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Claims 50-56 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 57 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 57, lines 17-18 set forth “wherein in response to the release being activated to a first activation position”, should read – wherein in response to a release being activated to a first activation position – due to mention of the release later in line 21.
Claim 57, line 21 recites “a release”, should read – the release – due to fixing the antecedent basis issue above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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).
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).
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]).
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).
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 into 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).
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).
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).
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) 42-45 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gobin (US 3527469 A) in view of Porter et al. (US 12471526 B2).
Regarding claim 42, Gobin teaches a base (see Figs. 2-3) for securing an operator handle [16] to a walk-behind turf maintenance apparatus [15], the base comprising:
a support structure [19] securing the base to the walk-behind turf maintenance apparatus (see Col. 2, lines 15-17);
a base support [21] secured to the support structure (through bolts [23]), the base support further comprising:
a pivot fastener [27] for rotatably securing the operator handle to the support structure between an extended position (see Fig. 2) and a folded position (see Fig. 3);
a first base stop ([34], see Fig. 2) at the extended position of the operator handle that prevents the operator handle from rotating past the extended position (see Col. 2, lines 29-33); a second base stop [37] at the folded position of the operator handle that prevents the operator handle from rotating past the folded position (see Col. 3, lines 26-32);
a first locking structure ([32, 34 and 38], see Figs. 6-7) located at a base (see below) of the operator handle in the extended position and configured to lock the operator handle in the extended position and prevent rotation of the operator handle out of the extended position (locks handle between shoulders [32 and 34] in overhang projection [38]; see Col. 2, lines 70- 72 and Col. 3, lines 1-10); and
a second locking structure ([36 and 37], see Fig. 5) located at the base of the operator handle in the folded position (see Fig. 3) and configured to hold the operator handle in the folded position (held in folding position through shoulder [37], see Col. 3, lines 26-32).
But Gobin fails to explicitly disclose the second locking structure is configured to lock the operator handle in the folded position and prevent rotation of the operator handle out of the folded position.
Porter et al. discloses a similar base [130a and b] for securing an operator handle [124] to a walk-behind turf maintenance apparatus [100] wherein the second locking structure [116] is configured to lock the operator handle in the folded position (see Fig. 2A) and prevent rotation of the operator handle out of the folded position (locks handle through magnet, see Col. 6, lines 45-53).
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 magnet of Porter et al. on the handle and second base stop of Gobin in order to provide a holding force that holds the handle in the folding position and resists pivoting of the handle to the extended position (see Porter et al. Col. 6, lines 45-53).
Regarding claim 43, Gobin, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the first locking structure ([32, 34 and 38], see Figs. 6-7) comprises a locking tab (see below) formed in the base support [21] and configured to engage a latch (outer face of [39]) in a base (see above) of the operator handle [16] when the operator handle is positioned in the extended position (see Fig. 2; see Col. 2, lines 70-72 and Col. 3, lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 44, Gobin, of the above resultant combination, further discloses the second locking structure ([36 and 37], see Fig. 5) comprises a cam device ([36]; see Col. 3, lines 26-32) formed in the base support [21] and configured to engage a latch (outer face of [39]) in the base (see above) of the operator handle [16], pulling the latch outward from the base of the operator handle (pulls latch out of extending position lock [38], see Fig. 7) as the operator handle is moved into the folded position (see Fig. 3), and trapping the latch when the operator handle reaches the folded position (shoulder [37] traps latch by holding it in place when the handle has reached the folded position, see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 45, Gobin, of the above resultant combination, further discloses a foot stop structure (see below; holds latch within the foot stop structure if it fails to engage the cam device, blocking the handle from folding) that blocks the latch (outer face of [39]) and the operator handle [16] from moving to the folded position (see Fig. 3) in response to the latch failing to engage the cam device ([36]; see Col. 3, lines 26-32).
Regarding claim 49, Gobin, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the support structure [19] is formed integrally as part of a body (see Col. 2, lines 15-17 and Fig. 1) of the turf maintenance apparatus [15] or fixedly fastened to the body of the turf maintenance apparatus.
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).
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 and switch actuator 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 and switch actuator 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 10-12, 15-17, 24-28, 32, and 46-48 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 33-36 and 38-41 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Throughout Applicant’s remarks, Applicant makes comments about claim 1 such as “a locking mechanism that is capable of engaging a mechanically biased latch for securing the lower portion in the folded position” or “the art does not disclose a mechanically biased latch that secures the lower portion in the folded position”. Examiner would like to first point out that this is not what claim 1 recites.
Rather claim 1 states the limitation of “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”. Therefore, it can be seen that the claim reads as though the second locking mechanism engages a mechanically biased latch within a bottom of the lower portion, and the second locking mechanism secures the lower portion of the operator handle in the folded position. The claim does not state the mechanically biased latch secures the lower portion in the folded position, but rather the second locking mechanism does, and the examiner interpreted the claim as such.
Page 4 of Applicant’s remarks sets forth “Porter merely discloses a magnet 118 to "hold the handle 124 in the folded position" (Id., line 35), but magnet 118 discloses no modification to Baker's handle adjustment bracket 110 or pawl assembly 130 that would secure the lower portion in the folded position by engaging a mechanically biased latch.” Further, “This is reinforced by the fact that, in the folded position, operator bail 34 would not be able to fold forward away from handle member 32 (as shown in Figure 7 of Baker), because in the folded position, engine 18 would block such forward movement of the operator bail 34, preventing cable 36 from disengaging spring 136.” Examiner disagrees.
Baker discloses a first [122 and 132] and second [36 and 118] locking mechanism. The second locking mechanism engages a mechanical biased latch [136] through cable [36]. Engagement of the cable releases the bias on the latch to remove it from the notches [122]. This allows the handle to be pivoted to the folded position in which it rests against stop [118], effectively holding the handle in the folded position. However, Baker fails to disclose the locking mechanism secures the lower portion of the handle in the folded position. Porter teaches a similar stop [117] comprised of a magnetic target and a magnet [118] located on the handle. When the handle is folded, the magnet connects with the magnetic target, securing the handle in the folded position. That is the handle requires force from the user to remove it from this position. Therefore, when the magnet and magnetic stop of Porter is applied to the handle and stop of Baker, the magnet acts to secures the handle in the folded position against the stop of Baker.
Finally, the cable [36] of Baker engages with the mechanically biased latch [136] to remove the pawl [132] from the notch [122]. As can be seen in Fig. 2, stop [118] does not have a notch in which the pawl needs to be inserted; therefore, the cable does not need to be actuated in the folded position. It can be seen then that the cable [36] and the bail [38] of the handle of Baker folds over the body of the mower in order for the handle to rest against stop [118] (see Baker Col. 5, lines 16-25). Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Page 5 of applicant’s remarks set forth “Porter discloses only "passive" holding of handle 124 in the folded position, in which passive is defined as "holding the handle in a position (e.g., in the folded position) without positive locking or latching". (Porter, col. 6, lines 53-55).” And further, “In addition to the foregoing, the passive holding of Porter does not secure handle 124 in the folded position, as claim 1 recites, but merely holds "the handle in the folded position only until a force exceeding the holding force is applied, at which time the handle may move away from the folded position even when the passive holder is engaged, the operator may move the handle 124 away from the folded position by application of a force to the handle". (Id., lines 56- 63).” Examiner disagrees.
Claim 1 sets forth “secures the lower portion of the operator handle in the folded position”; therefore, the claim is not setting forth positive locking or latching as mentioned above. Further, Merriam-Webster defines the term “secure” as 3a. Firmly attached or 3b. In a firm position that prevents unwanted movement (see attached NPL for Merriam-Webster). With this in mind, it can be seen then that the magnet [118] attaches the handle to the stop. As applicant points out above, only a force exceeding the holding force can move the handle from this position; therefore, the handle is firmly attached that prevents unwanted movement i.e. accidental movement of the handle out of the folded position.
Further, it is to be noted, that the handle of the claimed invention is secured in the folded position through the latch foot being secured behind the back surface of the locking cam (see para. [0074], lines 1-7). Therefore, acting as “passive holding” as defined by the applicant, as this merely holds the structures in a position without positive locking or latching and requires a force by the user to be applied to the handle to remove it from the folded position.
Pages 6 and 7, Applicant sets forth “Aristidou does not disclose any form of locking lower handle portion 24 in the folded position, and therefore necessarily cannot disclose a release mechanism configured to unlock the lower handle portion from the folded position.” And “Porter expressly disclaims “preventing rotation of the lower handle portion when locked by the locking mechanism”, as Porter expressly notes that an operator can lift the handle merely by overcoming the magnet force of magnet 118.”
As disclosed above, Applicant’s handle is locked in the folded position through latch foot being secured behind locking cam. Further, as set forth in applicant’s specification para. [0079], “Figure 9 shows upper rod 334 pushed inward in the direction of the arrow in a fully removed position 934 from second opening 816 in upper portion 312, in response to release 818 being actuated to a fully depressed position 918. As stated previously, with upper rod 334 removed from second opening 816, upper portion 312 can move relative to lower tube 314. Where a base 622 of lower tube 314 is in a locked folded position as shown in Figure 7C, movement of upper portion 312 in response to release 818 being actuated to fully depressed position 918 is limited by the length of slot 714C and dimensions of base seating pin 630. However, as noted above these dimensions can be sufficient for latch foot 722 to clear locking cam 730A (see Figure 10, infra), allowing lower tube 314 to be rotated out of the folded position removing upper portion 312 and lower tube 314 from engagement with base seating pin 630.”
It can be seen then that when the release is depressed, the rods ae removed from their slots, allowing for the upper portion to telescopically extend from the lower portion of the handle. This movement, paired with the rotation of the handle from the folded to the extended position, forces latch foot out of securement with the locking cam and therefore unlocks the lower portion from the folded position. It is to be noted that only depression of the release does not remove the latch foot from securement with the locking cam. Depression of the release paired with rearward pivoting movement to the extended position removes the securement.
Aristidou’s release [72] operates similarly in that, once depressed, it moves rods [66] out of their slots, allowing for the upper portion [22a] of the handle to move telescopically over the lower portion [24a]. When the handle is moved to the folded, locked position, the upper and lower portions are compressed together telescopically and the lower portion is locked in the folded position from the magnet of Porter. Therefore, when a user actuates the release, the upper portion is telescopically removed from the lower portion, allowing the user to rotate the handle rearward into the extended position. This rearward movement overcomes the force of the magnet and unlocks the lower portion. Therefore, both arguments are not persuasive as the telescopic and folded nature of Aristidou when paired with Baker and Porter allows for the release to function in the same way as the Applicant’s.
Page 8 of Applicant’s remarks set forth “Gobin is silent regarding "lock the operator handle in the folded position", and the Office Action cites to Porter to cure this deficiency. However, Porter only discloses a magnet coupling, but not "mechanically lock the operator handle in the folded position", as recited by claim 42.” Examiner disagrees.
The handle of the claimed invention is secured in the folded position through the latch foot being secured behind the back surface of the locked cam (see para. [0074], lines 1-7). It can be seen that the limitation “mechanically lock” is fulfilled by the claimed invention through two mechanical limitations being held to each other without the use of a mechanical fastener i.e. the latch foot being held by the locking cam. Further, the latch foot is removed from being secured by the locking cam through user force, see para. [0079]. This is the same in Porter wherein the handle is secured in the folded position through the magnets; therefore, the handle is firmly held in place until a user overcomes the force exerted by the magnets. Magnets are a mechanical mechanism used to lock the handle in the folded position; therefore, they “mechanically lock” the handle in the folded position.
Finally, Gobin, in the folded position, rests the handle against stop [37], but fails to lock the handle in this position. Porter discloses a similar stop [117] that mechanically interacts with magnet [118] to lock the handle in the folded position. Therefore, when the magnet of Porter is applied to the stop of Gobin, the handle is mechanically locked in this position.
Finally, in page 9, Applicant sets forth “While Hou discloses "a cam 16 protruded radially from the pivot shaft 15", cam 16 does not affect upper push rod 12. In contrast, the mechanically biased release actuator is both: "operable to drive the first locking structure toward the one end of the cross-member body" and has "a portion of the mechanically biased release actuator" adjacent the switch actuator that "engages the switch actuator". Neither Aristidou nor Hou discloses any structure that both actuates a disable switch and is operable to drive the first locking structure, as recited by claim 57.” Examiner disagrees.
Hou’s cam [16] engages the switch actuator [51] to activate the disable switch [5] when the handle is telescopically compressed (see Hou para. [0039], lines 12-25). Similarly, to telescopically compress the handle of Aristidou, the release [72] is in the first activation position (depressed), causing the mechanically biased release actuator [74] to drive the first locking structure [66] toward the one end of the cross-member body (mechanical bias [70] guides locking structure within openings and maintains force to ensure connection, see para. [0045], lines 8-14).
When the disable switch and switch actuator of Hou is provided to the cross-member of Aristidou, the disable switch is activated when the handle is compressed. The compression occurs when Aristidou’s release is in the first activation position and the mechanically biased release actuator removes the locking structures. Therefore, the mechanically biased release actuator engages the switch actuator and activates the disable switch as the movement of the mechanically biased release actuator begins the compression. It can further be seen that the mechanically biased release actuator both drives the first locking structure and engages the switch actuator. Further, as both the switch actuator and the mechanically biased release actuator are located within the same cross-member body, the two limitations are adjacent, or next to, each other.
It is for the above reasons that the arguments are not persuasive and the claimed invention is rejected.
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.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights