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 § 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 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: 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.
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, 4-8, 10-11, 14, 16-21, 24 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) 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 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, 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 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, 4-8, 10-11, 16-21, 24: 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.
However, the combination fails to 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.
The examiner takes official notice that 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, as per claim 7, for the coil spring of Shimamura and Le Gloan since such means are old and well-known equivalents in the wheel suspension art.
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.
Dependent Claim 7: The lawn care machine is disclosed as applied above. However, Piontek fails to 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.
The examiner takes official notice that 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, as per claim 7, for the coil spring of Piontek since such means are old and well-known equivalents in the wheel suspension art.
Response to Arguments
Please see the updated rejections above in response to applicant’s amendments and arguments.
Conclusion
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 January 15, 2026