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
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 6 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.
Claim 6, “manual actuator” lacs 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).
Regarding claim 2, Curtis discloses a mechanical linkage (to include bearing 256) configured to convert the force to a holding force configured to support the blade for movement in the height adjustment direction (Bearing 256 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 4, Curtis discloses 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 mechanical linkage operatively disposed between the deck and the mount (mechanical linkage defined as the elements shown in figure 7 attached between the mount 216 and deck to translate the blade and mount up and down).
Regarding claim 6, Curtis discloses a cam interface (helical interface between halves 244 shown in figure 8) disposed between the manual actuator and the blade (Figure 15 shows a manual actuation embodiment).
Regarding claim 7, Curtis discloses a motor mount configured to fixedly support a motor (204) for movement therewith (¶0047), wherein the motor is configured to drive the blade, wherein the biasing member is operatively coupled to support the motor mount (mount 216 supports the motor as shown in figure 6) by way of a mechanical linkage (mechanical linkage shown in figure 7 to support the translatable elements to include the motor and mount within mount 216).
Regarding claim 8, Curtis discloses wherein the mechanical linkage includes a (pivotable crank 249) and a translatable rod (translatable rods 232).
Regarding claim 10, 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 lateral support mechanism (Figure 7 shows a support mechanism between the actuator and the blade) configured to support the blade for movement in the height adjustment direction, wherein the lateral support mechanism is configured to provide a force for supporting the blade, and wherein the force is provided transverse to the height adjustment direction (Figure 11 shows a spring 260 which provides a transverse force to the height direction).
Regarding claim 11, Curtis discloses wherein the lateral support mechanism includes a portion (256) that is translatable in a direction transverse to the height adjustment direction.
Regarding claim 12, Curtis discloses wherein the lateral support mechanism includes a pivotable crank (pivotable crank 249) and a translatable rod (translatable rods 232).
Regarding claim 13, Curtis discloses further comprising a biasing member (260/256) configured to bias the translatable rod (Biases directly the translatable rod 232).
Regarding claim 14, Curtis discloses wherein the biasing member is configured to bias the translatable rod in a direction transverse to the height adjustment direction (The bias force is transverse against the rod to place bias on the rod).
Regarding claim 15, Curtis discloses 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); wherein the lateral support mechanism is operatively disposed between the deck and the mount (mechanical linkage defined as the elements shown in figure 7 attached between the mount 216 and deck to translate the blade and mount up and down).
Regarding claim 16, Curtis discloses garden tool comprising a deck (102); an implement (208) for performing a garden operation; an implement height adjustment mechanism (Figure 4) comprising: an actuator (237) configured to adjust a height of the implement 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 implement (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).
Regarding claim 17, Curtis discloses a mechanical linkage (to include bearing 256) configured to convert the force to a holding force configured to support the blade for movement in the height adjustment direction (Bearing 256 is pressed against rod 232 to support cutting frame 216 in the height adjustment direction).
Regarding claim 18, Curtis discloses wherein the mechanical linkage includes a pivotable crank and a translatable rod (pivotable crank 249) and a translatable rod (translatable rods 232).
Regarding claim 19, Curtis discloses wherein the biasing member is configured to bias the translatable rod (The bias force is directly against the translatable rod thereby biasing the rod).
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 and 20 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamazaki (US 2022/0408651).
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached at (571) 272-0547. 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