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 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 2 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. It is unclear if the equipment support brackets of claim 2 are the same part or a different part from the equipment support brackets of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that Brewer fails to disclose a conversion system from a two-wheel drive to a four-wheel drive system since Brewer focuses on a vehicle frame having sub-assemblies allowing the rear axle to be mounted above the frame of the sub-assemblies to lower the center of gravity of the vehicle. The office points to Col. 1, lines 52-62 of Brewer in addition to Col. 2, lines 57-64 of Brewer as they clearly teach a four wheel drive conversion for a lawnmower by removing a rear sub-assembly which includes either a driven or a nondriven axle.
Applicant has argued that Bergsten does not teach a four wheel drive conversion since it focuses on coupling a drive unit to a mower unit or a tracked unit. The office argues that Bergsten is not used to teach a four wheel drive conversion and is merely applied to teach that a convertible mower can have units removed and/or mounted to the front of a rear frame.
Applicant has argued that Harris does not teach a four wheel drive conversion since it merely discloses a zero-turn mower with a shielding which gets mounted on the unit. The office argues that Harris is merely applied to teach a support leg which props up a mower unit during a servicing operation.
In light of the new amendments, applicant has argued that the limitations of “the pair of extension receivers are configured to mount the replacement frame in place of the front caster wheels”, “a drive wheel and a motor operative to drive the drive wheel”, “a pair of equipment support brackets having apertures configured to receive mounting extensions of the mower deck”, and “when the replacement front frame is installed on the equipment frame in place of the front caster wheels, the drive wheel assemblies cooperate… to convert into four-wheel drive” are not taught by the prior art either alone or in combination because: Brewer does not teach any of these limitations since it does not teach replacement of any caster wheels by connecting front sub-assembly or rear sub-assembly; Bergsten does not teach any of these limitations since Bergsten teaches the entire mower unit being connected to the drive unit and Bergsten does not teach the replacement front frame provided with a pair of drive wheel assembly; and Harris does not teach any of the features since Harris merely teaches the attachment of shields to the mower to protect the user. Regarding these newly amended limitations, see claim 1 rejection below.
Applicant has argued that Brewer, either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest a pair of drive wheels each driven by an independent motor. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a pair of drive wheels each driven by an independent motor) are not recited in the rejected claim (prior to the amendments filed 12/5/2025). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Regarding this newly amended limitation of claim 1, see rejection below.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brewer (US 6089343) in view of Oswald (US 20150007542), Bergsten (US 20070151220), Nozaki (US 20080314675), and Harris (US 10358017).
Regarding claim 1, Brewer teaches a conversion system for converting a two-wheel drive zero turn lawn equipment into a four-wheel drive zero turn lawn equipment (Col. 1, lines 52-62), the lawn equipment comprising an equipment frame 12, an engine (Col. 2, lines 50-53), a pair of rear drive wheels 20 (Col. 2, lines 57-64), a pair of front caster wheels (Fig. 1), and a mower deck 40 (Col. 2, lines 53-56), the conversion system comprising: a replacement rear frame 16 comprising: a pair of extension elements 60 configured to be detachably received by a pair of extension receivers 58 provided on the equipment frame 12 (Col. 3, lines 18-22, Fig. 3); a pair of drive wheel assemblies 20 provided on the replacement rear frame 16 (Col. 2, lines 57-64); wherein, when the replacement rear frame is installed on the equipment frame 12 in place of the nondriven, rear wheels, the drive wheel assemblies 18 cooperate with the rear drive wheels 20 to convert into four-wheel drive (Col. 1, lines 52-62).
Brewer teaches wherein the rear frame during the two-wheel-drive mode has a nondriven axle, but does not expressly teach caster wheels.
However, Oswald teaches that a lawn care vehicle 10 can be supported in the rear by nondriven wheels 34 which can be caster wheels ([0028] of Oswald).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the caster wheels of Oswald for the wheels with a nondriven axle on the replacement rear frame of Brewer and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and advantageously allowed the mower to perform sharp turns ([0028] of Oswald).
While Brewer does not teach: the pair of extension receivers are configured to mount the replacement frame in place of the caster wheels and when the replacement frame is installed on the equipment frame in place of the nondriven wheels, in place of the caster wheels, the drive wheel assemblies cooperate with the rear drive wheels to convert into four-wheel drive (emphasis added); the question is what would result from the combined teachings of the references. See in re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, that result would be the substituted caster wheels of Oswald being provided on the removable frame of Brewer and the replacement frame of Brewer being mounted on the extension receivers in place of the caster wheels.
Brewer does not teach a front wheel drive conversion.
However, Bergsten teaches a convertible front wheel assembly for a mower wherein front mower unit 88 is removably mounted on a rear drive unit 6 ([0019], Fig. 5 of Bergsten).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mower of Brewer to mount the replacement frame at the front instead of the rear and the results of the modification would have been predictable and provided the advantage of allowing the mower to be convertible depending on the unit which is mounted to the drive unit ([0013] of Bergsten).
Additionally, Brewer discloses the claimed invention except for the replacement frame being provided on the front of the mower. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to design the mower to mount the replacement frame on the front instead of the rear of the mower, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Brewer teaches a mower deck mounted to the front of a mower vehicle (Fig. 1) but does not expressly teach a pair of equipment support brackets configured to receive mounting extensions of the mower deck.
However, Bergsten teaches a convertible front wheel assembly for a mower wherein the conversion system comprises a pair of equipment support brackets having apertures 24 configured to receive mounting extensions 92 of the mower deck 104 ([0072], Figs. 5-6; the portions of frame 8 with mounting holes 24 where the mounting extensions connect to are the equipment support brackets).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified mower assembly of Brewer/Oswald to mount the mower deck by a pair of equipment support brackets as Bergsten teaches in order to advantageously provide a lawnmower which can be converted between a tracked unit and a motor unit ([0072]).
Brewer as modified does not teach the drive assemblies comprising hydraulic motors.
However, Nozaki teaches a work vehicle wherein each drive wheel assembly comprises a drive wheel 21 and a motor 120 operative to drive the drive wheel 21; a pair of motor mounts provided configured to receive the motors 120 of the drive wheel assemblies 21 ([0023] and [0128], Figs. 1-2 and 9 of Nozaki);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified lawnmower of Brewer/et.al. to have hydraulic motors provided for each drive wheel as Nozaki teaches in order to advantageously provide left-right differential driving state capabilities to the mower ([0014]-[0015] of Nozaki).
While Nozaki does not teach a replacement frame, the question is what would result from the combined teachings of the references. See in re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, that result would be the modified replacement frame (of Brewer/et.al.) having hydraulic drive motors (of Nozaki) for each drive wheel mounted on the replacement frame.
Brewer teaches means for temporarily supporting said equipment 100 for removing said front caster wheels and placing said replacement frame (Col. 4, lines 27-36).
Brewer as modified does not teach the means for supporting said equipment being a pair of support legs.
However, Harris teaches a mower which uses a support leg coupled to the equipment frame and movable between a stowed position and a deployed ground engaging position to prop up the mower during servicing (Col. 5, lines 41-49 of Harris).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified mower of Brewer/et.al. to have the support leg of Harris in order to advantageously prop the mower up during servicing (Col. 5, lines 41-49 of Harris).
Regarding the limitation of “pair of deployable support legs”, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). Providing a pair of support legs instead of a single support leg is an obvious design choice and would provide the advantage of distributing the weight load of the lawnmower over multiple legs, decreasing wear during maintenance.
While Harris does not teach “a pair of deployable support legs… for temporarily supporting the lawn equipment during removal of the front caster wheels and installation of the replacement front frame”, the question is what would result from the combined teachings of the references. See in re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, that result would be the deployable support leg of Harris supporting the modified lawn equipment of Brewer/et.al. during installation or removal of the front frame.
Regarding claim 2, Brewer as modified teaches the conversion system wherein the replacement front frame 16 comprises a pair of parallel spaced extension elements 60, and a cross support frame element 79, and further comprises equipment support brackets (Col. 3, lines 22-27, Figs. 3-5; Brewer as modified by Bergsten teaches the replacement frame being provided at the front and including equipment support brackets).
Regarding claim 3, Brewer as modified teaches wherein each drive wheel assembly comprises an independent hydraulic motor operative to drive a respective drive wheels, and the conversion system comprises hydraulic lines configured to establish connections of a hydraulic power source of the lawn equipment ([0023] and [0128], Figs. 1-2 and 9 of Nozaki.
Regarding claim 4, Brewer as modified teaches wherein the pair of deployable support legs are configured to be coupled to the equipment frame by corresponding fittings (Col. 5, lines 41-49 of Harris).
Regarding claim 6, Brewer as modified teaches wherein the equipment support brackets secure the mower deck to the replacement front frame in spaced relation to the drive wheel assemblies (Fig. 1 of Brewer, Figs. 5 and 16 of Bergsten; the modified conversion system of Brewer/et.al. teaches a replacement front frame with equipment support brackets; this will have the mower deck in spaced relation to the drive wheels).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brewer in view of Oswald, Bergsten, Nozaki, and Harris, and further in view of Morris (US 20200309196).
Regarding claim 5, Brewer as modified does not expressly teach wherein the cross support frame element further comprises a drive pulley assembly and gear box.
However, Morris teaches a front-mounted power take off implement to be mounted on an agricultural vehicle wherein a cross support frame 108 further comprises, a power take off drive pulley 110 assembly and gear box ([0018], Fig. 1 of Morris; the PTO implement may alternatively include a gearbox which can offset the rotational shaft axis due to structural design needs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified lawnmower of Bower et al to have the power take off drive pulley and gearbox of Morris provided in the cross support frame in order to advantageously provide a power take off system which is easily engageable ([0005] of Morris).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NATHANIEL WILLIAM WATKINS whose telephone number is (703)756-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -6:00 pm EST; Friday 8:30 am - 2:00 pm 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, John Olszewski can be reached at 5712722706. 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.
/N.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights