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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11910748. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is obvious that the narrower apparatus claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11910748 covers the broader apparatus claim 21 of the instant application. Claims 22-31 are rejected under the nonstatutory double patenting rejection because of their dependencies on rejected independent claim 21.
Claims 32-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11910748 in view of Oxley (US 20010002534 A1). Claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11910748 includes all the limitations of the cutting deck assembly set forth in claim 32 of the instant application, with the only difference being that claim 32 of the instant application further claims a grounds maintenance vehicle configured for use with the cutting deck assembly. However, it is obvious that such a cutting deck assembly must be used with a ground maintenance vehicle such as the one set forth by Oxley, which discloses a cutting deck assembly (12) configured for use on a highly maneuverable riding mower, the mower having a frame with a front end, a rear end, and a longitudinal axis extending between the front end and the rear end (features inherent from Fig. 1, para. [0020] of Oxley). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the cutting deck assembly on a ground maintenance vehicle, as taught by Oxley, in order to maneuver the cutting deck assembly across the lawn surface to trim grass. Claims 33-40 are also rejected under the nonstatutory double patenting rejection because of their dependencies on rejected independent claim 32.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the inlet of the third cutting chamber of claims 23 and 34 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because "are disclosed" is implied language. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: REAR DISCHARGE CHANNEL FOR CUTTING DECK ASSEMBLY AND VEHICLE INCLUDING SAME.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-23,25-28,30,32-36,38,40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oxley (US 20010002534 A1).
Regarding independent claims 21 and 32, Oxley discloses a grounds maintenance vehicle (“riding mower”, para. [0020]), comprising:
a frame (“mower frame”, para. [0008]) comprising a front end, a rear end, and a longitudinal axis extending between the front end and the rear end (implicit); and
a cutting deck assembly (12, Fig. 1) connected to the frame at or near the front end of the frame, the assembly comprising:
a top surface, a sidewall extending from the top surface and comprising a front portion, a rear portion, a first side portion, and a second side portion (surrounding walls, Fig. 2), wherein the top surface and the sidewall partially surround a first cutting chamber (left), a second cutting chamber (right), and a third cutting chamber (middle), wherein each of the first, second, and third cutting chambers is adapted to contain a cutting blade (17,18,19);
a channel (20) disposed adjacent the rear portion of the sidewall and extending along a channel axis, wherein the channel comprises a first end connected to an outlet of the first cutting chamber and a second end (designated in Annotated Image below); and
a ramp (central baffle 24) disposed at least partially within the channel and adjacent the second end of the channel, wherein the ramp comprises a directing surface that is adapted to deflect at least a portion of clippings that enter the channel from the outlet of the first cutting chamber (para. [0014] “a central baffle at the rear angled downwardly deflecting the grass clippings downwardly”).
PNG
media_image1.png
679
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Image of Fig. 1 of Oxley
Regarding claim 22 and 33, Oxley discloses the vehicle of claims 21 and 32, wherein the first cutting chamber is connected to the third cutting chamber and the second cutting chamber is connected to the third cutting chamber (middle chamber is connected to each side chamber).
Regarding claim 23 and 34, Oxley discloses the vehicle of claims 21 and 32, wherein the third (middle) cutting chamber comprises an inlet that is adapted to allow a portion of clippings to be directed either into or out of the channel (open bottom of cutting chamber acts as an inlet for allowing clippings to be directed into and then out of the channel).
Regarding claim 25 and 40, Oxley discloses the vehicle of claims 21 and 32, wherein the directing surface of the ramp (24) is adapted to deflect a portion of clippings in a direction away from the top surface (para. [0014] “central baffle at the rear angled downwardly deflecting the grass clippings downwardly”).
Regarding claim 26, Oxley discloses the vehicle of claim 21, further comprising an interior baffle extending from the top surface and further defining at least one of the first, second, or third cutting chambers (designated in Annotated Image above).
Regarding claim 27 and 35, Oxley discloses the vehicle of claims 21 and 32, further comprising a second ramp (22 or 23) disposed at least partially within the channel (20) and adjacent the first end of the channel, wherein the second ramp comprises a directing surface that is adapted to deflect at least a portion of the clippings that enter the channel (para. [0021] baffle plates 22 and 23 deflect clippings left and right).
Regarding claim 28 and 36, Oxley discloses the vehicle of claims 21 and 32, wherein the channel (20) comprises a top wall and first and second vertical walls (22,23) that extend from the top wall, wherein the channel is open facing away from the top wall (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 30, Oxley discloses the vehicle of claim 28, wherein a distance between the first and second vertical walls (22,23) measured in a direction orthogonal to the channel axis varies along the channel axis (as seen in Annotated Image above, the distance between vertical walls 22,23 increases from the first end to the second end).
Regarding claim 38, Oxley discloses the vehicle of claim 32, further comprising a door (35) disposed adjacent the outlet of the first (left) cutting chamber (Fig. 2), wherein the door is adapted to move between a closed position and an open position, wherein the outlet of the first cutting chamber is at least partially obstructed when the door is in the closed position and unobstructed when the door is in the open position (discharge opening may be closed by plate 35, para. [0022]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-24,27-29,32-36,39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derra et al. (US 20170245433 A1) in view of Bacon (US 3469376 A).
Regarding independent claims 21 and 32, Derra discloses a grounds maintenance vehicle (riding mower 300), comprising:
a frame comprising a front end, a rear end, and a longitudinal axis extending between the front end and the rear end (Fig. 9); and
a cutting deck assembly (mower deck 4 when it corresponds to deck insert 420) connected to the frame at or near the front end of the frame, the assembly comprising:
a top surface, a sidewall extending from the top surface and comprising a front portion, a rear portion, a first side portion (left portion as view from Fig. 11), and a second side portion (right portion as viewed from Fig. 11), wherein the top surface and the sidewall partially surround a first cutting chamber (28), a second cutting chamber (26), and a third cutting chamber (428), wherein each of the first, second, and third cutting chambers is adapted to contain a cutting blade (para. [0090] “cutting chambers for receiving three corresponding rotatably driven cutting blades”);
a channel (discharge passage 24) disposed adjacent the front portion of the sidewall and extending along a channel axis, wherein the channel comprises a first end (adjacent 32) connected to an outlet of the first cutting chamber and a second end (58); and
a ramp disposed at least partially within the channel and adjacent the second end of the channel (para. [0072] “upper surface 50 smoothly blends with or ramps into ceiling 34 of discharge passage 24 at end region 58”), wherein the ramp comprises a directing surface that is adapted to deflect at least a portion of clippings that enter the channel from the outlet of the first cutting chamber (inherent from any angled surface that comes into contact with the clippings).
Derra teaches wherein the channel is disposed at the front portion of the sidewall instead of the rear portion.
Bacon discloses, for example, two similar cutting chambers (C, E), wherein the path followed by cut grass clippings along a rear portion of the sidewall (21) is such that clippings are discharged laterally from a rear portion of the sidewall (21) (see arrows depicting exit from opening 38 in Fig. 1, col. 2 lines 34-39,59-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the channel of Derra at the rear instead of the front of the cutting deck, as taught by Bacon, as a mere simple substitution of one known location for a lateral discharge channel for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 22 and 33, Derra in view of Bacon discloses the vehicle of claims 21 and 32. Derra further teaches wherein the first cutting chamber (28) is connected to the third cutting chamber (428) and the second cutting chamber (26) is connected to the third cutting chamber (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 23 and 34, Derra in view of Bacon discloses the vehicle of claims 21 and 32. Derra further teaches wherein the third cutting chamber (428) comprises an inlet that is adapted to allow a portion of clippings to be directed either into or out of the channel (open bottom of chamber acts as an inlet to allow clippings to enter the chamber and be directed into and out of the channel).
Regarding claim 24, Derra in view of Bacon discloses the vehicle of claim 21. Derra further discloses a side discharge (32) aperture disposed through the first side portion (left portion as viewed from Fig. 11) of the sidewall and into the first cutting chamber (28).
Regarding claim 27 and 35, Derra in view of Bacon discloses the vehicle of claims 21 and 32. Derra further discloses a second ramp (angled surface at 32, as best seen from Fig. 2) disposed at least partially within the channel and adjacent the first end of the channel, wherein the second ramp comprises a directing surface that is adapted to deflect at least a portion of the clippings that enter the channel (para. [0070]).
Regarding claim 28 and 36, Derra in view of Bacon discloses the vehicle of claims 21 and 32. Derra further discloses wherein the channel comprises a top wall (34) and first and second vertical walls (36,38) that extend from the top wall, wherein the channel is open facing away from the top wall (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 29, Derra in view of Bacon discloses the assembly of claim 28. Derra further discloses wherein a distance between the first and second vertical walls (36,38) measured in a direction orthogonal to the channel axis remains constant along the channel axis (constant as seen in Figs. 10-11).
Regarding claim 39, Derra in view of Bacon discloses the vehicle of claim 32. Derra further discloses wherein the channel axis forms an angle with a longitudinal axis of the cutting deck assembly, wherein the longitudinal axis of the assembly extends between the front portion and the rear portion of the sidewall, wherein the angle is at least 40 degrees and no greater than 185 degrees (channel 24 extends at a 90 degree angle relative to longitudinal axis of cutting deck).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31 and 37 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, and to overcome the double patenting rejections above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Smeets (US 20200281117 A1) discloses a multi-configurable mower deck. Harvey (US 20170339826 A1) discloses a full-distribution cutting chamber. Loxterkamp (US 7574852 B1) discloses a multi-blade cutting deck with adjustable flow control baffles. Kettler (US 5267429 A) discloses a rear discharge mulching apparatus. Hansen (US 4502271 A) discloses a rear-discharge multi-blade rotary mower.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5 EST.
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 on (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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights