloan’s 11), the second shaft (Le Gloan’s 9), the resistance element (Le Gloan’s 16), and the rollable element (Le Gloan’s 3A, 3B) together form a self-contained anti-scalp module that is attached to the lower deck (when combined with Shimamura) as a unit, as per claim 25;
wherein the anti-scalp system (La Gloan’s 9, 11, 16, 3A/3B) is configured to automatically adjust a ground-clearance distance of the lower deck (Shimamura’s 11) in response to ground contact of the rollable element (Shimamura’s 28) without requiring manual adjustment by a user (as established by La Gloan’s anti-scalp system), as per claim 28;
wherein steps (b) through (d) occur automatically and without manual adjustment by a user each time the rollable element (Shimamura’s 28) contacts the ground during operation of the riding lawn mower over uneven ground (when combined with La Gloan’s system 9, 11, 16, 3A/3B), as per claim 29.
Claim(s) 3, 12-13, 15, 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimamura et al. in view of Le Gloan as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Piontek.
Dependent Claims 3, 15: The machine is disclosed as applied above. However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the riding lawn mower is a zero-turn riding lawn mower, as per claims 3, 15.
Piontek discloses a similar riding lawn mower (10) that is a zero-turn riding lawn mower (col. 2, lns. 63-64), as per claims 3, 15.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the zero-turn feature of Piontek on the lawn mower of Shimamura and Le Gloan in order to provide more agility in turns.
Independent Claim 12: Shimamura discloses a riding lawn mower (1) for moving over a ground, the riding lawn mower comprising:
a drive apparatus (inherent motor or engine for providing the wheel drive and PTO) for propelling the riding lawn mower over the ground;
a lower deck (11) driven by the drive apparatus (via PTO, col. 3, lns. 53-58) and positioned above the ground; and
an anti-scalp system (28) mounted to the lower deck and preventing the lower deck from contacting the ground, the anti-scalp system including –
a shaft (101) attached to the lower deck,
a coil spring (100), and
a wheel (28) rotatably coupled with the lower end of the shaft,
wherein when the lower deck reaches a minimum height above the ground, the wheel contacts the ground, the shaft slides upwardly to compresses the coil spring, and the coil spring resists further upward movement so that the anti-scalp system prevents the lower deck from contacting the ground, as per claim 12.
However, Shimamura fails to disclose wherein the riding lawn mower is a zero-turn riding lawn mower;
the anti-scalp system including -
a first shaft attached to the lower deck,
a coil spring positioned within the first shaft,
a second shaft slidably received within the first shaft and including an upper end and a lower end, with the upper end being located proximate to the coil spring within the first shaft, and
a wheel rotatably coupled with the lower end of the second shaft,
wherein when the lower deck reaches a minimum height of between one and six inches above the ground, the wheel contacts the ground, the second shaft slides upwardly within the first shaft so that the upper end of the second shaft compresses the coil spring, and the coil spring resists further upward movement of the second shaft so that the anti-scalp system prevents the lower deck from contacting the ground, as per claim 12.
Piontek discloses a similar riding lawn mower (10) that is a zero-turn riding lawn mower (col. 2, lns. 63-64), as per claim 12.
Le Gloan discloses a similar wheel system including -
a first shaft (11),
a coil spring (16) positioned within the first shaft,
a second shaft (9) slidably received within the first shaft and including an upper end and a lower end, with the upper end being located proximate to the coil spring within the first shaft (seen in Fig. 3), and
a wheel (3A, 3B) rotatably coupled with the lower end of the second shaft,
wherein when the wheel contacts the ground, the second shaft slides upwardly within the first shaft so that the upper end of the second shaft compresses the coil spring, and the coil spring resists further upward movement of the second shaft, as per claim 12.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the zero-turn feature of Piontek on the lawn mower of Shimamura in order to provide more agility in turns.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the stabilizing wheel of Le Gloan for that of Shimamura’s lawn care machine since both references disclose spring-loaded wheels for providing supplemental or compensating support as needed and such a predictable result would be achieved.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the minimum height between one and six inches since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Dependent Claims 13, 22-23: Shimamura further discloses between two and six (three anti-scalp systems 28 as seen in Fig. 2) of the anti-scalp systems mounted to the lower deck, as per claim 13;
wherein the anti-scalp system (28) is configured such that the wheel (also 28) is suspended above the ground when the ground is generally flat (see Fig. 1), as per claim 22.
Le Gloan further discloses wherein the wheel (3A, 3B) has an axis of rotation (horizontal, transverse center of rotation axis) that is substantially perpendicular to a direction of sliding (the vertical direction as seen in Fig. 3) of the second shaft (9) within the first shaft (11), as per claim 23.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piontek or Shimamura in view of La Gloan in view of Dobbs GB 1092470 A.
Dependent Claim 7: The lawn care machine is disclosed as applied above. However, neither Piontek nor Shimamura in view of La Gloan disclose wherein the resistance element is a compressible gas that automatically returns to an original volume after being compressed by upward movement of the second shaft into the first shaft, as per claim 7.
Dobbs discloses a similar roller element suspension (20, Fig. 4) wherein the resistance element (of chamber 56) is a compressible gas (see pg. 2, lns. 86-90) that automatically returns to an original volume after being compressed by upward movement of the second shaft (48) into the first shaft (34), as per claim 7.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a compressible gas (from the embodiment of Dobb’s Fig. 4) for the coil spring (see Dobb’s Fig. 2) of Piontek or Shimamura and La Gloan’s anti-scalp system in light of Dobbs’ teaching that the two types of resistance elements are old and well-known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Applicant first argues that Piontek’s anti-scalp system (14, 16) is not an anti-scalp system mounted to the lower deck and configured to prevent the lower deck from contacting the ground, as claimed. However, this is arguing more than claimed. As seen in Piontek, Piontek’s anti-scalp system (14, 16) is mounted to the lower deck (the unnumbered mower deck seen in the figures) and configured to prevent the lower deck from contacting the ground (as seen in Fig. 6). The claim does not recite a “direct connection/contact” nor any “connection structure” that directly mounts the anti-scalp system to the lower deck, as argued. Therefore, in its broadest reasonable interpretation, Piontek’s anti-scalp system can be interpreted to be mounted to the lower deck, even if movably and/or indirectly, since applicant’s claims fail to preclude this interpretation.
The applicant also argues that Piontek’s anti-scalp system rollable elements (14, 16) are in continuous contact with the ground during normal operation when, in contrast, the claimed rollable element is normally suspended above the ground on flat terrain and only contacts the ground when the deck descends to the minimum height threshold. However, again, this is arguing more than claimed. The claim does not recite the underlined limitation above, as argued. Specifically, the claim does not recite wherein the rollable element is ever suspended above the ground, and so, further, doesn’t recite wherein the suspended roller descends to contact the ground. Instead, the claim recites only: wherein when the lower deck reaches a minimum height above the ground, the rollable element contacts the ground. Without giving the position of the rollable element before the minimum height, in its broadest reasonable interpretation, Piontek’s roller element suffices to read on the limitation since it does in fact contact the ground when the deck reaches a minimum height.
Further, it is noted that the use of the phrase “a minimum height” adds to the broadness of the claims. Once the deck reaches this “minimum height”, the resistance element of the anti-scalp system will allow for the deck to lower even further, to another minimum height below the original minimum height. Therefore, the original “minimum height” is not literally a minimum height and therefore opens up the scope for the phrase a “minimum height”.
The rejection is therefore maintained.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
In response to applicant's argument that combining Shimamura with Le Gloan would change the principle of operation of Shimamura, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, one of ordinary skill would not completely combine Le Gloan’s device with Shimamura; it is only the structure of Le Gloan that allows for a resiliently supported rollable element, including the shafts, the resistance element and the rollable element, that is taken from Le Gloan for the combination with Shimamura. Any other structural details of Le Gloan are moot to the combination. Instead, it is Shimamura that discloses the wheeled lawn care machine and anti-scalp system, as claimed. Le Gloan is used only to show that the specific resilient shaft structure for a roller element, which when substituted with Shimamura’s resilient shaft and roller element shown in Fig. 16, is known in the art.
Applicant also argues that Shimamura does not disclose conditional engagement of the rollable elements with the ground. However, this conditional engagement can be seen between Figs. 1, 3 (disengagement) and Fig. 14 (showing roller engagement and disengagement).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, specifically that Le Gloan does not disclose or suggest the structure in the context of a mower anti-scalp system or the coordinated sequence of the anti-scalp operation, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Again, it is primary reference Shimamura that discloses the lawn mower and anti-scalp system and secondary refrence Le Gloan that discloses the resilient shaft structure of the rollable element.
Regarding claim 7, please see the updated art rejection above now under Piontek in view of Dobbs.
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 Alicia M. Torres whose telephone number is 571-272-6997. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-6997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph M. Rocca, can be reached at (571) 272-8971.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the group receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-3600. The fax number for this Group is 571-273-8300.
/Alicia Torres/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 July 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights