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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0288634) in view of Allen et al. (US Patent No. 3,732,671).
In reference to claim 1, Hasegawa discloses a mower 10 comprising:
a main frame 42 that includes a first electronics bay 106 and a second electronics bay 108;
a cutting assembly 30 supported by the main frame 42 to cut plant material during operation of the mower 10 (Fig. 2);
one or more first power electronic devices 40 housed within the first electronic bay 106 (Fig. 2); and
an electrical power source 38 and one or more second power electronic devices (par. 0037, “one or more sensors and electronic control units”; or par. 0088, an inductive coil for charging the power source 38) housed within the second electronics bay 108,
wherein a flow path A1-A4 (Fig. 2, par. 0064) for a cooling airflow is defined by the mower 10 to extend from an air inlet 96, through the first electronics bay 106 to the second electronics bay 108, and from the second electronics bay 108 to an air outlet 98 (Fig. 2, par. 0053).
Hasegawa fails to disclose that the main frame supports an operator station configured to support an operator and that the electronics bays are positioned below or rearward of the operator station.
Allen discloses a mower comprising electronics bays (Fig. 1, the bays containing electronics 94 and 98) that are positioned below or rearward of an operator station 42 (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the mower of Hasegawa as a riding mower with electronics bays below the operator station with a reasonable expectation of success so that an operator can ride the mower, rather than push the mower.
In reference to claim 2, Hasegawa discloses that the air inlet 96 provides an upward air flow A1 along the flow path A1-A4 from outside the mower 10 to an interior space of the mower 10 (Fig. 2); and
wherein the air outlet 98 provides a downward air flow A3 along the flow path A1-A4 from the second electronics bay 108 to outside the mower 10 (Fig. 2).
In reference to claim 3, Hasegawa discloses that the air inlet 96 is disposed on a bottom side of the main frame 42; and wherein the air inlet 96 is separated from the first electronics bay by one or more baffle walls (Fig. 2, the wall separating inlet 96 from chamber 110) to provide the upward air flow (Fig. 2).
In reference to claim 4, Hasegawa discloses an outlet fan 94 (par. 0053) supported at a bottom wall (Fig. 2, the wall associated with outlet 142) of the second electronics bay 108 and arranged to direct the downward air flow to be vented away from the mower 10 through the air outlet 98 (Fig. 2).
In reference to claim 5, Hasegawa discloses that the one or more second power electronic devices include a first charger for the electrical power source 38 (par. 0088); and
wherein the outlet fan 94 is located vertically below the power source 38 to direct the downward air flow A3 past the first charger (Fig. 2, par. 0088).
Hasegawa fails to disclose that the first charger is arranged to a rear side of the electrical power source.
Allen discloses a first charger 98 arranged to a rear side of an electrical power source 94 (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to dispose a charger at a rear side of an electrical power source with a reasonable expectation of success so that the charger is accessible from the rear of the mower.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 are 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.
Claims 21-32 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 BRAD HARCOURT whose telephone number is (571)272-7303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9am to 6pm.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571)272-4137. 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.
/BRAD HARCOURT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
6/01/26
Prosecution Insights