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 .
Title of Invention Is Not Descriptive
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by an examiner’s amendment. See MPEP § 1302.04(a).
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it begins with: “The disclosure provides…” which is inherent to the disclosure of a patent application. The abstract should begin with: “A mower.” or: “A mower including a body,….” A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The term: “Pedal” used in the claims is being interpreted as a component or structure intended to be used with an operators foot. The purpose of this interpretation is to disqualify other random structures on a lawnmower where an operator could place their foot, but the other random structure is not intended for the use of an operators foot. E.g. non-supportive fenders, mower deck components, body protrusions, or other elements not relating to an operators foot.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zeiler (US 2023/0180657).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Zeiler discloses a mower, comprising: a body, a working unit, coupled to the body, a wheel unit, mounted on the body and comprising a front wheel unit and a rear wheel unit, a platform (136, figure 8A), mounted to the body and located on a side of the rear wheel unit away from the front wheel unit, and a pedal (124), being located on a side of the body in an axial direction of the rear wheel unit, wherein a height of the pedal to ground is greater than a height of the platform to the ground.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 11 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Enomoto (EP 3097758).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Enomoto discloses a mower, comprising: a body, a working unit, coupled to the body, a wheel unit, mounted on the body and comprising a front wheel unit (32) and a rear wheel unit (23), a platform, mounted to the body and located on a side of the rear wheel unit away from the front wheel unit (the term “platform” is considered broad and may be interpreted as any flat surface near the rear wheel unit. For example, but not limited to, the grass collector comprises a platform in the form of its bottom surface),
and a pedal (figure 26a shows a pedal), being located on a side of the body in an axial direction of the rear wheel unit (pedals are considered to be located on the right and left side of steering post 27 as is typical in riding mowers. Right side of surface 26 as described in ¶0101), wherein a height of the pedal to ground is greater than a height of the platform to the ground (The pedal height is greater than the interpreted platform height from the ground as seen in figure 1 for example).
Regarding claim 2, Enomoto discloses wherein the pedal comprises a first pedal (240) and a second pedal (201/202), in a forward direction of the mower, the second pedal is located on a side of the first pedal away from the front wheel unit (The second pedal is behind the first pedal in a forward direction).
Regarding claim 3, Enomoto discloses wherein a height of the first pedal (240) to the ground is greater than a height of the second pedal (201/202) to the ground (Seen in figures 21 and 26a).
Regarding claim 9, Enomoto discloses wherein the pedal comprises a first pedal (240), and an angle between the first pedal and a forward direction of the mower is from 0° to 60° (Figure 26a and 26b show the pedal is movable and may be placed within the claimed angle), and an angle between the first pedal and the axial direction of the rear wheel unit is from 0° to 50° (The pedal as shown in figure 21 appear to be close to 0 degrees).
Regarding claim 11, Enomoto discloses wherein the pedal comprises a second pedal (201/202), and an angle between the second pedal and the axial direction of the rear wheel unit is from 0° to 50° (The pedal as shown in figure 21 appear to be close to 0 degrees).
Regarding claim 20, Enomoto discloses a mower, comprising: a body, a working unit, coupled to the body, a wheel unit, mounted on the body and comprising a front wheel unit (32) and a rear wheel unit (23), a platform, mounted to the body and located on a side of the rear wheel unit away from the front wheel unit (the term “platform” is considered broad and may be interpreted as any flat surface near the rear wheel unit. For example, but not limited to, the grass collector comprises a platform in the form of its bottom surface),
and a pedal (figure 26a shows a pedal), being located on a side of the body in an axial direction of the rear wheel unit (pedals are considered to be located on the right and left side of steering post 27 as is typical in riding mowers. Right side of surface 26 as described in ¶0101), the pedal comprising a first pedal (240) and a second pedal (201/202), a height of the first pedal to ground being greater than a height of the second pedal to the ground (Seen in figures 21 and 26a).
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) 9-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeiler (US 2023/0180657).
Regarding claim 9, Zeiler discloses wherein the pedal comprises a first pedal (124), and an angle between the first pedal and a forward direction of the mower is from 0° to 60° (figure 4 shows the slope of cover 122 which comprises the pedal which is less than 60 degrees), and an angle between the first pedal and the axial direction of the rear wheel unit is from 0° to 50° (Appears to be zero or close to zero).
Regarding claim 10, Zeiler discloses wherein the pedal comprises a second pedal (pedal 124 is considered to be a “second pedal” as no first pedal has been presented in the claims to define the second pedal as anything but a name to call it), and an angle between the second pedal and a forward direction of the mower is from 0° to 40° (figure 4 shows the slope of cover 122 which comprises the pedal which appears to be less than 40 degrees).
Further, for the sake of argument, minor adjustments in the slope and shape of the wheel covers would be considered obvious design choices within the ordinary skill of the art.
Regarding claim 11, Zeiler discloses wherein the pedal comprises a second pedal (pedal 124 is considered to be a “second pedal” as no first pedal has been presented in the claims to define the second pedal as anything but a name to call it), and an angle between the second pedal and the axial direction of the rear wheel unit is from 0° to 50° (Appears to be zero or close to zero).
Regarding claim 12, Zeiler discloses wherein the pedal comprises a first pedal, and a vertical height of the first pedal from a horizontal ground is from 30 cm to 60 cm (The height of the pedal 124 is considered to be within the range as it is mounted on cover 122 and at about the height of the rear wheel which may be considered 20” which is a typical wheel size).
Further, for the sake of argument, adjustments in wheel size are design choices within ordinary skill of the art and the use of smaller wheels would place it further within the range of height.
Regarding claim 13, Zeiler discloses wherein the pedal further comprises a first pedal (124), in a forward direction of the mower, a distance between the first pedal and a center of gravity of the mower is from 10 cm to 60 cm (The pedals are considered to be within 60cm to a center of gravity of the mower as most of the mowers weight is considered to be on the back half of the mower).
Further, for the sake of argument, adjustments in the mowers size, component selection, and placement of components are design choices within ordinary skill of the art, changes such as size, components with different weights, placement of components, would all act to move the center of gravity and the spacing from the pedal. Many various configurations are within the skill of the art and would meet the claimed range.
Regarding claim 14, Zeiler discloses wherein the pedal comprises a first pedal, an area of the first pedal is from 150 cm² to 850 cm² (The pedal appears to be within the range claimed).
Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to merely change the size of the pedals to meet the range. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, Zeiler discloses wherein the pedal further comprises a first pedal, in a forward direction of the mower, the mower has a centerline, and a distance between the first pedal and the centerline is from 20 cm to 60 cm (considered to be shown in figure 8A).
Further, for the sake of argument, adjustments in the mowers size such as width are design choices within the ordinary skill of the art.
Regarding claim 16, Zeiler discloses wherein the pedal comprises a second pedal (pedal 124 is considered to be a “second pedal” as no first pedal has been presented in the claims to define the second pedal as anything but a name to call it), and a vertical height of the second pedal from a horizontal ground is from 30 cm to 50 cm (The height of the pedal 124 is considered to be within the range as it is mounted on cover 122 and at about the height of the rear wheel which may be considered 20” which is a typical wheel size).
Further, for the sake of argument, adjustments in wheel size are design choices within ordinary skill of the art and the use of smaller wheels would place it further within the range of height.
Regarding claim 17, Zeiler discloses wherein the pedal comprises a second pedal (pedal 124 is considered to be a “second pedal” as no first pedal has been presented in the claims to define the second pedal as anything but a name to call it), an area of the second pedal is from 150 cm² to 850 cm² (The pedal appears to be within the range claimed).
Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to merely change the size of the pedals to meet the range. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 18, Zeiler discloses wherein the pedal further comprises a second pedal (pedal 124 is considered to be a “second pedal” as no first pedal has been presented in the claims to define the second pedal as anything but a name to call it), in a forward direction of the mower, a distance between the second pedal and a center of gravity of the mower is from 10 cm to 70 cm (The pedals are considered to be within 70cm to a center of gravity of the mower as most of the mowers weight is considered to be on the back half of the mower).
Further, for the sake of argument, adjustments in the mowers size, component selection, and placement of components are design choices within ordinary skill of the art, changes such as size, components with different weights, placement of components, would all act to move the center of gravity and the spacing from the pedal. Many various configurations are within the skill of the art and would meet the claimed range.
Claim(s) 4-7, 10, 12 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto (EP 3097758).
Regarding claim 4, Enomoto discloses two pedals but is lacking specific lengths of the pedals.
In view of the structure and function of Enomoto’s pedals the length of the pedals and their differences would amount to inconsequential changes in function. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the pedals any lengths to include the length of the first pedal being greater than the length of the second pedal.
Regarding claim 5, Enomoto discloses two pedals and it appears that the total width of the second pedal (201/202) is greater than first pedal (204, as shown in figure 21) but Enomoto is lacking specific widths of the pedals.
In view of the structure and function of Enomoto’s pedals the widths of the pedals and their differences would amount to inconsequential changes in function. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the pedals any widths to include the width of the first pedal being smaller than the width of the second pedal.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Enomoto is lacking a clear depiction of the rear wheel unit in relationship to the pedals which are located on the right side of the operator platform as disclosed in ¶01001. In view of the invention of Enomoto the location of the pedals in relationship to the rear wheel unit would amount to inconsequential positioning of elements in relationship to one another.
Therefore, it would be an obvious matter of design choice to place the pedals on the right side of the platform where a portion of the pedals would intercept a horizontal plane of the rear wheel unit and also a projection of the left side of the second pedal may project past the rear wheel unit inwardly.
For example see annotated figure 15 below. The inner horizontal plane of the wheel unit would reasonably overlap with an assumed operator platform size. The pedals located on the right side of this platform could reasonably overlap with this plane and even project past this plane inwardly.
PNG
media_image1.png
674
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 15
Regarding claim 10, Enomoto disclose wherein the pedal comprises a second pedal (202). The pedal as shown in figure 26a appears to be close to a 45 degree angle. However, the pedal is capable of movement when depressed and would be considered capable of assuming a position within the claimed range.
For the sake of argument, even if the pedal of Enomoto would not fully reach the range claimed it is clearly close to the range as seen in the figures and it is known to be movable. Therefore, it would be an obvious matter of deign choice to adjust the pedal to be within the range claimed when at least fully depressed.
Regarding claim 12, Enomoto discloses wherein the pedal comprises a first pedal, and a vertical height of the first pedal from a horizontal ground is from 30 cm to 60 cm (The height of the pedal 204 is considered to be within the range as it is mounted at about the height of the rear wheel which may be considered 20” which is a typical wheel size, as shown in figure 1 for example).
Further, for the sake of argument, adjustments in wheel size are design choices within ordinary skill of the art and the use of smaller wheels would place it further within the range of height.
Regarding claim 14, Enomoto discloses wherein the pedal comprises a first pedal, an area of the first pedal is from 150 cm² to 850 cm² (The pedal appears to be within the range claimed).
Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to merely change the size of the pedals to meet the range. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, Enomoto discloses wherein the pedal further comprises a first pedal, in a forward direction of the mower, the mower has a centerline, and a distance between the first pedal and the centerline is from 20 cm to 60 cm (the pedal is considered to be within the range as it is position on the right side of the platform with a reasonable distance for the operator to reach with their foot).
Further, for the sake of argument, adjustments in the mowers size such as width are design choices within the ordinary skill of the art.
Regarding claim 16, Enomoto discloses wherein the pedal comprises a second pedal (201/202), and a vertical height of the second pedal from a horizontal ground is from 30 cm to 50 cm (The height of the second pedal is below the first pedal and considered to be within the range).
Further, for the sake of argument, adjustments in wheel size are design choices within ordinary skill of the art and the use of smaller wheels would place it further within the range of height.
Regarding claim 17, Enomoto discloses wherein the pedal comprises a second pedal (201/202), an area of the second pedal is from 150 cm² to 850 cm² (The pedal appears to be within the range claimed).
Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to merely change the size of the pedals to meet the range. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 18, Enomoto discloses wherein the pedal further comprises a second pedal (201/202), in a forward direction of the mower, the mower has a centerline, and a distance between the second pedal and the centerline is from 30 cm to 70 cm (the pedal is considered to be within the range as it is position on the right side of the platform with a reasonable distance for the operator to reach with their foot).
Further, for the sake of argument, adjustments in the mowers size such as width are design choices within the ordinary skill of the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kallevig (US 2009/0302562) shows side platforms 60 for an operator to stand on when on a slope.
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