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 Claims
This communication is in response to Application 18/292,487 filed on 07/06/2026.
Claims 1, 9-10 and 12 have been amended. Claim 8 has been canceled. Claim 19 is new. Claims 1-7 and 9-19 are currently pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s amendment to paragraph 6 correcting “us interaction” to “user interaction” has been considered. Accordingly, the objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 correcting “us interaction” to “user interaction” has been considered. Accordingly, the objection to claim 1 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments/remarks filed on 07/06/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are addressed below.
Arguments Regarding the Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 102
Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant argues that Zeiler ‘133 does not anticipate amended claim 1 because Zeiler ‘133 fails to disclose a combined display and control element configured as a graphical control that enables direct adjustment of an operating parameter in response to touch input. Applicant further argues that the operational information and suggestions displayed by Zeiler ‘133, including suggestions to slow down drive speed, slow down blade speed, or increase blade speed, are merely informational and do not enable the operator to directly adjust those operating parameters through a displayed touchscreen control. Applicant contrasts Zeiler ‘133 with the blade speed control and drive speed control described in the present application as examples of combined display and control elements that directly change an operating parameter in response to touch input. Applicant therefore contends that claim 1 and the claims depending therefrom are allowable.
Examiner’s Response
Applicant’s arguments have been considered. In view of the amendment to claim 1, the prior rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Zeiler ‘133 is withdrawn. The presently formulated rejection does not rely upon Zeiler ‘133 alone as disclosing the newly added limitation of claim 1, nor does the Examiner rely upon the operational suggestions of Zeiler ‘133 as satisfying that limitation. Rather, Zeiler ‘133 is relied upon in the presently stated rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the underlying outdoor power machine and touchscreen-control architecture. Zeiler ‘133 discloses user interface 160 including touchscreen 161 configured to receive operator input, wherein interaction with user interface 160 provides commands to control system 200 for controlling mower 100 (¶[0060]). Zeiler ‘338 is relied upon for the additional claimed combined display and control functionality, as addressed in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 below. Accordingly, the prior rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 is withdrawn. However, withdrawal of the anticipation rejection does not establish patentability over the prior art as a whole.
II. Arguments Regarding the Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant argues that Zeiler ‘338 does not cure the deficiency of Zeiler ‘133 because selecting operational settings from a menu is fundamentally different from displaying a graphical control element that directly adjusts machine operation. Applicant further relies upon a graphical control such as a bar graph having touch-responsive speed icons as an example of the claimed combined display and control element. Applicant also specifically argues that neither Zeiler reference discloses the subject matter of claim 10 requiring a combined display and control element responsive to set a maximum speed of the two or more drive wheel assemblies in response to operation of the drive speed control. Applicant additionally contends that the dependent claims are allowable because claim 1 is allegedly allowable and states that newly presented claim 19 is believed allowable for many of the same reasons.
Examiner’s Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to claim 1, Zeiler ‘338 teaches a digital display 48 configured as a touchscreen permitting the operator to select information from a menu screen and change various operational settings, including mower deck height and maximum speed ([¶0088]). Zeiler ‘338 further teaches secondary screen 402 displaying operator-selectable drive mode settings, including “Park,” “Transit,” and “Cut,” wherein the operator may select a displayed drive mode directly via touchscreen digital display 48 ([¶0089], FIG. 15B). Accordingly, Zeiler ‘338 teaches a displayed graphical setting that is both displayed by and directly operated through the touchscreen. When ¶¶[0088]-[0089] are considered together, Zeiler ‘338 teaches the claimed combined display and control element configured as a graphical control that enables direct adjustment of an operating parameter in response to touch input.
Applicant’s reliance upon a particular bar graph or touch responsive speed icons does not distinguish claim 1 because claim 1 does not require any particular graphical configuration. To the extent Applicant relies upon a bar graph having touch responsive icons as distinguishing the narrower subject matter recited in claim 9, Yamamoto (US 20200399857A1) is relied upon for the additional limitation requiring the combined display and control element to be configured as a bar graph displaying a current value of the operating parameter and including touch responsive icons for adjusting the operating parameter (¶[0118, [120], and [121]). Accordingly, Applicant’s reliance upon the bar graph configuration does not overcome the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Zeiler ‘133 in view of Zeiler ‘338 and further in view of Yamamoto.
With respect to claim 10, Zeiler ‘338 teaches that touchscreen digital display 48 permits the operator to change operational settings, including maximum speed (¶[0088]), and further teaches director operator interaction with displayed settings through the touchscreen (¶[0089]). When applied to the electrically driven wheel assemblies of Zeiler ‘133, Zeiler ‘338 provides the claimed touchscreen displayed drive speed control through which a maximum operating speed of the drive wheel assemblies is set.
Applicant’s contention that the remaining dependent claims are allowable merely because they depend from claim 1 is also not persuasive because claim 1 remains unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Zeiler ‘133 in view of Zeiler ‘338. The additional limitations of the respective dependent claims are separately addressed in the rejections set forth above.
With respect to claim 19, Applicant’s general reliance upon the arguments presented above does not establish patentability. Claim 19 is separately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Zeiler et al., (US20200113133A1) in view of Ruhter et al., (US 20090223736A1) and further in view of Denny (US 6039141A). Zeiler ‘133 teaches the underlying outdoor power machine and touchscreen control features, Ruhter teaches the spaced first and second consoles with the operator seat positioned therebetween, and Denny teaches the mounting and orientation of the user control panel toward the seated operator, as set forth in the rejection below. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the presently stated rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeffery Zeiler et al., US 20200113133A1, in view of Zeiler et al., US 20200205338A1, hereinafter referred to as Zeiler ‘133 and Zeiler ‘338, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Zeiler ‘133 discloses an outdoor power machine (One embodiment of the disclosure is a lawnmower including a cutting deck – See at least ¶3), comprising:
a chassis (A chassis – See at least ¶43 and FIG. 12);
two or more drive wheel assemblies physically mounted to the chassis, each drive wheel assembly coupled to an electric motor (FIG. 1 illustrates a piece of outdoor power equipment, in the form of a stand-on electric mower, which includes one or more drive motors and one or more chore motors electrically coupled to and powered by an energy storage device. The mower includes rear drive wheels and front wheels. The rear drive wheels are each driven by one of the drive motors. In other embodiments, the mower can include more or less wheels and/or drive motors. In some embodiments, the front wheels are driven – See at least ¶38 and FIG. 1. The drive motors are mounted onto the chassis of the mower from the outside of the rear drive wheels – See at least ¶43);
an electric power pack configured to supply electric energy to the electric motors (The mower is shown to include an energy storage device (e.g., battery). The energy storage device is shown positioned beneath a hood of the mower. The energy storage device provides energy to the components of the mower including, but not limited to, the chore motors, drive motors, motor controllers, user interface, control system – See at least ¶40);
one or more steer wheels (The mower includes rear drive wheels and front wheels. The rear drive wheels are each driven by one of the drive motors. In other embodiments, the mower can include more or less wheels and/or drive motors – See at least ¶38 and FIG. 1); and
a user control panel including a touchscreen display configured to display one or more control elements and to control one or more functions of the outdoor power machine in response to user interaction with the one or more control elements (The user interface also includes a touchscreen and/or selector interfaces (e.g., push-buttons, toggles, etc.) which may receive input from the operator. The selector interfaces may correspond to similar functions on the touchscreen. In some embodiments, an operator interacts with one of the selector interfaces to activate the touchscreen. Through interaction with the user interface, the operator inputs commands into the control system, which in turn, controls the mower based on the operator input – See at least ¶60 and FIG. 13A).
Zeiler ‘133 fails to disclose wherein at least one of the control elements is a combined display and control element configured as a graphical control that enables direct adjustment of an operating parameter of the outdoor power machine in response to a touch input on the combined display and control element.
However, Zeiler ‘338 teaches wherein at least one of the control elements is a combined display and control element configured as a graphical control that enables direct adjustment of an operating parameter of the outdoor power machine in response to a touch input on the combined display and control element (Digital display 48 is configured as a touchscreen that allows the operator to change operational settings, including maximum speed (i.e. direct adjustment of an operating parameter) – See at least ¶88. A secondary screen 402 display drive mode settings, such as “Park”, “Transit”, and “Cut”, that are selected directly via touchscreen digital display 48 (i.e. combined display and control element/graphical control responsive to touch input) – See at least ¶89 and FIG. 15B).
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 invention of Zeiler ‘133 and include the feature of wherein at least one of the control elements is a combined display and control element configured as a graphical control that enables direct adjustment of an operating parameter of the outdoor power machine in response to a touch input on the combined display and control element, as taught by Zeiler ‘338, in order to allow the operator to directly access and change operational settings through the touchscreen display.
Regarding claim 2, Zeiler ‘133, as modified, discloses wherein the touchscreen display is configured to display the one or more control elements embodied in a menu tree including one or more menu screens (The user interface display illustrates a menu screen, which displays selectable options including, but not limited to, a battery option, a key-on hours option, a vehicle diagnosis option, a lockout option, a screen options option, and another option – See at least ¶89 and FIGS. 14-18).
Regarding claim 3, Zeiler ‘133 fails to disclose wherein the menu tree includes two or more top-level menu screens.
However, Zeiler ‘338 teaches wherein the menu tree includes two or more top-level menu screens (Referring now to FIGS. 15C-15D, respective display screens 404, 406 providing various forms of operational information to the operator are shown – See at least ¶91).
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 invention of Zeiler ‘133 and include the feature of wherein the menu tree includes two or more top-level menu screens, as taught by Zeiler ‘338, in order to better provide operator comfort and improve cutting performance (See at least ¶3 of Zeiler ‘338).
Regarding claim 4, Zeiler ‘133, as modified, discloses wherein the user control panel includes one or more hardware buttons (The user interface also includes a touchscreen and/or selector interfaces (e.g., push-buttons, toggles, etc.) which may receive input from the operator – See at least ¶60).
Regarding claim 5, Zeiler ‘133 fails to disclose wherein the user control panel includes one or more hardware buttons and the touchscreen display is configured to display selected ones of two or more top level menu screens in response to operation of the one or more hardware buttons.
However, Zeiler ‘338 teaches wherein the user control panel includes one or more hardware buttons and the touchscreen display is configured to display selected ones of two or more top level menu screens in response to operation of the one or more hardware buttons (The operator may use one or more fingers to operate forward paddle and reverse paddle, with the speed of the lawnmower in either direction (as well as the speed at which turns are performed) dictated by the degree in which each respective paddle is pulled toward the operator. Additionally and/or alternatively, control assembly may incorporate a cruise control button, which enables the operator to set a preferred speed of operation without the need to maintain a constant force on either paddle – See at least ¶78).
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 invention of Zeiler ‘133 and include the feature of wherein the user control panel includes one or more hardware buttons and the touchscreen display is configured to display selected ones of two or more top level menu screens in response to operation of the one or more hardware buttons, as taught by Zeiler ‘338, in order to better provide operator comfort and improve cutting performance (See at least ¶3 of Zeiler ‘338).
Regarding claim 6, Zeiler ‘133, as modified, discloses where the touch screen display is configured to display the one or more control elements embodying in a menu tree including one or more menu screens, the menu tree including a home screen which includes a battery charger status indicator (In some embodiments, if the operator touches the operational time portion of the screen, the battery charge level is displayed. Referring to FIG. 18, the user interface display illustrates a menu screen, which displays selectable options including, but not limited to, a battery option – See at least ¶89 and FIG. 18).
Regarding claim 7, Zeiler ‘133, as modified, discloses wherein the user control panel includes a hardware button designated as a home button, and the touch screen display is configured to display the home screen in response to activation of the home button (An operator may view this screen upon starting up or activating the user interface by pressing one or the selector interfaces, touching the user interface, etc. In FIG. 15, the user interface display illustrates a start screen which displays the current time, a remaining battery percentage, and the ambient temperature. An operator may tap the screen to initiate interaction with the user interface – See at least ¶88).
Regarding claim 10, Zeiler ‘133 fails to disclose wherein the touchscreen display is configured to display a drive speed control as the combined display and control element and is responsive to set a maximum speed of the two or more drive wheel assemblies in response to operation of the drive speed control.
However, Zeiler ‘338 teaches wherein the touchscreen display is configured to display a drive speed control as the combined display and control element and is responsive to set a maximum speed of the two or more drive wheel assemblies in response to operation of the drive speed control (Additionally and/or alternatively, digital display may be configured as a touchscreen display, thereby allowing the operator to select information from a menu screen, change various operational settings (e.g., mower deck height, maximum speed, etc.) – See at least ¶88).
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 invention of Zeiler ‘133 and include the feature of wherein the touchscreen display is configured to display a drive speed control and is responsive to set a maximum speed of the two or more drive wheel assemblies in response to operation of the drive speed control, as taught by Zeiler ‘338, in order to better provide operator comfort and improve cutting performance (See at least ¶3 of Zeiler ‘338).
Regarding claim 11, Zeiler ‘133, as modified, discloses a mowing deck assembly, including: a mowing deck; an electric blade motor; and a cutting blade coupled to the blade motor (One embodiment of the disclosure is a lawnmower including a cutting deck, a cutting blade positioned below the cutting deck, and an electric motor couple to and configured to drive the cutting blade. The electric motor is positioned at least partially below the cutting deck – See at least ¶3).
Regarding claim 12, Zeiler ‘133 discloses wherein the touchscreen display is configured to display a blade speed control and is responsive to set a speed of the electric blade motor in response to operation of the blade speed control (The display can also provide an indication of blade operation time. The display can also provide an indication of whether the blades are currently operational (e.g., blades are off, blades are on, etc.) – See at least ¶64. The efficiency circuit may calculate an efficiency score based on the operational data to display to the operator via the user interface. In some embodiments, the efficiency circuit can cause the display to display suggestions to the operator for more efficient operation (e.g., slow down drive speed, slow down blade speed, increase blade speed – See at least ¶74).
Zeiler ‘133 fails to disclose wherein the touchscreen display is configured to display a control as the combined display and control element.
However, Zeiler ‘338 teaches wherein the touchscreen display is configured to display a control as the combined display and control element (Digital display 48 is configured as a touchscreen that displays operator selectable operational settings and permits those settings to be changed through the touchscreen – See at least ¶88 and 89).
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 invention of Zeiler ‘133 and include the feature of wherein the touchscreen display is configured to display a control as the combined display and control element, as taught by Zeiler ‘338, in order to allow the operator to directly access and change the blade speed operating setting through the touchscreen display.
Regarding claim 13, Zeiler ‘133 fails to disclose wherein the mowing deck includes two or more electric blade motors, and the blade speed control is responsive to set a speed of the two or more electric blade motors.
However, Zeiler ‘338 teaches wherein the mowing deck includes two or more electric blade motors, and the blade speed control is responsive to set a speed of the two or more electric blade motors (The modular mower deck may include a plurality of mower deck modules, each of the mower deck modules having a blade assembly, the blade assembly comprising at least one mower blade, an electric blade motor configured to provide rotation to the blade assembly, and an attachment assembly configured to enable attachment between adjacent mower deck modules. At least one of the plurality of mower deck modules may be configured to be removably attachable to another one of the plurality of mower deck modules – See at least ¶7. Each mower deck module may include a dedicated electric blade motor, each of which is configured to provide rotation for each blade within deck modules – See at least ¶65).
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 invention of Zeiler ‘133 and include the feature of wherein the mowing deck includes two or more electric blade motors, and the blade speed control is responsive to set a speed of the two or more electric blade motors, as taught by Zeiler ‘338, in order to better provide operator comfort and improve cutting performance (See at least ¶3 of Zeiler ‘338).
Regarding claim 14, Zeiler ‘133, as modified, discloses an operator station, wherein the user control panel is angled so as to face a user standing or seated in the operator station (The operator area includes a platform on which the operator stands while operating the mower. The platform may include sensors to detect when the operator is positioned on the platform. Padding may support the operator while the operator is standing on the platform such that the operator may rest a portion of his or her body on the padding while operating the mower – See at least ¶39).
Regarding claim 15, Zeiler ‘133 fails to disclose wherein the user control panel is oriented at a non parallel, non-perpendicular angle from a vertical direction and is also angled at a non-parallel, non-perpendicular angle from a longitudinal centerline of the chassis.
However, Zeiler ‘338 teaches wherein the user control panel is oriented at a non parallel, non-perpendicular angle from a vertical direction and is also angled at a non-parallel, non-perpendicular angle from a longitudinal centerline of the chassis (Next, referring to FIG. 19, another view of zero turn radius lawnmower in accordance with an aspect of the disclosure is shown, with at least one body panel removed to show interior components of the zero turn radius lawnmower. As noted above, zero turn radius lawnmower may be powered by any appropriate powerhead, such as, e.g., an internal combustion engine or a battery powered powerhead. The powerhead (not shown) may be mounted to a mounting plate, with mounting plate being coupled to a main chassis of the zero turn radius lawnmower – See at least ¶107).
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 invention of Zeiler ‘133 and include the feature of wherein the user control panel is oriented at a non parallel, non-perpendicular angle from a vertical direction and is also angled at a non-parallel, non-perpendicular angle from a longitudinal centerline of the chassis, as taught by Zeiler ‘338, in order to better provide operator comfort and improve cutting performance (See at least ¶3 of Zeiler ‘338).
Regarding claim 16, Zeiler ‘133, as modified, discloses wherein the touchscreen display is configured to display at least one operating statistic of the outdoor power machine (The status indicators are configured to indicate the status of various components of the mower. In some embodiments, the status indicator includes the indicator positioned proximate the user interface on the dashboard – See at least ¶67).
Regarding claim 17, Zeiler ‘133, as modified, discloses a standing platform for an operator (The operator area includes a platform on which the operator stands while operating the mower. The platform may include sensors to detect when the operator is positioned on the platform. Padding may support the operator while the operator is standing on the platform such that the operator may rest a portion of his or her body on the padding while operating the mower – See at least ¶39).
Regarding claim 18, Zeiler ‘133 fails to disclose a seat for an operator.
However, Zeiler ‘338 discloses a seat for an operator (An operator seat also extends from main chassis, with seat configured as a saddle-type base over which the operator's legs may straddle during operation of the zero turn radius lawnmower – See at least ¶57).
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 invention of Zeiler ‘133 and include the feature of a seat for an operator, as taught by Zeiler ‘338, in order to better provide operator comfort and improve cutting performance (See at least ¶3 of Zeiler ‘338).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeffery Zeiler et al., US 20200113133A1, in view of Zeiler et al., US 20200205338A1, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Takashi Yamamoto, US 20200399857A1, hereinafter referred to as Zeiler ‘133, Zeiler ‘338 and Yamamoto, respectively.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Zeiler ‘133 and Zeiler ‘338 fail to disclose wherein the combined display and control element is configured as a bar graph displaying a current value of the operating parameter and including touch-responsive icons for adjusting the operating parameter.
However, Yamamoto teaches wherein the combined display and control element is configured as a bar graph displaying a current value of the operating parameter and including touch-responsive icons for adjusting the operating parameter (Relative reactivity setting screen 400 includes bar graphs 404A and 404B displaying respective operating levels, such as “level 4” and “level 6” – See at least ¶117-118; the displayed levels are adjustable through graphical control icons – See at least ¶119; and touch operation on arrow icons 402 and 402 through the touchscreen changes the corresponding bar graph levels – See at least ¶120-121).
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 combination of Zeiler ‘133 and Zeiler ‘338 and include the feature of wherein the combined display and control element is configured as a bar graph displaying a current value of the operating parameter and including touch-responsive icons for adjusting the operating parameter, as taught by Yamamoto, in order to allow the operator to visually determine a current operating setting and directly adjust the operating setting through the touchscreen.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeffery Zeiler et al., US 20200113133A1, in view of Ruhter et al., US 20090223736A1, and in view of Thomas M. Denny, US 6039141A1, hereinafter referred to as Zeiler ‘133, Ruhter and Denny, respectively.
Regarding claim 19, Zeiler ‘133 discloses an outdoor power machine (One embodiment of the disclosure is a lawnmower including a cutting deck – See at least ¶3), comprising:
a chassis (A chassis – See at least ¶43 and FIG. 12);
two or more drive wheel assemblies physically mounted to the chassis, each drive wheel assembly coupled to an electric motor (FIG. 1 illustrates a piece of outdoor power equipment, in the form of a stand-on electric mower, which includes one or more drive motors and one or more chore motors electrically coupled to and powered by an energy storage device. The mower includes rear drive wheels and front wheels. The rear drive wheels are each driven by one of the drive motors. In other embodiments, the mower can include more or less wheels and/or drive motors. In some embodiments, the front wheels are driven – See at least ¶38 and FIG. 1. The drive motors are mounted onto the chassis of the mower from the outside of the rear drive wheels – See at least ¶43);
an electric power pack configured to supply electric energy to the electric motors (The mower is shown to include an energy storage device (e.g., battery). The energy storage device is shown positioned beneath a hood of the mower. The energy storage device provides energy to the components of the mower including, but not limited to, the chore motors, drive motors, motor controllers, user interface, control system – See at least ¶40);
a body enclosing the electric power pack (The mower is shown to include an energy storage device 140 (e.g., battery). The energy storage device 140 is shown positioned beneath a hood 142 of the mower – See at least ¶40); and
a user control panel including a touchscreen display configured to display one or more control elements and to control one or more functions of the outdoor power machine in response to user interaction with the one or more control elements (User interface 160 includes touchscreen 161 for receiving operator input, whereby operator interaction inputs commands to control system 200 which controls mower 100 – See at least ¶59-60 and 62).
Zeiler ‘133 fails to disclose a first console and a second console spaced from the first console; an operator seat positioned on the body between the first and second consoles; and one or more steer wheels for operation by a user in the operator seat.
However, Ruhter teaches:
a first console and a second console spaced from the first console (Innermost portions of control consoles 40 define a control console gap 41 between control consoles 40 – See at least ¶62);
an operator seat positioned on the body between the first and second consoles (Seat 34 of operator seat assembly 30 is positioned between control consoles 40 – See at least ¶54, 62 and FIGs. 3 and 5B); and
one or more steer wheels for operation by a user in the operator seat (Steering wheel 31 is positioned forward of operator seat assembly 30 and controls steering of motor grader 10, while operator 55 is supported by operator seat assembly 30 – See at least ¶56, 79).
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 invention of Zeiler ‘133 and include the feature of a first console and a second console spaced from the first console; an operator seat positioned on the body between the first and second consoles; and one or more steer wheels for operation by a user in the operator seat, as taught by Ruhter, in order to place the operator controls nearer to the operator to improve operator visibility and reduce operator fatigue (See at least ¶59 of Ruhter).
The combination of Zeiler ‘133 and Ruhter fail to disclose a user control panel mounted on one of the first and second consoles and oriented such that a touchscreen display of the user control panel faces nearly directly to the user in the operator seat.
However, Denny teaches a user control panel mounted on one of the first and second consoles and oriented such that a touchscreen display of the user control panel faces nearly directly to the user in the operator seat (Control and display unit 50 is fixedly attached to armrest control unit 48 and positioned such that an operator seated upon seat 44 can easily visually access control and display unit 50; control and display unit 50 further includes touchscreen 132 – See at least col. 5, lines 10-36).
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 combination of Zeiler ‘133 and Ruhter and include the feature of a user control panel mounted on one of the first and second consoles and oriented such that a touchscreen display of the user control panel faces nearly directly to the user in the operator seat, as taught by Denny, to provide the operator with an improved operator station which permits operator movement within the station so that the operator maintains a relatively direct line of sight to the display and access to instrumentation and controls during movement (See at least col. 2, lines 1-9 of Denny).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fukano et al., US 11246261B2 discloses a walk-behind power equipment, comprising: a main body provided with a front wheel and a rear wheel; a work unit provided on the main body; a work motor that drives the work unit; a travel motor that rotates the rear wheel; a handle provided on the main body to extend rearward and upward; a posture detection means that detects a rearward tilted state of the main body in which the rear wheel is in contact with a ground and the front wheel is spaced from the ground.
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 MAHMOUD M KAZIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-3436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 5712703713. 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.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
/MAHMOUD M KAZIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights