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 § 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) 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Milcoy US3823291.
Regarding claim 1, Milcoy teaches a user interface 1 for a power tool (lawnmower, as described in the abstract), the user interface comprising:
a first actuator (including 32 and 36) moveable between a non-actuated position (Figure 1) and an actuated position (actuation described in Column 4: 10-22), the first actuator comprising a first user actuation member 32 and a latch assembly (31 and 36), wherein movement of the user actuation member causes movement of the latch assembly (by linearly pushing 32 as described in Column 4:10-22), wherein the latch assembly comprises a cam 33 and a follower 36, the follower in selective communication with the cam (by selectively moving 32), wherein movement of the cam causes contact with and movement of the follower (by engagement of 33 and 36), and wherein the follower is receivable by the receiver (when 36 aligns with 27); and
a second actuator (21, 23, and 27) moveable between a non-actuated position (Figure 1) and an actuated position (depressing 23), the second actuator comprising a second user actuation member 23 and a receiver 27, wherein the second user actuation member is a button (21 is shown as a button that is depressed inwards), wherein movement of the first actuator and the second actuator to the respective actuated positions causes receipt of the latch assembly by the receiver (wherein 36 can slot into 27 as described in Column 4: 10-23).
Regarding claim 2, Milcoy teaches that the latch assembly comprises a latch 36, the latch receivable by the receiver 27 (wherein 36 is slotted to fit into 27, when positioned as described above).
Regarding claim 3, Milcoy teaches that the latch is fixed relative to the first user actuation member (latch 36 is attached to move with 31, 33, and 32).
Regarding claim 5, Milcoy teaches that the cam is fixed relative to the first user actuation member (since the cam 33 axially moves with sliding movement of 32, as described above).
Regarding claim 6, Milcoy teaches that the receipt of the latch assembly by the receiver occurs when movement of the first actuator occurs before movement of the second actuator (wherein 32 must slide first before 36 and 27 are aligned). It is noted that the claim limitation citing “when movement of the second actuator occurs before movement of the first actuator” is conditional, therefore, is not positively required in the claim. There is no further structural requirements in this claim to define the operation of the first and second actuators and the latch and receiver with the combined conditions.
Regarding claim 7, Milcoy teaches that the receiver comprises an angled contact surface 28 and defines a slot 27, and wherein the latch assembly is received in the slot.
Regarding claim 9, Milcoy teaches that the first user actuation member is a bail (wherein 32 is considered a bale since moves relative to handle 1).
Regarding claim 13, Milcoy teaches a user interface 1 for a power tool (the above described lawnmower), the user interface comprising:
a first actuator (32 and 36) moveable between a non-actuated position (as described above) and an actuated position (as described above), the first actuator comprising a first user actuation member 32 and a cam 33, wherein movement of the user actuation member causes movement of the cam (by sliding 32);
a follower 36 in selective communication with the cam (wherein 36 only moves when 33 moves), wherein movement of the cam causes contact with and movement of the follower (linear sliding movement described above); and
a second actuator (21 and 27) moveable between a non-actuated position and an actuated position (both positions described above), the second actuator comprising a second user actuation member 21 and a receiver 27, wherein the follower is receivable by the receiver (as recited above), and wherein the second user actuation member is a button (as recited above);
wherein movement of the first actuator and the second actuator to the respective actuated positions causes receipt of the follower by the receiver (as described above).
Regarding claim 14, Milcoy teaches that the cam is fixed relative to the first user actuation member (wherein the cam 33 axially slides with 32 sliding).
Regarding claim 15, Milcoy teaches that the receipt of the follower by the receiver occurs when movement of the first actuator occurs before movement of the second actuator (as described above, 32 slides to align 36 with 27 and then 23 can be depressed against spring 30).
It is noted that the claim limitation citing “when movement of the second actuator occurs before movement of the first actuator” is conditional, therefore, is not positively required in the claim. There is no further structural requirements in this claim to define the operation of the first and second actuators and the latch and receiver with the combined conditions.
Regarding claim 16, Milcoy teaches that the receiver comprises an angled contact surface and defines a slot (27 is considered a slot since it extends into 23), and wherein the follower is received in the slot (when 36 is aligned with 27 and 23 is depressed against spring 30).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 13-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox US2007/0289277 in view of Wong, et al. US2014/0190715.
Regarding claim 1, Cox teaches a user interface 20 for a power tool (lawnmower 12), the user interface comprising:
a first actuator 34 moveable between a non-actuated position (Figure 7) and an actuated position (Figure 8), the first actuator comprising a first user actuation member 34 and a latch assembly (includes 174, and 210), wherein movement of the user actuation member causes movement of the latch assembly (as shown comparing Figure 7 versus Figure 8), wherein the latch assembly comprises a cam 210 and a follower 146, the follower in selective communication with the cam (wherein contact is applied when 210 is rotated clockwise to engage with 146 as shown in Figure 8), wherein movement of the cam causes contact with and movement of the follower, and wherein the follower is receivable by the receiver (as shown in Figure 7 and 8, where follower is pushed radially inwards towards 82 by cam 210); and
a second actuator 24 moveable between a non-actuated position (Figures 7-8) and an actuated position (Figure 9), the second actuator comprising a second user actuation member 102 and a receiver 120 & 126, wherein movement of the first actuator and the second actuator to the respective actuated positions causes receipt of the latch assembly by the receiver (as shown in Figure 9).
Cox does not teach that the second user actuation member is a button.
Wong, et al. teaches that it is known for a power tool to have a user actuation lever be a button (lever button 164) to rotate “between at least a lock position and a free position” ¶0060.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cox’s lever/second actuation member 102 to be a button lever such as in Wong, et al. to provide the predictable results of enabling rotation between a locked position and a free position
Regarding claim 2, Cox teaches that the latch assembly comprises a latch 174, the latch receivable by the receiver (Figure 7 versus Figure 8, with 174 pushed radially inwards towards 82).
Regarding claim 3, Cox teaches that the latch is fixed relative to the first user actuation member (wherein the latch is held in the same housing as 34, thus is considered to be axially fixed).
Regarding claim 4, Cox teaches that the latch assembly comprises a cam 210 and a follower 146, the follower in selective communication with the cam (wherein contact is applied when 210 is rotated clockwise to engage with 146 as shown in Figure 8), wherein movement of the cam causes contact with and movement of the follower, and wherein the follower is receivable by the receiver (as shown in Figure 7 and 8, where follower is pushed radially inwards towards 82 by cam 210).
Regarding claim 5, Cox teaches that the cam is fixed relative to the first user actuation member (cam 210 rotates with rotation of 34).
Regarding claim 6, Cox teaches that the receipt of the latch assembly by the receiver (as shown in Figures 8-9) occurs when movement of the first actuator occurs before movement of the second actuator (Figure 7-9).
It is noted that the claim limitation citing “movement of the first actuator occurs before movement of the second actuator” is conditional, therefore, is not positively required in the claim. There is no further structural requirements in this claim to define the operation of the first and second actuators and the latch and receiver with the combined conditions.
Regarding claim 7, Cox teaches that the receiver comprises an angled contact surface (angled at 132 and 130, as compared with horizontal) and defines a slot (defined between 132 and 130), and wherein the latch assembly is received in the slot (as shown in Figure 8-9).
Regarding claim 8, Cox teaches that the receiver 126 is pivotable relative to the second user actuation member (Figure 10 shows 24 rotated clockwise to original position, with 126 remaining stationary).
Regarding claim 9, Cox teaches that the first user actuation member 34 is a bail (as shown in Figure 11).
Regarding claim 13, Cox teaches a user interface 20 for a power tool (lawnmower), the user interface comprising:
a first actuator 34 moveable between a non-actuated position (Fig 7) and an actuated position (Fig 8), the first actuator comprising a first user actuation member 34 and a cam 210, wherein movement of the user actuation member causes movement of the cam (rotation);
a follower 146 in selective communication with the cam, wherein movement of the cam causes contact with and movement of the follower (as shown in Figure 8); and
a second actuator 24 moveable between a non-actuated position (Figs 7-8) and an actuated position (Fig 9), the second actuator comprising a second user actuation member 102 and a receiver 126, wherein the follower is receivable by the receiver, sand wherein movement of the first actuator and the second actuator to the respective actuated positions causes receipt of the follower by the receiver (wherein movement is shown in Figure 9, with follower 146 pushed radially inward toward 126’s center).
Cox does not teach that the second user actuation member is a button.
Wong, et al. teaches that it is known for a power tool to have a user actuation lever be a button (lever button 164) to rotate “between at least a lock position and a free position” ¶0060.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cox’s lever/second actuation member 102 to be a button lever such as in Wong, et al. to provide the predictable results of enabling rotation between a locked position and a free position.
Regarding claim 14, Cox teaches that the cam is fixed relative to the first user actuation member (cam rotates with 34’s rotation, thus is axially fixed).
Regarding claim 15, Cox teaches that the receipt of the latch assembly/follower by the receiver occurs when movement of the first actuator occurs before movement of the second actuator (as described above).
It is noted that the claim limitation citing “movement of the first actuator occurs before movement of the second actuator” is conditional, therefore, is not positively required in the claim. There is no further structural requirements in this claim to define the operation of the first and second actuators and the latch and receiver with the combined conditions.
Regarding claim 16, Cox teaches that the receiver comprises an angled contact surface (132 and 130 are considered angled, as described above) and defines a slot (defined between 132 and 130), and wherein the follower is received in the slot (shown in Figure 8).
Regarding claim 17, Cox teaches that the receiver 126 is movable relative to the second user actuation member 102 (Figure 9 versus Figure 10 shows 126 remaining in the same position when 102 rotates clockwise, thus the receiver is rotationally movable relative to the second user actuation member).
Regarding claim 20, Cox teaches a lawnmower (Figure 11: 12), comprising:
a body 14;
a handle extending from the body 30;
a prime mover (engine 15);
a cutting blade 16; and
a user interface 20, the user interface as described above, wherein the latch assembly comprises a cam 210 and a follower 146, the follower in selective communication with the cam (wherein contact is applied when 210 is rotated clockwise to engage with 146 as shown in Figure 8), wherein movement of the cam causes contact with and movement of the follower, and wherein the follower is receivable by the receiver (as shown in Figure 7 and 8, where follower is pushed radially inwards towards 82 by cam 210); and wherein the follower is receivable by the receiver (as described above).
Cox does not teach that the second user actuation member is a button.
Wong, et al. teaches that it is known for a power tool to have a user actuation lever be a button (lever button 164) to rotate “between at least a lock position and a free position” ¶0060.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cox’s lever/second actuation member 102 to be a button lever such as in Wong, et al. to provide the predictable results of enabling rotation between a locked position and a free position.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milcoy in view of Hansen US8733072.
Regarding claims 11 and 18, Milcoy teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and teaches the second actuator further comprises a switch (Column 2: 38-40, wherein the electrical contact described by this section is shown in Figure 2 when 18 and 19 contact each other, and are be considered part of the second actuator since they are connected at least to the second actuator)
Milcoy does not teach that the first actuator further comprises a sensor.
Hansen teaches that it is known in the art for controlling a lawnmower 110 to include a sensor (Column 9: 34-35) to detect capabilities when a bail closes a switch “each circuit or another such circuit is configured to detect when the bail closes (or opens) a switch”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Milcoy’s first actuator in view of the switch of Hansen with a reasonable expectation of success to enable detecting when the bale has closed the switch, for controlling the lawnmower starter system (Hansen Column 9: 28-30).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, Hansen teaches a controller (Figure 10), and wherein the switch (the left most gate of Figure 10) and the sensor (bail portion of Figure 10) are in communication with the controller.
Regarding claim 20, Milcoy teaches the user interface as described above, and the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach a lawnmower, comprising: a body; a handle extending from the body; a prime mover; a cutting blade.
Hansen teaches a lawnmower, which is notoriously well-known to comprise:
a body 114;
a handle 118 extending from the body;
a prime mover 112;
a cutting blade (Column 3: 1-2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lawnmower of Milcoy in view of the lawnmower of Hansen with a reasonable expectation of success to provide notoriously well-known lawnmower parts including a body, handle, prime mover, and cutting blade, to enable a lawnmower to be operated by an operator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments that Milcoy does not teach the cam in selective communication with the follower are not persuasive. The claim does not provide claimed structural limitations to define how the cam is in selective communication with the follower. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term "selective communication" can be taken to indicate user-action designated engagement between the cam and follower. Continuous contact is not precluded from the claimed limitations.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 12/8/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 13*-17, and 20 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) over Cox have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Cox in view of Wong, et al.
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 Cathleen Hutchins whose telephone number is (571)270-3651. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11am-9:30PM EST.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/CATHLEEN R HUTCHINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672 2/27/2026