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- 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);
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.
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 14-20 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).
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments that Osborne does not teach a second plate that is located below the rotary unit are not persuasive. Applicant's assessment, referring to Figure 2 showing the base plate 60 and second base plate 76 are above the rotary unit are incorrect. Since figure 2 is a perspective view of the bottom of the lawnmower. Therefore, the plates 60 and 76 are both below (though shown in Figure 2 as above) the rotary unit, when the image is flipped over to the mower's normal operating position. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term "below" to indicate the lower position closer to the ground when the lawn mower is in the operating position, it is interpreted that Osborne provides this limitation when considering Osborne's mower in its operating position, which is opposite of the bottom perspective view shown in Figure 2. Further, applicant's instant figures show a flipped over/ bottom perspective view in which their claims base plate and second base plate are shown in the position relatively above the rotary unit, when comparing views with Figures 19-22 that show an operation assembly opposite the orientation shown in Figure 2.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
/CATHLEEN R HUTCHINS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
1/30/2026