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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/24/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-21 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.
Independent claims 1 and 16 each recite “when the rotary unit rotates from the second position to the first position, a front end portion of the blocking portion is connected to a first inner wall of the housing with a smooth transition, and, in a grass collection mode, a smooth transition connection between the cutting cavity, the blocking portion, and the first base plate avoids the formation of a vortex inside the cutting cavity and improves a grass collection effect”. It cannot be determined the metes and bounds of this limitation, since it cannot be determined what is intended by “a smooth transition” and how the “smooth transition connection” avoids formation of a vortex and improves a grass collection effect. The instant specification, ¶0079, recites a “transition surface” that is basically a flat surface or a slope with a relatively small angle, but this is not necessarily the same as “the smooth transition connection” or the “smooth transition” as described earlier in that paragraph.
It is assumed, for purposes of examination, that applicant intended that the smooth transition and smooth transition connection be the recited flat surface or a relatively small angled slope.
Therefore, dependent claims are similarly rejected.
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, 6, 8-10, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Osborne US2003/0217542.
Regarding claim 1, Osborne teaches a mower 10, comprising:
a cutter (including blades 18) consisting of at least one blade 18;
a deck 12 comprising a housing 42, wherein the housing is formed with a cutting cavity 30, and the cutting cavity connects with a grass discharge passage 75 through a first outlet 26;
a power unit 16 for driving the cutter to rotate in the cutting cavity; and
a rotary unit 32 comprising a rotary body 46, wherein the rotary body comprises a blocking portion36 and a connecting portion 34 connected to each other, the connecting portion is rotatably connected to the housing (Figure 3a vs Figure 3c shows rotation), the rotary unit is capable of rotating to a first position (Figure 3c) or a second position (Figure 3a, solid lines), when the rotary unit is at the first position, the blocking portion blocks the first outlet (as shown in Figure 3c, where 36 is deployed to contact chute 25);
wherein a shape of the blocking portion (Figure 3a, dashed line for 34 shows curved profile) is adapted to a shape of the housing (Figure 3c shows curvature for edge of 38 that is considered adapted to the shape of the housing, which also is concaved) so that the rotary body closely fits the deck, thereby avoiding a gap in the middle and avoiding trapping passing grass clippings (wherein the contoured shape for 34 thus avoids a gap to avoid trapping grass clippings, since this requirement is broad);
and, when the rotary unit is at the second position, the first outlet is opened (as shown in Figure 3a);
wherein the deck further comprises a first base plate 60, the first base plate is at least partially located below the rotary unit (rotary unit fits into slot 62, therefore plate 60 is below that. Figures 3a-3c show the mower from the bottom perspective), and the first base plate contacts or mates with the blocking portion to prevent the blocking portion from moving downward (by supporting 34);
a second base plate 76, the second base plate is connected to the first base plate (as shown at least in Figure 2 and 8, where 76 is adjacent 60, and is held in a single unit as shown in Figure 2), the second base plate and the first base plate are mounted to the housing (as shown in Figure 2), the second base plate is also located below the rotary unit (since 76 is at the same level as 60, as described in ¶0068 “The horizontal flange 76 is positioned at the same level as the belt drive housing 60 and separated from the stepped-down surface 82 by a space aligned with the horizontal slot 62.”), and the second base plate is in contact with the blocking portion (as shown in Figure 2, where 68 contact 76).
It is noted that Figure 8 shows the thickness of second plate 76, wherein rotary part 36 and 34 clearly is shown in the bottom perspective under 76, which indicates that in regular use, 76 is below rotary unit portion 34. Figures 3a-3c omits part 76 for clarity ¶35. Therefore plates 60 and 76 are both located below the rotary unit 32 in the mower’s operative position.
Wherein, when the rotary unit rotates from the second position to the first position, a front end portion (right side) of the blocking portion is connected to a first inner wall (inside surface of 42) of the housing with a smooth transition (the contoured region of 38 is considered to be a smooth transition since it is shown in an angled position relative to 30), and, in a grass collection mode, a smooth transition connection (the position shown in Figure 3c is considered a smooth transition connection due to the ramped surface of 38 and 50) between the cutting cavity, the blocking portion, and the first base plate avoids the formation of a vortex inside the cutting cavity and improves a grass collection effect (wherein the smooth ramp provides direction for face 38).
Regarding claim 2, Osborne teaches that the first base plate mates with the blocking portion with a gap (wherein 34 slides within 60, thus there must necessarily be a gap between 34 and 60) between the first base plate and the blocking portion.
Regarding claim 3, Osborne teaches that the housing and the first base plate form the grass discharge passage (wherein 60 is attached to 42 and 40, that are attached to 30 and 25, thus form the grass discharge passage/ chute), the first base plate is disposed on a lower side of the housing (50 is disposed below 30. Figure 3a is shown from the bottom perspective), and grass clippings are collected through the grass discharge passage (25 is a chute, thus collects grass clippings).
Regarding claim 5, Osborne teaches that, when the housing is viewed from bottom to top, the cutting cavity is enclosed by a first inner wall 40 and a second inner wall 42, the first inner wall is located on an inner side of the second inner wall, the second inner wall is basically circular (Figure 3a shows a generally circular shape), and the first inner wall is also basically circular (Figure 3a shows a generally circular shape).
Regarding claim 6, Osborne teaches that, when the deck is placed on a horizontal plane (as shown in figure 1), a depth of the cutting cavity 30 of the housing is basically the same in any section through a center of the housing or a center of rotation of the cutter and perpendicular to the horizontal plane (30 is shown generally to have the same cross section in Figure 3a and Figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Osborne teaches that the blocking portion is rotatably connected to an inner side of the housing (inside 42, rotatable by rotating knob 100 as described in ¶0076), and the rotary unit further comprises a protrusion 38 convexly disposed on the blocking portion.
Regarding claim 9, Osborne teaches an operation assembly (including 100, 110, best shown in Figures 10 and 11) connected to the rotary unit, wherein an engagement groove (116 has teeth that are considered grooves) is disposed on the deck (116 is attached to the housing/deck via 112), and the operation assembly is capable of being limited in the engagement groove (by meshing of the grooves/teeth).
Regarding claim 10, Osborne teaches that a third position (Figure 3b) is positioned between the first position and the second position, and the rotary unit is rotatable to the third position so that the first outlet is partially opened (as shown in Figure 3b and described as the “intermediate” position in ¶0040).
Regarding claim 12, Osborne teaches (as best understood by examiner) that the first base plate and the second base plate could be integrally formed (the two plates are shown held together as a single unit, thus are considered to be integrally formed).
Regarding claim 13, Osborne teaches (as best understood by examiner) that the connecting portion and the blocking portion can be integrated formed (Figure 5 shows an integral single body unit).
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) 4, 11, and 14-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborne alone.
Regarding claim 4, Osborne teaches that the blocking portion of the rotary unit comprises a first surface (the planar portion of 34 that can be seen in Figure 3b) facing the first base plate (wherein 34 slides into the horizontal flat portion of 60).
Osborne is silent as to whether a distance between the first surface and the first base plate is greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 4 mm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice before the effective filing date to select the distance between the base plate and the first surface to be from 0 to 4 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Note that those of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a modification such as a mere change in size of a component would be obvious. 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). See also, MPEP § 2144.04 which states: In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 11, Osborne teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach that the distance between the first surface and the first base plate is greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 2 mm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice before the effective filing date to select the distance between the base plate and the first surface to be from 0 to 2 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 14, Osborne’s Figures 2-8 embodiment previously relied upon teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach that a support is disposed at the top of the deck, a guide groove is opened on the support along the circumferential direction, the operation assembly passes through and is slidably connected to the guide groove.
Osborne does, however, teach in a different embodiment (Figures 9-18) a lawn mower with a support 274 disposed at the top of the deck 212, a guide groove (groove including 276) is opened on the support along the circumferential direction (shown directed from the upper left corner to the lower right corner of Figure 18), the operation assembly 266 passes through and is slidably connected to the guide groove (wherein 264 slidably moves along 276 as described in ¶0104) as an alternative means for moving a cover 230 between discreet positions ¶0104 in alternative to a geared arrangement (such as shown in Figures 2-8), ¶0105.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the geared support and guide arrangement of Figures 2-8 of Osborne in view of the embodiment of Figures 9-18 with the claimed support , guide groove, and operation assembly passing through and slidably connected to the guide groove, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing alternative known actuation means to move the rotary unit between discreet positions.
Regarding claim 15, Osborne’s Figure 9-18 embodiment teaches that a support 274 is disposed at the top of the deck 212 (as shown in Figure 18), the engagement groove 276 is disposed on a groove wall (the flat portions of the elongated slot in 274 holding 264) of the guide groove, and the operation assembly 264 can be limited by the engagement groove (by engagement with 276).
Regarding claim 16, Osborne teaches a mower 10, comprising the above previously recited elements; and
the blocking portion of the rotary unit comprises a first surface (the planar portion of 34 that can be seen in Figure 3b) facing the first base plate (as described above). A second base plate 76, the second base plate is connected to the first base plate (as shown at least in Figure 2 and 8, where 76 is adjacent 60, and is held in a single unit as shown in Figure 2), the second base plate and the first base plate are mounted to the housing (as shown in Figure 2), the second base plate is also located below the rotary unit (since 76 is at the same level as 60, as described in ¶0068 “The horizontal flange 76 is positioned at the same level as the belt drive housing 60 and separated from the stepped-down surface 82 by a space aligned with the horizontal slot 62.”), and the second base plate is in contact with the blocking portion (as shown in Figure 2, where 68 contact 76);
wherein a shape of the blocking portion (Figure 3a, dashed line for 34 shows curved profile) is adapted to a shape of the housing (Figure 3c shows curvature for edge of 38 that is considered adapted to the shape of the housing, which also is concaved) so that the rotary body closely fits the deck, thereby avoiding a gap in the middle and avoiding trapping passing grass clippings (wherein the contoured shape for 34 thus avoids a gap to avoid trapping grass clippings, since this requirement is broad);
wherein, when the rotary unit rotates from the second position to the first position, a front end portion (right side) of the blocking portion is connected to a first inner wall (inside surface of 42) of the housing with a smooth transition (the contoured region of 38 is considered to be a smooth transition since it is shown in an angled position relative to 30), and, in a grass collection mode, a smooth transition connection (the position shown in Figure 3c is considered a smooth transition connection due to the ramped surface of 38 and 50) between the cutting cavity, the blocking portion, and the first base plate avoids the formation of a vortex inside the cutting cavity and improves a grass collection effect (wherein the smooth ramp provides direction for face 38).
Osborne is silent as to whether a distance between the first surface and the first base plate is greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 4 mm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice before the effective filing date to select the distance between the base plate and the first surface to be from 0 to 4 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 17, Osborne is silent as to whether a distance between the first surface and the first base plate is greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 2 mm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice before the effective filing date to select the distance between the base plate and the first surface to be from 0 to 2 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 18, Osborne teaches that the blocking portion is rotatably connected to an inner side of the housing (inside 42, rotatable by rotating knob 100 as described in ¶0076), and the rotary unit further comprises a protrusion 38 convexly disposed on the blocking portion.
Regarding claim 19, Osborne’s embodiment of Figure 2-8 teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach an operation assembly connected to the rotary unit, wherein an engagement groove is disposed on the deck, and the operation assembly is capable of being limited in the engagement groove.
Osborne does, however, teach in a different embodiment (Figures 9-18) a lawn mower with a support 274 disposed at the top of the deck 212, a guide groove (groove including 276) is opened on the support along the circumferential direction (shown directed from the upper left corner to the lower right corner of Figure 18), the operation assembly 266 passes through and is slidably connected to the guide groove (wherein 264 slidably moves along 276 as described in ¶0104) as an alternative means for moving a cover 230 between discreet positions ¶0104 in alternative to a geared arrangement (such as shown in Figures 2-8), ¶0105.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the geared support and guide arrangement of Figures 2-8 of Osborne in view of the embodiment of Figures 9-18 with the claimed support, guide groove, and operation assembly passing through and slidably connected to the guide groove, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing alternative known actuation means to move the rotary unit between discreet positions.
Regarding claim 20, Osborne teaches that a third position (Figure 3b) is positioned between the first position and the second position, and the rotary unit is rotatable to the third position so that the first outlet is partially opened (the “intermediate” position described in ¶0040).
Regarding claim 21, Osborne teaches the blocking portion is U-shaped (the cross section shown in dashed lines in Figure 3b is shown to have a u shape) and comprises a first vertical plate 70, a second vertical plate 46 (wherein first and second vertical plate arrangements relative to each other are not claimed), and a horizontal plate 34 connecting (by extending between the two) the first vertical plate and the second vertical plate, and, when the blocking portion is viewed from bottom to top, the first vertical plate is generally arc-shaped (figure 4 shows 70 as curved)
Osborne does not teach the second vertical plate is also generally arc-shaped.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to change the second wall’s shape to be arc shaped to match the housing profile, for a more compact arrangement, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Note that those of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a modification such as a mere change in shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments that Osborne does not teach the shape of the blocking portion is adapted to the shape of the housing so that the rotary body closely fits the deck are not persuasive. The term "closely fits" is broad, and can include the shaped elements as shown in Figure 3a, where 52 is profiled to follow 30.
Applicant's arguments that Osborne does not teach the front end portion of the blocking portion is connected to a first inner wall of the housing with a smooth transition, where the smooth transition connection avoids the formation of a vortex and improves a grass collection effect, is not persuasive. The smooth transition is shown in Figure 3a at 38 with the curved surface of 38. The inner wall is the inside of 42. The term "avoids the formation of a vortex" is broad, and thus the provision of surface 38 is considered sufficient to provide the transition surface required to avoid a vortex. The term "improves a grass collection effect" is a broad and relative term, thus the transition 38 can be interpreted to provide the improvement over a surface that is less efficient in providing grass collection.
Thus, applicant's arguments regarding independent claim 16 are similarly refuted, as are the dependent claims.
Applicant’s arguments that Osborne does not teach claim 21 are not persuasive, as presented in the rejection above.
Conclusion
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 5/26/2026
Prosecution Insights