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 Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“hold it at horizontal mowing position” should read: “hold it at a horizontal mowing position”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 3-6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kallevig (USPN 7624562).
Regarding claim 1, Kallevig discloses a mower side discharge chute assembly, comprising: an outer deflector chute (14) and an inner discharge chute (22), each chute having a first end pivotably mounted to a mower deck (chute element 14 is pivotable as explained in patent 6986240, column 4 lines 26-28, chute element 22 is pivotable on pin 24) and extending outwardly over a side discharge opening in a mowing position (Both extend over the side opening of the mower); and a liner (20) attached to a second end of the inner discharge chute (Figure 4 shows the liner element 20 is attached to the second end of the chute element 22) and extending further outwardly over the side discharge opening in a mowing position (extends further outwardly over the opening of the opening in multiple positions).
Regarding claim 3, Kallevig discloses wherein the side discharge opening includes an opening through a top surface and a side skirt of the mower deck (The discharge chute of Kallevig is considered capable of being placed over and opening of a deck that has a side opening and partially a top opening of the deck. It is noted that the claim is drawn to “a mower side discharge chute assembly” and not that of a mower deck. The claim limitations of claim 3 are drawn to a mower deck and not that of the chute assembly, therefore Kallevig is considered capable of such use).
Regarding claim 4, Kallevig discloses a torsion spring biasing the outer deflector chute and the inner discharge chute downward to a mowing position (torsion spring 102 of patent 6986240. Seen in figure 3 of Kallevig 562’. As the defined inner chute 22 is attached to the outer chute, they are both biased downward together).
Regarding claim 5, Kallevig discloses a mower side discharge chute assembly, comprising: an outer deflector chute (14) and an inner discharge chute (22), each chute being independently pivotable (chute element 14 is pivotable as explained in patent 6986240, column 4 lines 26-28, chute element 22 is pivotable on pin 24) between a raised position for mounting a grass collection system and an outwardly extended position over a side discharge opening of a mower deck (Raising chute 14 upwardly would allow for a grass collection element and lowering it would cover the opening in the deck. Chute element 22 is capable of pivoting to a raised position on its axis is needed to further allow for an attachment of a collection element); and a liner (20) attached to the inner discharge chute, the liner having a surface area that is greater than the inner discharge chute and less than the outer deflector chute (Sizes shown in figure 4).
Regarding claim 6, Kallevig discloses wherein the side discharge opening is through a side skirt and a top surface of the mower deck (The discharge chute of Kallevig is considered capable of being placed over and opening of a deck that has a side opening and partially a top opening of the deck. It is noted that the claim is drawn to “a mower side discharge chute assembly” and not that of a mower deck. The claim limitations of claim 3 are drawn to a mower deck and not that of the chute assembly, therefore Kallevig is considered capable of such use).
Regarding claim 10, Kallevig discloses wherein the liner has a larger surface area than the inner discharge chute (Sizes shown in figure 4).
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) 2, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kallevig (USPN 7624562).
Regarding claim 2 and 7, Kallevig discloses wherein the outer chute (14) could be made of a rigid material (Column 4 lines 32-33) and the liner (20) could be made of a flexible rubber material (Column 4 lines 45-47).
Kallevig does not disclose densities of the material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the outer deflector chute out of rigid materials such as aluminum or steel and the construct the liner out of a flexible rubber such as fiber-reinforced natural rubber as they are both common material used in lawnmower construction and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
The above use of the example material would meet the claim limitations as both steel and aluminum comprise greater densities than a flexible rubber such as fiber-reinforced natural rubber.
Regarding claim 9, Kallevig discloses a mower side discharge chute assembly, comprising: an outer deflector chute (14) pivotably mounted to a mower deck (chute element 14 is pivotable as explained in patent 6986240, column 4 lines 26-28) ; an inner discharge chute (22) pivotably mounted to the mower deck (chute element 22 is pivotable indirectly to the deck via pin 24) under the outer deflector chute; a liner (20) attached to the inner discharge chute and having a lower density than the outer deflector chute (Column 4 lines 32-33 discloses the outer chute 14 could be made of a rigid material. Column 4 lines 45-47 discloses the possible use of a flexible rubber material).
and a hinge with a torsion spring independently biasing the outer deflector chute and the inner discharge chute from a raised position to an outwardly extending position over a side discharge opening (torsion spring 102 of patent 6986240. Seen in figure 3 of Kallevig 562’. As the defined inner chute 22 is attached to the outer chute, they are both biased downward together) through a top of the mower deck and a skirt on a side of the mower deck (The discharge chute of Kallevig is considered capable of being placed over and opening of a deck that has a side opening and partially a top opening of the deck. It is noted that the claim is drawn to “a mower side discharge chute assembly” and not that of a mower deck. The claim limitations of claim 3 are drawn to a mower deck and not that of the chute assembly, therefore Kallevig is considered capable of such use).
Kallevig does not disclose densities of the material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the outer deflector chute out of rigid materials such as aluminum or steel and the construct the liner out of a flexible rubber such as fiber-reinforced natural rubber as they are both common material used in lawnmower construction and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
The above use of the example material would meet the claim limitations as both steel and aluminum comprise greater densities than a flexible rubber such as fiber-reinforced natural rubber.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benway (USPN 5913804) in view of Kohler (US 2009/0301050).
Regarding claim 1, Benway discloses a mower side discharge chute assembly, comprising: an outer deflector chute (26) and an inner discharge chute (34), each chute having a first end pivotably mounted to a mower deck (Both are pivotally mounted, Column 3 lines 46-47 and 56-57) and extending outwardly over a side discharge opening in a mowing position (Figures 1 and 2 show chutes extending).
Benway is lacking how the discharge chute is made however it appears to be constructed of a single piece and is therefore lacking a liner.
Kohler discloses a mower with a pivotable side discharge chute and teaches wherein the chute is made from multiple components to include a discharge chute element (18) with a liner (12) attached to a second end of the inner discharge chute and extending further outwardly over the side discharge opening in a mowing position (Figure 2 shows the liner attached to a second outer end of the chute).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the discharge chute of Benway to comprise a similar construction as taught by Kohler with a upper chute element attached to an extending liner element for the purpose of providing the structure with more rigidity and the provide the ability of easily replacing the liner element in case of damage.
Regarding claim 3, Benway further discloses wherein the side discharge opening includes an opening through a top surface and a side skirt of the mower deck (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 4, Benway further discloses a torsion spring (46/32) biasing the outer deflector chute and the inner discharge chute downward to a mowing position.
Regarding claim 5, Benway discloses a mower side discharge chute assembly, comprising: an outer deflector chute (34) and an inner discharge chute (26), each chute being independently pivotable (Both are pivotally mounted, Column 3 lines 46-47 and 56-57) between a raised position for mounting a grass collection system (column 4 lines 26-45) and an outwardly extended position over a side discharge opening of a mower deck (Figures 1 and 2); and the inner discharge chute having less surface area l than the outer deflector chute (clearly shown in figures 1 and 2).
Benway is lacking how the discharge chute is made however it appears to be constructed of a single piece and is therefore lacking a liner.
Kohler discloses a mower with a pivotable side discharge chute and teaches wherein the chute is made from multiple components to include a discharge chute element (18 with a smaller area) with a liner (12 with a larger area) attached to a second end of the inner discharge chute and extending further outwardly over the side discharge opening in a mowing position (Figure 2 shows the liner attached to a second outer end of the chute).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the discharge chute of Benway to comprise a similar construction as taught by Kohler with a upper smaller chute element attached to a larger extending liner element for the purpose of providing the structure with more rigidity and the provide the ability of easily replacing the liner element in case of damage.
Regarding claim 6, Benway further discloses wherein the side discharge opening is through a side skirt and a top surface of the mower deck (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 8, Benway further discloses wherein the inner discharge chute has stops that abut the mower deck to hold it at horizontal mowing position (See annotated figure 2, the combination would be considered to comprise the same inner corners of the defined inner discharge chute).
PNG
media_image1.png
890
812
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 2, 7, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benway (USPN 5913804) in view of Kohler (US 2009/0301050) in further view of Kallevig (USPN 7624562).
Regarding claims 2 and 7, It is noted that the claim language regarding density is directed to material claim limitations which do not further define any of the specific structure of the chutes that distinguishes it from the prior art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to construct the elements from known materials even with different densities, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
For the sake of argument, Kallevig discloses wherein an outer chute (14) could be made of a rigid material (Column 4 lines 32-33) and a liner (20) could be made of a flexible rubber material (Column 4 lines 45-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination to construct the outer deflector chute out of rigid materials such as aluminum or steel and the construct the liner out of a flexible rubber such as fiber-reinforced natural rubber as they are both common material used in lawnmower construction and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
The above use of the example material would meet the claim limitations as both steel and aluminum comprise greater densities than a flexible rubber such as fiber-reinforced natural rubber.
Regarding claim 9, Benway discloses a mower side discharge chute assembly, comprising: an outer deflector chute (34) pivotably mounted to a mower deck (Column 3 lines 46-47); an inner discharge chute (26) pivotably mounted to the mower deck (Column 3 lines 56-57) under the outer deflector chute (Figures 1 and 2); and a hinge (30) with a torsion spring (46/32) independently biasing the outer deflector chute and the inner discharge chute from a raised position to an outwardly extending position over a side discharge opening through a top of the mower deck and a skirt on a side of the mower deck (Figures 1 and 2).
Benway is lacking how the discharge chute is made however it appears to be constructed of a single piece and is therefore lacking a liner.
Kohler discloses a mower with a pivotable side discharge chute and teaches wherein the chute is made from multiple components to include a discharge chute element (18) with a liner (12) attached to a second end of the inner discharge chute and extending further outwardly over the side discharge opening in a mowing position (Figure 2 shows the liner attached to a second outer end of the chute).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the discharge chute of Benway to comprise a similar construction as taught by Kohler with a upper chute element attached to an extending liner element for the purpose of providing the structure with more rigidity and the provide the ability of easily replacing the liner element in case of damage.
It is noted that the claim language regarding density is directed to material claim limitations which do not further define any of the specific structure of the chutes that distinguishes it from the prior art. It is noted wherein the patentability of a product does not necessarily depend on its material construction as these limitation are considered part of a product by process. See MPEP section 2113 Product-by-Process, which states, if the product in the claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to construct the elements from known materials even with different densities, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
For the sake of argument, Kallevig discloses wherein an outer chute (14) could be made of a rigid material (Column 4 lines 32-33) and a liner (20) could be made of a flexible rubber material (Column 4 lines 45-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination to construct the outer deflector chute out of rigid materials such as aluminum or steel and the construct the liner out of a flexible rubber such as fiber-reinforced natural rubber as they are both common material used in lawnmower construction and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
The above use of the example material would meet the claim limitations as both steel and aluminum comprise greater densities than a flexible rubber such as fiber-reinforced natural rubber.
Regarding claim 10, the combination further discloses wherein the liner has a larger surface area than the inner discharge chute (Kohler figure 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Spitz (US 2019/0075723)
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, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at (571) 272-8971. 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