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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11596103. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is clear that the narrower apparatus claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11596103 covers the broader apparatus claims 1, 9, and 18 of the instant application, wherein a lawn mower comprising an accessory releasably coupled to a mower frame using a first and second linkage, a hook, latch, and cord of U.S. Patent No. 11596103 covers an accessory releasably coupled to a mower frame using a first and second linkage, a hook, latch, and cord of the instant application.
Claims 2-8, 10-17, and 19-20 are rejected under the nonstatutory double patenting rejections, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claims.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. [0003] lines 5-6 and Para. [0005] lines 5-6 recite “the second linkage member extending downwardly from the accessory frame”. It is clear from Applicant’s disclosure that “the second linkage member” refers to Applicant’s upper linkage member 202 to which latches 190 are coupled (see Fig. 3, para. [0022]). It is further clear from Figs. 3-4 that the second linkage member (i.e. upper linkage member 202) extends upwardly from the accessory frame 195, not downwardly as currently recited in para. [0003]. This is further supported from para. [0022] of the specification which recites “The upper linkage members 202 supporting the latches 190 extend in a second direction (e.g., generally forwardly and upwardly as viewed in Fig. 4)”. These portions of the para. [0003] and para. [0005] must therefore be corrected to read --the second linkage member extending upwardly from the accessory frame--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 13, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 line 1 “wherein hook” should be –wherein the hook--.
Claim 13 line 1 “wherein hook” should be –wherein the hook--.
Claim 19 line 1 “wherein hook” should be –wherein the hook--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 18-20 are 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.
Claim 1 lines 6-7 recite “the second linkage member extending downwardly from the accessory frame”. It is clear from the claim language that “a second linkage member” refers to Applicant’s upper linkage member 202 to which latches 190 are coupled (see Fig. 3, para. [0022]). It is further clear from Figs. 3-4 that the second linkage member (i.e. upper linkage member 202) extends upwardly from the accessory frame 195, not downwardly as currently recited in claim 1. This is further supported from para. [0022] of the specification which recites “The upper linkage members 202 supporting the latches 190 extend in a second direction (e.g., generally forwardly and upwardly as viewed in Fig. 4)”. The Examiner has therefore interpreted this portion of the claim as reading --the second linkage member extending upwardly from the accessory frame--.
Claim 10 line 3 and claim 18 lines 5-6 similarly recite “the second linkage member extending downwardly from the accessory frame” and have therefore interpreted as reading --the second linkage member extending upwardly from the accessory frame--.
By virtue of their dependence on claims 1 and 18, this basis of rejection also applies to dependent claims 2-8 and 19-20.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swart et al. (US 20030010006 A1) in view of Spiker et al. (US 4569187 A) or Bartel et al. (US 8528924 B1).
Regarding claims 1 and 9-10, Swart discloses an accessory (44) for use with a work vehicle (10), the work vehicle including a frame (12) having a first connection point (pin 26 in left wall 16) and a second connection point (portion of rear wall 20 received in latch 52) spaced apart from the first connection point, the accessory comprising:
an accessory frame (36) configured to support the accessory (cross member 36 supports connection assembly 30 and thus bagger assembly 44);
a first linkage member (32) extending downwardly from the accessory frame;
a second linkage member (40) spaced apart from the first linkage member (Fig. 2, leg 40 spaced from arm 32), the second linkage member extending upwardly from the accessory frame;
a hook (forward portion with opening 46) coupled to an end of the first linkage member, the hook configured to engage the first connection point (receives pin 26);
a latch (52) coupled to an end of the second linkage member, the latch being moveable between a first position (Fig. 1) in which the latch is configured to be secured to the second connection point and a second position (Fig. 3) in which the latch is released from the second connection point (para. [0026] slot 62 of latch 52 is pivoted into and out of engagement with rear wall 20); and
a bar (76) coupled to the latch, the bar operable to move the latch from the first position to the second position (para. [0028] user manipulates cross bar 76 to disengage latch 52 from rear wall 20), but fails to disclose wherein the bar is a cord.
Swart therefore discloses a bar instead of a cord for pivoting the latch.
Spiker teaches that it is old and well known in the lawn mowers to use a cord (rope 158) coupled to a latch (latch plate 160, see Fig.2) used to selectively secure an accessory (hopper door 72 of the hopper 10), wherein the cord is operable from the operator’s vehicle seat (col.7, lines 9-24) to disengage the latch (160) from a connection point (pins 164).
Similarly, Bartel discloses a work vehicle that uses a cord (cable 102) coupled to a latch mechanism (40) used to selectively secure an accessory (12), wherein the cord is operable from the operator’s seat to pivot the latch mechanism in a direction away from the work vehicle thereby releasing it (col. 5 lines 17-21).
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 work vehicle of Swart to utilize a cord coupled to the latch as taught by Spiker or Bartel in order to allow the operator to control the accessory from the operator’s seat. Furthermore, there are a limited number of choices as to what actuator to use to operate a latch in a work vehicle (e.g. a cord, bar, linkage, lever) and it would have been obvious as a design choice to consider and try, for the purpose of efficiency and design configuration, a cord to raise the latch (KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)).
Regarding independent claim 18, Swart discloses a quick connection assembly (30) configured to couple an accessory (44) to a frame (12) of a work vehicle (10), the quick connection assembly comprising:
an accessory frame (36) configured to support the accessory (cross member 36 supports connection assembly 30 and thus bagger assembly 44);
a first linkage member (32) extending downwardly from the accessory frame;
a second linkage member (40) spaced apart from the first linkage member (Fig. 2, leg 40 spaced from arm 32), the second linkage member extending upwardly from the accessory frame;
a hook (forward portion with opening 46) coupled to an end of the first linkage member, the hook configured to engage a first connection point (pin 26) of the frame (of left wall 16);
a latch (52) coupled to an end of the second linkage member, the latch being moveable between a first position (Fig. 1) in which the latch is configured to be secured to a second connection point (portion of rear wall 20 received in latch 52) of the frame, and a second position (Fig. 3) in which the latch is released from the second connection point of the frame (para. [0026] slot 62 of latch 52 is pivoted into and out of engagement with rear wall 20); and
a bar (76) coupled to the latch, the bar operable to move the latch from the first position to the second position (para. [0028] user manipulates cross bar 76 to disengage latch 52 from rear wall 20).
Swart therefore discloses a bar instead of a cord for pivoting the latch.
Spiker teaches that it is old and well known in the lawn mowers to use a cord (rope 158) coupled to a latch (latch plate 160, see Fig.2) used to selectively secure an accessory (hopper door 72 of the hopper 10), wherein the cord is operable from the operator’s vehicle seat (col.7, lines 9-24) to disengage the latch (160) from a connection point (pins 164).
Similarly, Bartel discloses a work vehicle that uses a cord (cable 102) coupled to a latch mechanism (40) used to selectively secure an accessory (12), wherein the cord is operable from the operator’s seat to pivot the latch mechanism in a direction away from the work vehicle thereby releasing it (col. 5 lines 17-21).
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 work vehicle of Swart to utilize a cord coupled to the latch as taught by Spiker or Bartel in order to allow the operator to control the accessory from the operator’s seat. Furthermore, there are a limited number of choices as to what actuator to use to operate a latch in a work vehicle (e.g. a cord, bar, linkage, lever) and it would have been obvious as a design choice to consider and try, for the purpose of efficiency and design configuration, a cord to raise the latch (KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, The combination of Swart discloses the accessory of claim 1 and 9, wherein the latch (52) is biased to the first position by a spring (84) (Fig. 2, para. [0021] spring 82 biases latch 52 into a latched position).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, The combination of Swart discloses the accessory of claim 1 and 9, wherein the latch (52) further includes a channel (62) configured to receive a portion (106) of the frame (12), and a lever (designated below) coupled to the cord, the lever moveable between the first and second positions (para. [0020] lever moves in unison with latch 52).
PNG
media_image1.png
632
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, 13, and 19, The combination of Swart discloses the accessory of claim 1 and 9 and the quick connection assembly of claim 18, wherein the hook (forward portion of 32 with opening 46) is a first hook, and the latch (52) is a first latch, the accessory further comprising:
a third linkage member (34);
a fourth linkage member (38) spaced apart from the third linkage member (Fig. 2, leg 38 spaced from arm 34);
a second hook (forward portion with opening 46) coupled to an end of the third linkage member, the second hook configured to engage a third connection point (pin 28) of the frame (in right wall 18); and
a second latch (50) coupled to an end of the fourth linkage member, the second latch being moveable between a first position (Fig. 1) in which the second latch is configured to be secured to a fourth connection point (portion of rear wall 20 received in latch 50) of the frame and a second position (Fig. 3) in which the latch is released from the frame (para. [0026] slot 62 of latch 50 is pivoted into and out of engagement with rear wall 20),
wherein the cord is also coupled to the second latch and is operable to move the second latch from the first position to the second position (para. [0020] manipulation of cord pivots latches 50,52 in unison between positions).
Regarding claim 5, 14, and 20, The combination of Swart discloses the accessory of claim 4 and 13 and the quick connection assembly of claim 19, wherein the first and second latches (52,50) are simultaneously moved from the first positions (Fig. 1) to the second positions (Fig. 3) by manipulation of the cord (para. [0020] manipulation of cord pivots latches 50,52 in unison between positions).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Swart in view of Bartel discloses the accessory of claim 1 and 9, wherein the cord is accessible to a user from behind the work vehicle (note that the BRI of “accessible” is “capable of being reached”. The cord 102 of Bartel is capable of being reached from behind the work vehicle), and wherein the cord is moveable away from the frame to move the latch from the first (latched) position to the second (unlatched) position (col. 5 lines 15-21, downward movement of cable 102 releases latching mechanism 40 by rotating the rearmost portion of cord 102 counterclockwise in a direction away from the vehicle as viewed in Figs. 1 and 3-8. Therefore, at least a portion of cord 102 moves away from the frame of vehicle 5).
Regarding claim 7 and 16, The combination of Swart discloses the accessory of claim 1 and 9, wherein the hook (forward portion with opening 46) is configured to pivot about the first connection point (para. [0026] arms 32 pivots about pin 26).
Regarding claim 8 and 17, The combination of Swart discloses the accessory of claim 1 and 9, wherein the latch (52) includes a first stop member (104) configured to limit movement of the latch beyond the first position (para. [0027] security latch prevents inadvertent releasing of latch 52 from frame 12) and a second stop member (78) configured to limit movement of the latch beyond the second position (bottom of para. [0020] lower bolts 78 act as stop members for limiting downward pivotal movement of latch 52, such as in the lower released/rest position of Fig. 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Asahara et al. (US 20060042214 A1) discloses pushing a control lever rearwardly from a lawn mower to release a latch. Morse et al. (US 4800712 A) discloses a grass catcher mounting system. Merkel (US 4532756 A) discloses a grass receptacle latching mechanism.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Joesph Rocca, can be reached on (571) 272-8971. 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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671