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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed January 28, 2026, regarding the USC 112 rejections (page 8) have been fully considered and – in light of the amendment - are persuasive, therefore the related rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the USC 102/ 103 claim rejections (pages 8-9) have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons, therefore the related rejections have been maintained:
Regarding the applicant’s argument (page 8: “Firstly…”) that Toman does not teach the claimed invention because Toman teaches a mechanical braking rather than receiving a signal from a position sensor, the examiner disagrees, pointing to the USC 102 rejection of claim 1 below where it is noted that a signal from Potentiometer 198 may control a Motor 26 to a speed of zero.
Regarding the applicant’s argument (page 8: “Secondly…”) that Toman does not teach the claimed invention because Toman teaches mechanical braking rather than electronic automatic parking, the examiner disagrees, pointing to the USC 102 rejection of claim 13 below where it is noted that the system of Toman may use an Electric Brake 288 such that the parking would be achieved electrically.
Regarding the applicant’s argument (page 8: “Thirdly…”) that Toman does not teach the claimed invention because Toman does not teach that the pedal returns to a neutral position when there is no user input, the examiner disagrees, pointing to the USC 102 rejection of claim 14 where it is noted that Spring 182 biases Directional Control Pedal 42 to the Neutral Position 164.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-9, 11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by TOMAN (US-5713189-A) (note: the underlined portions relate to the latest amendment, for the applicant’s convenience).
Regarding Claim 1, TOMAN teaches a riding lawn mower (Mower 10, Fig. 1), comprising:
a seat (Seat Assembly 32, Fig. 1) for a user to sit thereon;
a chassis (Frame 12, Fig. 1) configured to support the seat (32);
a wheel (Drive Wheels 14 and Steerable Wheel 16, Fig. 1) configured to support the chassis (12);
a motor (Motor 26, Fig. 2) configured to drive the wheel to rotate;
a walking control module (Motor Controller 206, Fig. 5) configured to drive the motor (as taught in Col. 7, Lines 28- 33);
a power supply assembly (Battery Power Source 20, Fig. 1) configured to at least supply electric power to the motor (26) and the walking control module (206) (Col. 4, Lines 39-43);
a cutting assembly (Lawn Mowers 18a, 18b, &18c, Fig. 1) mounted to the chassis (12), the cutting assembly (18a-c) comprising a cutting member for cutting grass (cutting members for cutting grass are implied by the name “lawn mower”);
a pedal assembly (Throttle Pedal Assembly 54, Fig. 4) comprising a pedal lever (Directional Control Pedal 42, Figs. 3-8) rotatable about a first shaft axis (the axis of Bolt 152, Fig. 7) to control a walking speed of the riding lawn mower when operated by the user (Col. 8, Lines 52-56 teaches an operator using Directional Control Pedal 42 to control the speed of the Mower 10); and
a pedal position sensor (Potentiometer 198, Fig. 5) configured to detect an angular position of the pedal lever and generate a position signal (Col. 7, Lines 37- 40 teaches that an angle of Directional Control Pedal 42 is sensed by Potentiometer 198 to cause a signal indicative of the angle);
wherein the pedal lever (42) has an initial position (Neutral Position 164, Figs. 7 & 8) and, when the pedal lever (42) is in the initial position, the pedal position sensor outputs a position signal of 0 degrees (Col. 7, Lines 37- 40 teaches that an angle of Directional Control Pedal 42 is sensed by Potentiometer 198 to cause a signal indicative of the angle, and it is understood that a Neutral Position 164 would have an output position signal corresponding to neutral- i.e.- 0 degrees) and the power supply assembly (20) is supplying electric power to the motor (26) and the walking control module (206), the walking control module (206) controls the motor (26) to control the riding lawn mower (10) to park (Col. 7, Lines 64-66 teaches that when Directional Control Pedal 42 is in Neutral Position 164 a maximum [braking] force is applied, which would be effective to stop- i.e. park-- the Mower 10; see also Fig. 11 which illustrates the Neutral Position 164 as corresponding to a speed of 0; these functions being understood to occur at least during a state when the Motor 26 and Motor Controller 206 are capable of and/ or are currently receiving power; it further being understood that a 0 speed, as illustrated in Fig. 11, corresponds with Motor 26 being controlled to a 0 speed- i.e. parked).
Regarding Claim 13 TOMAN teaches a riding lawn mower with substantially similar features to that of claim 1 (see the 102 rejection of claim 1 above) and further teaches a drive circuit (comprising Motor Controller 206, Potentiometer 198, and Output Connector 204, Fig. 5) electrically connected to the walking control module (206) and the motor (26) to control the operation of the motor (26) according to a drive signal output by the walking control module (Col. 7, Lines 37- 40 teaches that an angle of Directional Control Pedal 42 is sensed by Potentiometer 198 to cause a signal indicative of the angle), and the walking control module (206) controls the drive circuit (198, 206 and 204) of the motor (26) to control the riding lawn mower to achieve electric parking (Col. 10, Lines 1-31 teach an Electric Brake 288 such that the parking achieved as discussed in the 102 rejection of claim 1 above would be achieved electrically).
Regarding Claim 14 TOMAN teaches a riding lawn mower with substantially similar features to that of claim 1 (see the 102 rejection of claim 1 above) and further teaches a return spring (Spring 182, Fig. 5) for biasing the pedal lever (42) into an initial position (Col. 7, Lines 7- 9 teaches that the Spring 182 biases Directional Control Pedal 42 to the Neutral Position 164 through Control Spring Arm 172), and that the walking control module (206) controls the riding lawn mower (10) to park in response to the initial position of the pedal lever (Col. 7, Lines 64-66 teaches that when Directional Control Pedal 42 is in Neutral Position 164 a maximum [braking] force is applied, which would be effective to stop- i.e. park-- the Mower 10; see also Fig. 11 which illustrates the Neutral Position 164 as corresponding to a speed of 0).
Regarding Claims 2 and 15, (having different dependencies but similar limitations), TOMAN further teaches that the pedal lever (42) further has an end position (Forward Position 214, Fig. 8) and a rotatable range defined as an included angle between the initial position (164) and the end position and the pedal lever (the range between Neutral Position 164 and Forward Position 214 as illustrated in Fig. 8) is operable by the user to reach any angular position within the rotatable range (Col. 9, Lines 29-33 teaches advancing the position of the Directional Control Pedal 42 from the Neutral Position 164 to the Forward Position 214).
Regarding Claims 4 and 16, (having different dependencies but similar limitations), TOMAN further teaches that pedal position sensor (198) is a three-dimensional sensor (Potentiometer 198 taking up space in three-dimensions as illustrated in Fig. 5).
Regarding Claims 7 and 20, (having different dependencies but similar limitations), TOMAN further teaches that the walking control module (Motor Controller 206) obtains the position signal from the pedal position sensor (198) and sets a corresponding target rotational speed for the motor (26) based on the position signal (Col. 7, Lines 28-33 teaches that the Motor Controller 206 uses the signal from the Potentiometer 198 to adjust a current to the Motor 26).
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, (having similar dependencies and limitations, differing in that claim 8 recites a decreasing angle causing the motor to decelerate and claim 9 teaches the opposite, as noted below) TOMAN further teaches that when a value of the angular position of the pedal lever (42) {decreases [claim 8]/ increases [claim 9]}, the walking control module (206) drives the motor to {decelerate [8]/ accelerate [9]} (Col. 8, Lines 46- 56 and Figs. 8 & 11 teach that the position of Directional Control Pedal 42 correlates to the speed of the Mower 10/ Motor 26 such that as its position moves from the Neutral Position 164 to the Forward Position 214 the speed increases, and as its position moves from the Forward Position 214 to the Neutral Position 164 the speed decreases).
Regarding Claims 11 and 17, (having different dependencies but similar limitations), TOMAN further teaches that the pedal assembly further comprises a pedal position sensor (Potentiometer 198, Fig. 5) configured to detect an angular position of the pedal lever (Col. 7, Lines 37- 40 teaches that an angle of Directional Control Pedal 42 is sensed by Potentiometer 198) and the walking control module (Motor Controller 206) controls the riding lawn mower (10) to park according to a position signal of the pedal position sensor (the Mower 10 is parked based when Directional Control Pedal 42 is in the Neutral Position 164 as discussed in the 102 rejection of claim 1 above, the Neutral Position 164 of Directional Control Pedal 42 being detected by Potentiometer 198 as taught in Col. 7, Lines 37-40).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TOMAN.
Regarding Claim 3, although a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the rotatable range of the pedal lever (42) of TOMAN is approximately between 0 and 20 degrees (Forward Position 214 being approximately 10 degrees from Neutral Position 164 as illustrated in Fig. 8, and range extending farther forward than Forward Position 214 as understood by Fig. 11), TOMAN does not teach a specific angle for the rotatable range.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the rotatable range is directly correlated to an ergonomic comfort of an operator and a control sensitivity, which are a desirable characteristic of a pedal lever of a riding lawn mower (as a “result effective variable”, per MPEP 2143 and 2144.05-II-B). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed, to modify TOMAN’s riding lawn mower such that the rotatable range is between 20 and 50 degrees as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Claims 4-9, 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TOMAN in view of PHYS ORG ("3D Magnetic Sensor…”).
Regarding Claims 4 and 16, additionally and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that the pedal position sensor (Potentiometer 198, Fig. 5; see the 102 rejections of claims 4 and 16 above) of TOMAN is not considered a three-dimensional sensor, PHYS ORG teaches a three-dimensional sensor (Page 1, Para. 1) for use in an accelerator pedal (Gas Pedal, Page 1, Paras. 3-4), and further teaches that the three-dimensional sensor advantageously eliminates the need for error-prone transmission mechanisms (Page 1, Para. 4- Page 2, Para. 1).
The three-dimensional sensor of PHYS ORG is a magnetic sensor (Page 1, Para. 1) that measures the angular position of a magnetic element (Page 1, Para. 1 teaches measuring a pedal deflection angle, and it is implied in the name “3D magnetic sensor” that the sensor uses the movement of a magnet element for this measurement) (note: these teachings relate to claim 5 as discussed below).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of TOMAN and PHYS ORG in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify TOMAN’s riding lawn mower such that the pedal position sensor was a three-dimensional sensor as suggested by PHYS ORG. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of eliminating the need for error-prone transmission mechanisms as taught by PHYS ORG and discussed above that would beneficially make a more reliable mechanism.
Regarding Claims 5 and 18, (having different dependencies but similar limitations), TOMAN further teaches that the pedal assembly further comprises a transmission shaft (Potentiometer Actuator Arm 196, Fig. 5) that forms a synchronous rotation with the pedal lever (Col. 7, Lines 37- 40 teaches that Potentiometer Actuator Arm 196 is rotated by the movement of Directional Control Pedal 42).
TOMAN does not teach a magnetic element, but PHYS ORG does (see the 103 rejection of claims 4 and 16 above for the teachings of PHYS ORG and motivation to combine them with the TOMAN’s riding lawn mower).
Regarding Claims 6 and 19, (having different dependencies but similar limitations), TOMAN further teaches that the pedal assembly further comprises a transmission lever (Control Spring Arm 172, Fig. 5) and {a [6]/ the [19]} return spring (Spring 182, Fig. 5) {is [19]} installed under the transmission lever (172), the pedal lever (Directional Control Pedal 42) forms a synchronous rotation with the transmission lever (172), and the return spring (182) biases the pedal lever (42) into the initial position (Col. 7, Lines 7- 9 teaches that the Spring 182 biases Directional Control Pedal 42 to the Neutral Position 164 through Control Spring Arm 172).
TOMAN does not teach that the pedal lever’s synchronous rotation with the transmission lever happens through the transmission shaft.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the transmission lever and transmission shaft of TOMAN’s riding lawn mower such that the pedal lever’s synchronous rotation with the transmission lever happens through the transmission shaft- i.e. to rearrange them such that the transmission shaft was between the pedal lever and the transmission lever, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claims 7, 8, 9, and 20, note that, as a result of the 35 USC 103 rejections of Claim 4 above, Claims 7-9 and 20 are additionally rejected as unpatentable over TOMAN in view of PHYS ORG (see the 102/ 103 rejections of claims 4, 7-9, and 20 above for the teachings of TOMAN and PHYS ORG).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TOMAN in view of DU (CN-211171513-U) and, as a result of the 35 USC 103 rejections of Claims 4 and 7 above, Claim 10 is also rejected as unpatentable over TOMAN and PHYS ORG in view of DU.
Regarding Claim 10, TOMAN does not teach an invariant range.
DU teaches, in another work vehicle (Abstract describes a rubber tire roller, which is further described as construction machinery in Para. [0004]), a vehicle speed control lever (Control Lever 20, Fig. 3) which has a rotatable range (formed by Fan-Shaped Portion 32, Fig. 3 and Para. [0028]) that comprises an invariant range (Constant Speed Zone 33, Fig. 3 and Para. [0028), and for all position signals within the invariant range (33), a motor is controlled to run at the same rotational speed (Para. [0029] teaches that when Operating Lever 20 is in the Constant Speed Zone 33 the engine runs at a constant speed).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of TOMAN and DU, and/ or TOMAN, PHYS ORG, and DU, in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify TOMAN’s riding lawn mower, as modified above, to include an invariant range as suggested by DU. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a wide range for a neutral throttle/ speed control position that would beneficially make a safer apparatus.
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 TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Valentin Neacsu, Ph.D. can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611