DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 3 and 5 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.
Regarding claims 3 and 5: “the mechanical linkage” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8 and 10-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Curtis (US 2020/0170186).
Regarding claim 1, Curtis discloses a blade height adjustment mechanism for use with a lawn mower having a deck (102) and a blade (208), the blade height adjustment mechanism (Figure 4) comprising: an actuator (237) configured to adjust a height of the blade with respect to the deck in a height adjustment direction; and a biasing member (Figure 11, spring 260) configured to provide a force for supporting the blade (Provides a force on bearing 256 and rod 232f to aid in supporting the blade through cutting frame 216), the force defining a force axis that is transverse to the height adjustment direction (Spring 260 is situated transverse to the height adjustment direction).
a mount (216) configured to support the blade, the mount and the blade configured to be adjustable with respect to the deck in the height adjustment direction (via actuator 237);
and a pivotable first linkage (258) coupled to and extending between the biasing member and the mount.
Element 258 is considered “pivotable” as defined by Merriam Webster dictionary: “a person, thing, or factor having a major or central role, function, or effect”.
Regarding claim 2, Curtis discloses wherein the pivotable first linkage is configured to convert the force to a holding force configured to support the blade for movement in the height adjustment direction (Bearing 258 is pressed against rod 232 to support cutting frame 216 in the height adjustment direction).
Regarding claim 3, Curtis discloses wherein the mechanical linkage includes a pivotable crank (pivotable crank 249) and a translatable rod (translatable rods 232).
It is noted that the claim language is considered broad, the mechanical linkage is considered to comprise all the mechanical components between the actuator 237 and the blade 208. As the mechanical linkage all works together and is operationally connected together, the mechanical linkage works together during operation to convert the force of the spring when moving to a holding force when stopped.
Regarding claim 6, Curtis discloses a cam interface (helical interface between halves 244 shown in figure 8) disposed between the actuator and the blade.
Regarding claim 7, Curtis discloses a motor (204) for movement therewith (¶0047).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtis (US 2020/0170186).
Regarding claim 9, Curtis discloses both height adjustment via a manual actuator and a motorized actuator which both rotate about a central axis to change the height of the blade.
Curtis is lacking specifics on degrees of rotation in relationship to height of adjustment.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to construct the pitch of Curtis’s threads, the gearing, or other mechanical variables in the design of Curtis to match the rotation of the actuation device to raise and lower the blade to any given ratio to include at least 1.5 inches to 180 degrees of rotation, as these are mechanical result effective variables and Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10, 13, 15-16 and 19-20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 4-27-2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J BEHRENS whose telephone number is (303)297-4336. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-2pm MST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at (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 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.
/ADAM J BEHRENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights