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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 50-56 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in telephonic interview with Matthew Clapper on 12/12/25.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 and 57 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7, line 3 sets forth “a mechanically biased latch”, should read – the mechanically biased latch – due to newly added limitation of the latch in claim 1, line 18.
Claim 57, line 18 sets forth “the first activation position”, should read – a first activation position –. Further, line 22 recites “a first activation position”, should read – the first activation position –.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7 and 10-12 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.
Claim 7, line 2 sets forth “a base of the lower portion”. However, it is unclear how this base is related to the bottom of the lower portion set forth in dependent claim 1, lines 18-19. Specifically, it is unclear if these two portions are one and the same or two different portions altogether. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 10, line 3 recites the same limitation and is rejected for the same reason as above.
Due to dependency on claim 10, claims 11-12 are rejected as well.
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.
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) 1-9 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aristidou (EP 3381261 A1) in view of Baker (US 9386743 B2) and Porter et al. (US 12471526 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Aristidou teaches a walk-behind grass mowing apparatus [10], comprising:
a mow deck (see paragraph [0039], lines 1-4) formed within or secured to a support structure [12];
at least one front wheel (front wheel [14], see Fig. 1) and at least one rear wheel (rear wheel [14], see Fig. 1) secured to the support structure;
a plurality of blades (see paragraph [0039], lines 3-4) rotatably secured within the mow deck;
a power source [18] secured to the support structure (see Fig. 1) that, when activated, provides mechanical force to the plurality of blades (see paragraph [0039], lines 9-10); and
an operator handle [20] secured to the support structure and having an extended position (see Fig. 1a) and a folded position (see Fig. 1b), wherein the operator handle further comprises:
an upper portion [22],
a lower portion [24],
a cross-member [54] extending between left and right segments of the upper portion or the lower portion (extends between the connection of the left and right segments of the upper and lower portion, see Fig. 2a), and
a mount structure [44] that rotatably secures (see Figs. 1a-1b) the operator handle to the support structure (see paragraph [0041], lines 4-6), and facilitates rotation of the operator handle between the extended position and the folded position (see Figs. 1a-1b), wherein:
the upper portion is movable along the lower portion (see paragraph [0044], lines 8-9) between a fully extended position (both upper and lower portions extended, see Fig. 1a) and a compressed position (lower portion fully within upper portion in compression direction [60]; see paragraph [0044], lines 8-9),
the cross-member includes a locking mechanism [40] that locks the upper portion from moving along the lower portion (see paragraph [0041], lines 1-3) in at least one of: the fully extended position or the compressed position (lockable in the extended and compressed positions, as well as any position between, through fixed openings in the upper and lower portions; see paragraph [0045], lines 1-8), and
the cross-member includes a release [72] that unlocks the locking mechanism and permits movement of the upper portion along the lower portion between the fully extended position and the compressed position (permits movement by releasing fixing elements [66]; see paragraph [0046], lines 1-7).
But Aristidou fails to disclose the mount structure further comprising: a first locking mechanism that secures the lower portion of the operator handle in the extended position; and a second locking mechanism that engages a mechanically biased latch within a bottom of the lower portion and secures the lower portion of the operator handle in the folded position.
Baker discloses a similar mower [10] comprising of a mount structure ([100], see Col. 5, lines 9-13) that rotatably secures the operator handle [32] to the support structure [16] and facilitates rotation of the operator handle between the extended position (position shown in Fig. 2) and the folded position (position of the handle against support [118], see Col. 5, lines 20-25), the mount structure further comprising:
a first locking mechanism [122 and 132] that secures the lower portion (see below; lower half of the operator handle) of the operator handle in the extended position (pawl [132] is secured into notch [122], preventing movement and keeping the handle in the extended position as shown in Fig. 2, see Col. 5, lines 32-41); and
a second locking mechanism [36 and 118] that engages a mechanically biased latch ([136]; spring that latches pawl [132] in notch [122]) within a bottom of the lower portion (see below; bottom of the handle connecting it to the mount structure) to hold the operator handle in the folded position ([36] is actuated to engage latch [136], pulling the pawl [132] from the notch [122] and allowing the handle to rotate fully to the folded position against stop [118], see Col. 5, lines 19-25 and 48-53).
PNG
media_image1.png
476
681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the mount structure of Aristidou with the mount structure of Baker since both are ways to mount the handle to the mower to allow for rotation between an extended and folded position; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
But Baker fails to explicitly disclose that the second locking mechanism secures the lower portion of the operator handle in the folded position.
However, Porter et al. discloses a similar mower [100] with a mount structure (see Fig. 3) wherein the lower portion (see below; lower half of the operator handle) of the handle [124] is secured in the folded position (secured through magnets [117 and 118], see Col. 6, lines 35-53).
PNG
media_image2.png
353
416
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the magnets of Porter et al. on the stop and lower portion of the handle of Baker and Aristidou in order for the magnets to create a holding force for securing the handle in the folded position (see Porter et al. Col. 6, lines 35-53).
Regarding claim 2, Aristidou, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the locking mechanism [40] locks the upper portion [24] from moving along the lower portion [22] in both the fully extended position (both upper and lower portions extended, see Fig. 1a) and the compressed position (lower portion fully within upper portion in compression direction [60]; lockable in the extended and compressed positions, as well as any position between, through fixed openings in the upper and lower portions; see paragraph [0045], lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 3, Aristidou, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the release [72] comprises an operated actuator ([74], operated by actuation of release; see paragraph [0046], lines 4-7) that unlocks the locking mechanism ([40]; capable of unlocking fixing elements [66] from both positions, see paragraph [0045], lines 3-4 and [0046], lines 1-7) from the fully extended position (both upper and lower portions extended, see Fig. 1a) or from the compressed position (lower portion fully within upper portion in compression direction [60]; see paragraph [0044], lines 8-9).
Regarding claim 4, Aristidou, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the operator handle [20] in the extended position (see Fig. 1a) is configured to move (see paragraph [0044], lines 8-9) between the fully extended position (both upper and lower portions extended, see Fig. 1a) and the compressed position (lower portion fully within upper portion in compression direction [60]; see paragraph [0044], lines 8-9) when unlocked from the locking mechanism ([40]; capable of moving when fixing elements [66] are released through [72], see paragraph [0045], lines 3-4 and [0046], lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 5, Baker, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the mount structure [100] includes a pivot device ([36]; actuation allows the handle to pivot between positions) that secures the lower portion (see above) to the mount structure (when [36] is unactuated, the pawl [132] is aligned within the notch [122], securing the lower portion to the mount structure, see Col. 5, lines 43-53) and facilitates movement of the lower portion (actuation of [36] removes [132] from [122], allowing movement of the handle, see Col. 5, lines 43-63) between the extended position (position shown in Fig. 2) and the folded position (position of the handle against support [118], see Col. 5, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 6, Baker, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the mount structure [100] is operable to lock the lower portion (see above) into a locked extended position (unfolded position shown in Fig. 2, but locked when pawl [132] is secured into notch [122]) and prevent rotation of the lower portion from the locked extended position when locked (see Col. 5, lines 32-41).
Regarding claim 7, Baker, of the above resultant combination, further discloses a locking tab [132] within the mount structure [100] located near a base (see below) of the lower portion (see above) when rotated into the extended position (position shown in Fig. 2) and a mechanically biased latch [136] within the base of the lower portion that secures to the locking tab to effect locking the lower portion ([136] latches pawl [132] into notch [122]; therefore, is secured to the locking tab for locking of the lower portion, see Col. 5, lines 43-48) into the locked extended position (unfolded position shown in Fig. 2, but locked when pawl [132] is secured into notch [122]).
PNG
media_image3.png
476
681
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Baker, of the above resultant combination, further discloses a base (see below) of the upper portion (see below; upper half of the operator handle) releases the mechanically biased latch [136] from the locking tab ([132]; releases the bias of the latch from the tab when [36] is actuated via the user holding bail [34] against the base, see Col. 4, lines 59-62), and unlocks the lower portion from the locked extended position (when [36] is actuated, the latch [136] releases the bias against the tab [132], unlocking the lower portion for rotation, see Col. 5, lines 19-25 and 48-53).
PNG
media_image4.png
415
524
media_image4.png
Greyscale
But Baker fails to disclose that this base releases the mechanically biased latch from the locking tab in response to the upper portion of the operator handle being put into the compressed position with respect to the lower portion.
However, Aristidou discloses the upper portion [22] of the operator handle [20] being put into the compressed position (lower portion fully within upper portion in compression direction [60]; see paragraph [0044], lines 8-9) with respect to the lower portion [24] through user actuation of the base [26] in the upper portion (user pushes the upper portion downwards in order to place the handle in to the compressed position).
It can be seen then that when the mount structure of Baker is applied to the mower of Aristidou that the compressed position of Aristidou causes actuation of the base, causing the latch to release from the locking tab of Baker in order for the handle to rotate in relation to the body of the mower (see Baker Col. 4, lines 59-62).
Regarding claim 9, Baker, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the second locking mechanism [36 and 118] is operable to place the lower portion (see above) into the folded position (position of the handle against support [118]; places the lower portion into this position through actuation of [36] unlocking the pawl [132] from the notch [122], see Col. 5, lines 19-25 and 48-53), but fails to disclose locking the lower portion into a locked folded position and preventing movement of the lower portion out of the folded position when the lower portion is locked into the locked folded position.
However, Porter et al. discloses a mount structure (see Fig. 3) that locks (through magnets [117 and 118], see Col. 6, lines 35-53) the lower portion (see above) into a locked folded position (folded over the body of the mower with the magnets [117 and 118] connected, see Fig. 2A) and prevents movement of the lower portion out of the folded position (see Col. 6, lines 35-53).
It can be seen then that when the magnets of Porter et al. are applied on the stop and lower portion of the handle of Baker and Aristidou that the lower portion is locked into the locked folded position, preventing movement of the lower portion out of the folded position when the lower portion is locked into the locked folded position as disclosed by Porter et al. (see Col. 6, lines 35-53).
Regarding claim 20, Aristidou, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein when the upper portion [22] is moved to the compressed position (lower portion fully within upper portion in compression direction [60]) along the lower portion [24], the operator handle [20] is configured to rotate between the extended position (see Fig. 1a) and the folded position (see Fig. 1b).
Regarding claim 21, Aristidou, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the fully extended position (both upper and lower portions extended, see Fig. 1a) defines a plurality of lengths (lower portion has a plurality of fixed openings the upper portion can be fixed to, allowing for a plurality of lengths; see paragraph [0045], lines 1-8) of the upper portion [22] of the operator handle [20] relative to the lower portion [24] thereof, and wherein the locking mechanism [40] of the cross-member [54] locks the upper portion from moving along the lower portion in one of the plurality of lengths defined by the fully extended position (locks through fixing elements [66], see paragraph [0045], lines 1-8).
Claim(s) 13-14, 22-23, and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aristidou (EP 3381261 A1), Baker (US 9386743 B2) and Porter et al. (US 12471526 B2) as applied to claims 1-9 and 20-21 above, and further in view of Frick et al. (US 12048267 B2).
Regarding claim 13, Aristidou, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the lower portion [24] of the operator handle [20] is at least in part hollow (part hollow for insertion of locking structure [66], see Figs. 2a and b) and the upper portion [22] of the operator handle is movable (see paragraph [0044], lines 8-9) along the lower portion [24], but fails to disclose wherein the upper portion of the operator handle is movable along the lower portion by sliding within an interior of the lower portion.
Frick et al. discloses a similar grass mowing apparatus ([110], see Fig. 6) wherein the lower portion [152] of the operator handle [124] is at least in part hollow (upper portion telescopes inside of the lower portion; therefore, is hollow, see Figs. 6-8) and the upper portion [150] of the operator handle is movable along the lower portion by sliding within an interior (see Figs. 6-8) of the lower portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the telescopic portions of Aristidou with the telescopic portions of Frick et al. since both are members of a handle compressing within each other; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
Regarding claim 14, Aristidou, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein: the lower portion [24] includes a first hollow structure (left side of [24], hollow where rod [66] is inserted) and a second hollow structure (right side of [24], hollow where rod [66] is inserted) and secured to the mount structure [44] at respective first ends (see below) thereof and connected to the cross-member [54] at respective second ends thereof (see below);
the cross-member extends between the first hollow structure and the second hollow structure of the lower portion (see Fig. 1a); and
the locking mechanism [40] includes a rod ([66] on left side) within the cross-member that engages with a hole (see paragraph [0045], lines 6-8) in the first hollow structure of the lower portion and, when the upper portion [22] is in the fully extended position (upper portion fully extended, see Fig. 1a), also engages with a second hole ([68]; see paragraph [0045], lines 5-6) in the upper portion to lock the upper portion into the fully extended position (see paragraph [0045], lines 1-4).
PNG
media_image5.png
638
508
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Aristidou teaches an operator handle [20] for a turf maintenance apparatus [10], comprising:
an upper handle portion [22] comprising an operator grip [26];
a lower handle portion [24] wherein the upper handle portion can move between a compressed position (upper portion fully within lower portion in compression direction [60]) and an extended position (upper portion fully extended, see Fig. 1a);
a mount structure [44] comprising one or more pivot fasteners ([103]; see paragraph [0051], lines 3-5) for fixedly attaching the mount structure to the apparatus, wherein the lower handle portion is rotatably secured near a base [102] thereof to the mount structure and is rotatable between an upright position (see Fig. 1a) and a folded position (see Fig. 1b) relative to the apparatus, and
a cross member [54] positioned at an intersection (see Fig. 1a) of the upper handle portion and the lower handle portion and through which the upper handle portion engages the tube of the lower handle portion (see Fig. 1a), and the cross member further including a release [72] configured to unlock the lower handle portion from the folded position (see Fig. 1b; permits movement by releasing fixing elements [66], allowing for the lower portion to be extended; see paragraph [0046], lines 1-7).
But Aristidou fails to disclose the lower handle portion is a hollow tube, and wherein the mount structure further comprises a first locking mechanism to lock the lower handle portion in at least the folded position preventing rotation of the lower handle portion when locked by the locking mechanism.
Frick et al. discloses a similar grass mowing apparatus ([110], see Fig. 6) wherein the lower portion [152] of the operator handle [124] is at least in part hollow (upper portion telescopes inside of the lower portion; therefore, is hollow, see Figs. 6-8) and the upper portion [150] of the operator handle is movable along the lower portion by sliding within an interior (see Figs. 6-8) of the lower portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the telescopic portions of Aristidou with the telescopic portions of Frick et al. since both are members of a handle compressing within each other; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
But Frick et al. fails to disclose wherein the mount structure further comprises a first locking mechanism to lock the lower handle portion in at least the folded position preventing rotation of the lower handle portion when locked by the locking mechanism.
Baker discloses a similar mower [10] comprising of a mount structure [100] wherein the lower handle portion (see below; lower half of handle) is rotatably secured (through [112]) near a base [110] thereof to the mount structure and is rotatable between an upright position (position of handle in Fig. 2) and a folded position (position of the handle against support [118], see Col. 5, lines 20-25) relative to the apparatus, and
further comprising a first locking mechanism [36 and 118] to hold the lower handle portion in at least the folded position (actuation of [36] causes pawl [132] to be removed from notch [122], allowing movement of the handle into the folded position against stop [118], see Col. 5, lines 19-25 and 48-53).
PNG
media_image6.png
476
681
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the mount structure of Aristidou with the mount structure of Baker since both are ways to mount the handle to the mower to allow for rotation between an extended and folded position; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
But Baker fails to disclose the lower handle portion is locked in at least the folded position preventing rotation of the lower handle portion when locked by the locking mechanism.
However, Porter et al. discloses a similar mower [100] with a mount structure (see Fig. 3) wherein the lower portion (see below) of the handle [124] is locked in the folded position (secured through magnets [117 and 118], see Col. 6, lines 35-53), preventing rotation of the lower handle portion when locked by the locking mechanism (see Col. 6, lines 35-53).
PNG
media_image2.png
353
416
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the magnets of Porter et al. on the stop and lower portion of the handle of Baker, Aristidou, and Frick et al. in order for the magnets to create a holding force for securing the handle in the folded position (see Porter et al. Col. 6, lines 35-53).
Regarding claim 23, Baker, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the mount structure [100] further comprises a second locking mechanism [122 and 132] configured to lock the lower handle portion (see above) in the upright position (secures the lower portion in the upright position by the pawl [132] locking into the notch [122], preventing movement, see Col. 5, lines 32-41).
Regarding claim 29, Aristidou, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the cross member [54] includes a first locking mechanism [40] configured to lock the upper handle [22] in at least one of: the compressed position (upper portion fully within lower portion in compression direction [60]) or the extended position (upper portion fully extended, see Fig. 1a; able to lock the portions in both the extended and compressed position, as well as any position between, see paragraph [0045], lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 30, Aristidou, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the release [72] is further configured to unlock (through unlocking fixing elements [66], see paragraph [0046], lines 4-5) the upper handle [22] from the compressed position (upper portion fully within lower portion in compression direction [60]).
Regarding claim 31, Aristidou, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the release [72] is further configured to unlock (through unlocking fixing elements [66], see paragraph [0046], lines 4-5) the upper handle [22] from the extended position (upper portion fully extended, see Fig. 1a).
Claim(s) 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aristidou (EP 3381261 A1), Baker (US 9386743 B2) and Porter et al. (US 12471526 B2) as applied to claims 1-9 and 20-21 above, and further in view of Hou (US 20240122098 A1).
Regarding claim 18, the above combination discloses the mower as applied, but fails to disclose a switch located within the cross-member that disables the power source in response to activation of the switch.
Hou discloses a similar grass mowing apparatus [1] comprising of a switch [5] located within the cross-member ([8]; see paragraph [0024], lines 3-4) that disables the power source in response to activation of the switch (see paragraph [0024], lines 7-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the switch of Hou on the grass mowing apparatus of Aristidou, Baker, and Porter et al. in order to prevent the user from starting the mower while the handle is in a compressed position for safety of the user (see Hou paragraph [0024], lines 7-14).
Regarding claim 19, Aristidou, of the above resultant combination, further discloses the release [72] being moved to a first release position (downwards actuation of [72]; releases locking elements [66] for compression of the handle, see paragraph [0046], lines 1-5), but fails to disclose wherein the switch is activated in response to movement of the release to a first release position.
However, Hou discloses a switch [5] that gets activated when the handle is a compressed state (see paragraph [0024], lines 7-14).
It can be seen then that when Hou's switch is provided to the grass mowing apparatus of Aristidou, Baker, and Porter et al. that the switch is activated when the release is moved to a first release position as disclosed by Hou (see paragraph [0024], lines 7-14).
Claim(s) 57 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aristidou (EP 3381261 A1) in view of Hou (US 20240122098 A1).
Regarding claim 57, Aristidou teaches a cross member [54] for an operator handle [20] of a turf maintenance apparatus [10], comprising:
a cross-member body (body of [54]) having an exterior (see exterior of body in Fig. 1a) and an interior (see interior of body in Figs. 2a-2b), wherein the interior engages with a first elongated structure ([22 and 24] on the left side of the handle) of the operator handle at one end (see below) of the cross-member body and engages with a second elongated structure ([22 and 24] on the right side of the handle) of the operator handle at a second end (see below) of the cross- member body;
a first locking structure ([66] on left side of cross-member) seated within the interior of the cross-member body that engages an opening (left side, see paragraph [0045], lines 6-8) in a lower portion [24] of the first elongated structure and also engages a second opening ([68] on left side of cross-member; see paragraph [0045], lines 5-6) in an upper portion [22] of the first elongated structure, in response to the second opening being aligned with the opening, to lock the upper portion of the first elongated structure in a fixed position relative the lower portion of the first elongated structure (locked into position through fixing element inserted into openings, see paragraph [0045], lines 2-8);
a mechanically biased release actuator ([74] on left side; mechanically biased through spring [70] and connection to first locking structure [66], see paragraph [0045], lines 10-14 and [0046], lines 4-7) seated within the interior and coupled to the first locking structure (see Figs. 2a-2b) and operable to drive the first locking structure toward the one end of the cross- member body in response to the mechanical bias and engage both the opening and the second opening in response to the second opening being aligned with the opening (when release is not activated, mechanical bias [70] guides locking structure within openings and maintains force to ensure connection, see paragraph [0045], lines 8-14); and
a release [72] exposed to the exterior of the cross-member body (see paragraph [0046], lines 1-4) and coupled to the mechanically biased release actuator such that, when activated to a first activation position (downwards actuation of [72]), the release moves the mechanically biased release actuator against the mechanical bias and removes the first locking structure from the second opening and frees the upper portion of the first elongated structure to move relative to the lower portion of the first elongated structure (see paragraph [0046], lines 4-11).
PNG
media_image7.png
423
550
media_image7.png
Greyscale
But Aristidou fails to disclose a disable switch within the interior of the cross-member body having a switch actuator adjacent a portion of the mechanically biased release actuator, wherein in response to the release being activated to the first activation position, the portion of the mechanically biased release actuator engages the switch actuator and activates the disable switch, wherein an output of the disable switch is configured to deactivate a power source of the turf maintenance apparatus.
Hou discloses a similar mower comprising of a disable switch [5] within the interior of the cross-member body [8] having a switch actuator [51] wherein when the handle is retracted via the telescopic state a portion of an actuator [16] engages the switch actuator to activate the disable switch (see paragraph [0024], lines 9-14 and paragraph [0025], lines 8-12), wherein an output of the disable switch is configured to deactivate a power source of the turf maintenance apparatus (see paragraph [0024], lines 7-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the disable switch of Hou within the cross-member body of Aristidou in order to prevent the user from starting the mower while the handle is in a compressed position for safety of the user (see Hou paragraph [0024], lines 7-14). It can be seen then that when the disable switch of Hou is provided to the cross-member body of Aristidou that the disable switch is adjacent a portion of the mechanically biased release actuator due to being within the same cross-member body. Further, it can be seen that the actuator of Hou is replaced with the mechanically biased release actuator of Aristidou to engage the switch actuator as both are movable parts within the cross-member body activated when the handle changes positions (see Hou paragraph [0025], lines 4-19 and Aristidou paragraph [0046], lines 4-7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17, 24-28, and 32 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 10-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 33-36 and 38-49 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Please see updated art rejections above in response to applicant’s claim amendments, now including Baker (US 9386743 B2).
Claim 57 is rejected over Aristidou (EP 3381261 A1) in view of Hou (US 20240122098 A1) (please see rejection above). It is noted that in the previous non-final dated 12/22/25, claim 41 was objected to being allowable for having almost the exact same limitations as claim 57. However, claim 41, lines 2-3 recite “a crest portion of the mechanically biased release actuator” wherein claim 57, line 17 recites “a portion of the mechanically biased release actuator”. Claim 57 is broader than claim 41, allowing it to be rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNNY WEBB whose telephone number is (571)272-3830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 to 5:30 E.T..
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 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.
/SUNNY D WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights