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.
Claims 1-6, 11, 15-16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoppel (US 20200077603 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hoppel discloses a wheeled lawn care machine (landscaping vehicle 10) for moving over a ground, the wheeled lawn care machine comprising:
a drive apparatus (engine 27) for propelling the wheeled lawn care machine over the ground;
a lower deck (mower deck 12) powered by the drive apparatus and including a discharge opening (chute 12j, see fig. 2) for facilitating the ejection of material from within the lower deck;
a discharge cover (chute frame 12r) positioned proximate to the discharge opening and directing the ejected material; and
a discharge control system (see fig. 17) selectively secured to the discharge cover and focusing and directing an airflow exiting the discharge opening, the discharge control system including –
a discharge cover attachment (funnel region 32a of hose attachment 32) defining a volume and including an exit opening, the exit opening being smaller than the discharge opening in the lower deck to provide an accelerated airflow passing through the exit opening, the discharge cover attachment being selectively attachable to the discharge cover (paragraph 0078), and
a nozzle (32c) attached over the exit opening of the discharge cover attachment,
wherein the airflow passing through the exit opening is generated solely within the lower deck (paragraph 0068).
PNG
media_image1.png
458
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hoppel discloses the wheeled lawn care machine of claim 1, wherein the wheeled lawn care machine is a riding lawn mower (paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 3, Hoppel discloses the wheeled lawn care machine of claim 2, wherein the riding lawn mower is a zero-turn riding lawn mower (paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 4, Hoppel discloses the wheeled lawn care machine of claim 1, wherein the discharge cover attachment (32) is selectively attached over the discharge cover (12r).
Regarding claim 5, Hoppel discloses the wheeled lawn care machine of claim 1, wherein the discharge cover attachment (32) is selectively attached under the discharge cover (12r).
Regarding claim 6, Hoppel discloses the wheeled lawn care machine of claim 1, wherein the nozzle (32c) provides a straight extension of the exit opening (see fig. 17).
Regarding claim 11, Hoppel discloses the wheeled lawn care machine of claim 1, further including a hose (32b) selectively attached to the nozzle (32c) to further extend and direct the airflow to a particular area.
Regarding claim 15, Hoppel discloses a method of moving debris using a riding lawn mower (10), the method comprising:
(a) securing a discharge control system (see fig. 17) to a lower deck (12) of the riding lawn mower proximate a discharge opening (12j) of the lower deck, the discharge control system including a discharge attachment (32), wherein the discharge attachment defines an exit opening (see fig. 17) that is fully circumscribed by the structure of the discharge attachment;
(b) powering the lower deck to thereby cause airflow through the discharge opening of the lower deck and the exit opening of the discharge control system, wherein the velocity of the airflow through the exit opening of the discharge control system is at least two times greater than the velocity of the airflow through the discharge opening of the lower deck, and wherein the airflow passing through the exit opening of the discharge control system is generated solely within the lower deck (paragraph 0068); and
(c) using the airflow passing through the exit opening to move debris (paragraphs 0012, 0078).
Regarding claim 16, Hoppel discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the securing of step (a) includes securing the discharge attachment to a discharge cover coupled to the lower deck proximate to the discharge opening so that the discharge attachment is secured to the lower deck via the discharge cover (paragraph 0078: In particular hose attachment 32 is engaged in any suitable manner with chute frame 12r).
Regarding claim 20, Hoppel discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising decoupling the discharge control system from the lower deck and thereafter using the riding lawn mower without the discharge control system (paragraphs 0006-0012).
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 7-10, 13-14, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoppel (US 20200077603 A1) in view of Romito (US 20150373922 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Hoppel discloses the wheeled lawn care machine of claim 1.
Hoppel does not disclose wherein the nozzle provides an angled extension of the exit opening.
In the same field of endeavor, Romito discloses a nozzle (30) that provides an angled extension of an exit opening (see fig. 4-9) so that a user may adjust an angle of airflow in accordance with the size of the landscaper/user and the characteristics of the debris being blown (paragraph 0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the nozzle of Hoppel with an angled extension of the exit opening, as disclosed by Romito, so that a user may adjust an angle of airflow in accordance with the size of the landscaper/user and the characteristics of the debris being blown (paragraph 0010).
Regarding claim 8, the resultant combination discloses the wheeled lawn care machine of claim 7.
The combination does not disclose wherein the nozzle has an angle of between ten degrees and thirty degrees relative to the exit opening.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the angle of the nozzle to accommodate the size of the landscaper (Romito, paragraph 0010), 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, the resultant combination discloses the wheeled lawn care machine of claim 8.
The combination does not disclose wherein the nozzle has an angle of between fifteen degrees and twenty-five degrees relative to the exit opening.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the angle of the nozzle to accommodate the size of the landscaper (Romito, paragraph 0010), 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Romito, of the resultant combination, discloses the wheeled lawn care machine of claim 8, wherein the nozzle is selectively rotatable to direct the airflow in a desired direction (paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 13, Hoppel discloses a riding lawn mower (landscaping vehicle 10) for moving over a ground, the riding lawn mower comprising:
a drive apparatus (engine 27) for propelling the riding lawn mower over the ground;
a lower deck (mower deck 12) positioned lower than the drive apparatus and above the ground and including a discharge opening (chute 12j, see fig. 2) for facilitating the ejection of material from within the lower deck;
a discharge cover (chute frame 12r) positioned proximate to the discharge opening and directing the ejected material; and
a discharge control system (see fig. 17) selectively secured to the discharge cover and focusing and directing an airflow exiting the discharge opening, the discharge control system including –
a discharge cover attachment (funnel region 32a of hose attachment 32) defining a volume and including an exit opening, the exit opening being smaller than the discharge opening in the lower deck to provide an accelerated airflow passing through the exit opening, the discharge cover attachment being selectively attachable to the discharge cover (paragraph 0078), and
a nozzle (32c) positioned over the exit opening,
wherein the airflow passing through the exit opening is generated solely within the lower deck (paragraph 0068).
Hoppel does not disclose wherein the nozzle provides an angled extension of the exit opening, has an angle of between ten degrees and thirty degrees relative to the exit opening, and is selectively rotatable to direct the airflow in a desired direction.
In the same field of endeavor, Romito discloses a nozzle (30) that provides an angled extension of an exit opening (see fig. 4-9) and is rotatable (paragraph 0045) so that a user may adjust an angle of airflow in accordance with the size of the landscaper/user and the characteristics of the debris being blown (paragraph 0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the nozzle of Hoppel with an angled extension of the exit opening, as disclosed by Romito, so that a user may adjust an angle of airflow in accordance with the size of the landscaper/user and the characteristics of the debris being blown (paragraph 0010).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the angle of the nozzle to accommodate the size of the landscaper (Romito, paragraph 0010), 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, Hoppel, of the resultant combination, discloses the riding lawn mower of claim 13, further including a hose (32b) selectively attached to the nozzle to further extend and direct the airflow to a particular area. Hoppel further discloses that the hose may be “of any suitable length that will permit an operator to direct air in a desired direction” (paragraph 0078).
The combination does not disclose wherein the hose has a length of between four feet and six feet.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the hose with a length of 4-6 feet, 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).
Regarding claim 17, Hoppel discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the discharge control system further comprises a nozzle (32c) positioned over the exit opening of the discharge attachment.
Hoppel does not disclose providing an angled extension of the exit opening.
In the same field of endeavor, Romito discloses a nozzle (30) that provides an angled extension of an exit opening (see fig. 4-9) so that a user may adjust an angle of airflow in accordance with the size of the landscaper/user and the characteristics of the debris being blown (paragraph 0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the nozzle of Hoppel with an angled extension of the exit opening, as disclosed by Romito, so that a user may adjust an angle of airflow in accordance with the size of the landscaper/user and the characteristics of the debris being blown (paragraph 0010).
Regarding claim 18, Romito, of the resultant combination, discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising rotating the nozzle relative to the discharge attachment to thereby direct the airflow in a desired direction (paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 19, Hoppel, of the resultant combination, discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising attaching a hose (32b) to the nozzle to further extend and direct the airflow to a particular area.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoppel (US 20200077603 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Hoppel discloses the wheeled lawn care machine of claim 11. Hoppel further discloses that the hose may be “of any suitable length that will permit an operator to direct air in a desired direction” (paragraph 0078).
Hoppel does not disclose wherein the hose has a length of between four feet and six feet.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the hose with a length of 4-6 feet, 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 MADELINE RUNCO whose telephone number is (469)295-9123. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 5712728971. 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.
/M.I.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671