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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/05/2024, 5/13/2024, 7/23/2024, and 9/23/2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
However, it is noted that it is impractical for the Examiner to review the references thoroughly with the number of references cited in this case. By initializing each of the cited references on the accompanying 1449 forms, the Examiner is merely acknowledging the submission of the cited references and merely indicating that only a cursory review has been made of the cited references. If Applicant is aware of pertinent material in the references, it should be so stated in a response to this Office action.
Applicant is reminded of section 2004, paragraph 13, of the MPEP which states: It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant's attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aft'd, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Further, it should be noted that an applicant's duty of disclosure of material and information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with "a mountain of largely irrelevant material from which he is presumed to have been able, with his experience and with adequate time, to have found the critical [material]. It ignores the real world conditions under which examiners work." Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chemical co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573 [220 USPQ 289] (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. Denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). Patent applicant has a duty not just to disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such a way as not to "bury" it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art; see Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 USPQ2d 180i (N~D. Ind. 1992); Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 26 USPQ2d 1889, at 1899 (D.Del 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc. et al., 175 USPQ 260, at 272 (S.D. Fl. 1972).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “envelope” (Claim 7) must be shown and labeled or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1/11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the operator’s feet” (Claim 1, line 13; Claim 11, line 19) should be rewritten as: “at least one foot of an operator.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8/10/18/20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “at least one at least one” should be rewritten as: “at least one”. 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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1/11, the claims recite the limitation: “the battery packs" (Claim 1, line 18; Claim 11, line 15) which is of unclear antecedent basis and therefore renders the claims indefinite. The limitation should most likely be rewritten as “the at least one battery.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, and 11-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 2 and 11, the claims recite the limitation: "substantially parallel", which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. The term renders the claims indefinite, since the term is a relative term. The term "substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Since no tolerances have been defined by the specification or claims, it's impossible to determine what range has been actually claimed, thus rendering the scope of the claim(s) not clearly defined. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-7, and 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamb et al. (US 5,540,037) in view of Wei et al. (US 12,083,903 B2).
[Claim 1] Regarding Claim 1, Lamb discloses: An electric lawn apparatus (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 10) comprising: a frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 12) including an upper body, two side plates extending downwardly from sides of the upper body (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 12), and a lower support body (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 12) extending forward at a lower position than the upper body (See, e.g., Fig.1-17);
an operator seat (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 62) mounted on the upper body (See, e.g., Fig.1-17);
two drive motors (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 162) secured to the side plates for driving two tires located adjacent the side plates (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 14);
a mow deck (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 18) secured below the lower support body of the frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-17), the mow deck supporting a plurality of deck motors (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 22+192) each driving at least one mow blade (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 18);
at least one battery (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 24+26) supported by the frame and configured to supply electric power to the two drive motors and the plurality of deck motors (See, e.g., Fig.1-17);
a footrest platform (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 74+124) secured to the lower support body of the frame forward of the operator seat positioned for placement of the operator's feet when the operator is in a seated position (See, e.g., Fig.1-17); and
a motor control panel (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 122+300+312) secured to the lower support body of the frame between the mow deck and the footrest platform (See, e.g., Fig.1-17), wherein the motor control panel comprises a plate (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 122) that supports a plurality of control modules configured to control a supply of electric power from the battery packs to the drive motors and the plurality of deck motors (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 300+312).
Lamb fails to explicitly teach: two drive motors secured to the side plates for driving two rear tires located adjacent the side plates.
However, Wei teaches a similar electric lawn apparatus (See, e.g., Wei: Fig.1-3, 100) wherein two drive motors secured to side plates for driving two rear tires located adjacent the side plates (See, e.g., Wei: Fig.1-3, 122).
Wei teaches that it is well known in the art of vehicle design to provide the vehicle with two drive motors in two rear tires. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system taught by Lamb modified to provide the vehicle with two drive motors in two rear tires such as taught by Wei, for the purpose of conveniently providing the drive wheels beneath the heaviest portion of the vehicle (i.e., power source) in order to properly support the weight and beneficially allowing a user to have increased and efficient traction and control of the vehicle. Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
[Claim 2] Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Lamb in view of Wei teaches:
wherein the plate extends substantially parallel to the footrest platform (See, e.g., Fig.1-17), and the plurality of control modules is mounted on an upper surface of the plate facing the footrest platform (See, e.g., Fig.1-17).
[Claim 3] Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Lamb in view of Wei teaches: wherein at least one of the plurality of control modules comprises a mounting frame made of thermally-conductive material fastened to the plate, a circuit board mounted within the mounting frame, a plurality of power switches configured as an inverter circuit, and a controller configured to control a switching operation of the plurality of power switches to regulate a supply of power to the respective drive motor or deck motor (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 126+300+312).
[Claim 4] Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Lamb in view of Wei teaches: wherein in the at least one control module, the plurality of power switches comprises a first array of power switches mounted on a top surface of the circuit board and a second array of power switches mounted on a bottom surface of the circuit board (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 300+312).
[Claim 5] Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Lamb in view of Wei teaches: wherein the plurality of power switches includes three pairs of high-side power switches and three pairs of low-side power switches, wherein each pair includes two power switches connected in parallel and driven via a common drive signal (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 300+312).
[Claim 6] Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Lamb in view of Wei teaches: wherein the lower support body comprises two link rods (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 12) extending forward from the upper body and supporting two front wheels (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 14), and wherein the plate of the motor control panel is secured between the two link rods (See, e.g., Fig.1-17).
The combination of Lamb in view of Wei teaches fails to explicitly teach: two front caster wheels.
However, Wei teaches a similar electric lawn apparatus (See, e.g., Wei: Fig.1-3, 100) with two front caster wheels (See, e.g., Wei: Fig.1-3, 111).
Wei teaches that it is well known in the art of vehicle design to provide the vehicle with two front caster wheels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system taught by Lamb modified to provide the vehicle with two front caster wheels such as taught by Wei, for the purpose of conveniently providing the front wheels beneath the driver seat of the vehicle nearer to the mowing decks in order to properly allow a driver to have increased and efficient traction and control of the vehicle and mowing pattern. Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
[Claim 7] Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Lamb in view of Wei teaches: wherein the plurality of deck motors includes at least three deck motors (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 22+192), and wherein two of plurality of deck motors are located outside an envelope defined by the lower support body of the frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-17) and one of the plurality of deck motors is located below the plate of the motor control panel (See, e.g., Fig.1-17).
[Claim 11] Regarding Claim 11, Lamb teaches: An electric lawn apparatus (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 10) comprising: a frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 12) including an upper body, two side plates extending downwardly from sides of the upper body, and a lower support body extending forward at a lower position than the upper body (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 12);
an operator seat (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 62) mounted on the upper body (See, e.g., Fig.1-17);
two drive motors (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 162) secured to the side plates for driving two tires located adjacent the side plates (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 14);
a mow deck (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 18) secured below the lower support body of the frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-17), the mow deck supporting a plurality of deck motors (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 22+192) each driving at least one mow blade (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 18);
at least one battery (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 24+26) supported by the frame and configured to supply electric power to the two drive motors and the plurality of deck motors (See, e.g., Fig.1-17);
a motor control panel (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 122+300+312) secured to the lower support body of the frame above the mow deck along a first plane (See, e.g., Fig.1-17), wherein the motor control panel comprises a plurality of control modules (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 300+312) configured to control a supply of electric power from the battery packs to the drive motors and the plurality of deck motors (See, e.g., Fig.1-17); and
a footrest platform (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 74+124) mounted above the motor control panel along a second plane substantially parallel to the first plane (See, e.g., Fig.1-17), the footrest platform being positioned for placement of the operator's feet when the operator is in a seated position (See, e.g., Fig.1-17).
Lamb fails to explicitly teach: two drive motors secured to the side plates for driving two rear tires located adjacent the side plates.
However, Wei teaches a similar electric lawn apparatus (See, e.g., Wei: Fig.1-3, 100) wherein two drive motors secured to side plates for driving two rear tires located adjacent the side plates (See, e.g., Wei: Fig.1-3, 122).
Wei teaches that it is well known in the art of vehicle design to provide the vehicle with two drive motors in two rear tires. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system taught by Lamb modified to provide the vehicle with two drive motors in two rear tires such as taught by Wei, for the purpose of conveniently providing the drive wheels beneath the heaviest portion of the vehicle (i.e., power source) in order to properly support the weight and beneficially allowing a user to have increased and efficient traction and control of the vehicle. Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
[Claim 12] Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Lamb in view of Wei teaches: wherein the motor control panel comprises a plate(See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 122), wherein the plurality of control modules is mounted on an upper surface of the plate facing the footrest platform (See, e.g., Fig.1-17).
[Claim 13] Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Lamb in view of Wei teaches: wherein at least one of the plurality of control modules comprises a mounting frame made of thermally-conductive material fastened to the plate, a circuit board mounted within the mounting frame, a plurality of power switches configured as an inverter circuit, and a controller configured to control a switching operation of the plurality of power switches to regulate a supply of power to the respective drive motor or deck motor (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 126+300+312).
[Claim 14] Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Lamb in view of Wei teaches: wherein in the at least one control module, the plurality of power switches comprises a first array of power switches mounted on a top surface of the circuit board and a second array of power switches mounted on a bottom surface of the circuit board (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 300+312).
[Claim 15] Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Lamb in view of Wei teaches: wherein the plurality of power switches includes three pairs of high-side power switches and three pairs of low-side power switches, wherein each pair includes two power switches connected in parallel and driven via a common drive signal (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 300+312).
[Claim 16] Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Lamb in view of Wei teaches: wherein the lower support body comprises two link rods (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 12) extending forward from the upper body and supporting two front wheels (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 14), and wherein the motor control panel is secured between the two link rods (See, e.g., Fig.1-17).
The combination of Lamb in view of Wei teaches fails to explicitly teach: two front caster wheels.
However, Wei teaches a similar electric lawn apparatus (See, e.g., Wei: Fig.1-3, 100) with two front caster wheels (See, e.g., Wei: Fig.1-3, 111).
Wei teaches that it is well known in the art of vehicle design to provide the vehicle with two front caster wheels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system taught by Lamb modified to provide the vehicle with two front caster wheels such as taught by Wei, for the purpose of conveniently providing the front wheels beneath the driver seat of the vehicle nearer to the mowing decks in order to properly allow a driver to have increased and efficient traction and control of the vehicle and mowing pattern. Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
[Claim 17] Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Lamb in view of Wei teaches: wherein the at least one battery comprises a plurality of battery packs (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 24+26) received into a battery compartment (See, e.g., Fig.1-17, 12+52) at least partially between the two rear tires (See, e.g., Lamb: Fig.1-17 in view of Wei: Fig.1-3), wherein the first plane intersects the plurality of battery packs (See, e.g., Fig.1-17).
Claims 8-10, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamb et al. (US 5,540,037) in view of Wei et al. (US 12,083,903 B2) and further in view of Reimers et al. (US 6,857,253 B2).
[Claim 8/18] Regarding Claim 8/18, the combination of Lamb in view of Wei fails to explicitly teach: wherein the motor control panel further comprises at least one at least one regenerative energy control module configured to monitor a voltage from the at least one battery, the electric lawn apparatus further comprising at least one regenerative energy absorbing module that is activated by the at least one regenerative energy control module when the voltage from the battery exceeds a voltage threshold.
However, Reimers teaches a similar electric lawn apparatus (See, e.g., Reimers: Fig.1-9, 10) wherein the motor control panel further comprises at least one at least one regenerative energy control module (See, e.g., Reimers: Fig.1-9, 130+116+160+208+etc.) configured to monitor a voltage from the at least one battery (See, e.g., Reimers: Fig.1-9, 24), the electric lawn apparatus further comprising at least one regenerative energy absorbing module (See, e.g., Reimers: Fig.1-9, 130+116+160+208+etc.) that is activated by the at least one regenerative energy control module when the voltage from the battery exceeds a voltage threshold (See, e.g., Reimers: Fig.1-9; col.7-9).
Reimers teaches that it is well known in the art of electric lawn apparatus design to provide the motor control panel further comprising at least one regenerative energy control module and at least one regenerative energy absorbing module. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system taught by Lamb in view of Wei modified with the motor control panel having at least one regenerative energy control module and at least one regenerative energy absorbing module such as taught by Reimers, for the purpose of conveniently and efficiently controlling the mower drive motors and batteries during use, and beneficially allowing a user to increase the energy savings of the mower during use to thereby save money. Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
[Claim 9/19] Regarding Claim 9/19, the combination of Lamb in view of Wei and Reimers teaches: further comprising two operator side pods (See, e.g., Reimers: Fig.1-9, 36+212+etc) provided on two sides of the operator seat (See, e.g., Reimers: Fig.1-9), wherein the at least one regenerative energy absorbing module is housed within one of the operator side pods (See, e.g., Reimers: Fig.1-9).
[Claim 10/20] Regarding Claim 10/20, the combination of Lamb in view of Wei and Reimers teaches: further comprising a bus line (See, e.g., Reimers: Fig.1-9, 130+116+160+552+etc.) configured to deliver electric power from the battery to the plurality of control modules (See, e.g., Reimers: Fig.1-9), wherein the at least one at least one regenerative energy control module comprises a controller and at least one power switch (See, e.g., Reimers: Fig.1-9, 130+116+160+208+etc.), and wherein the controller is configured to switchably activate the at least one regenerative energy absorbing module across the bus line via the at least one power switch when the voltage on the bus line exceeds the voltage threshold (See, e.g., Reimers: Fig.1-9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DOLAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7757. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 EST Monday-Friday.
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, J ALLEN SHRIVER can be reached on 303-297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES M DOLAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613