DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 1-2, “wherein the a pair” is awkward and unclear. 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 1-4, 6 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 1 sets forth “at least one idler pulley” in lines 5-6 and again in lines 9-10. It is unclear if this is meant to be two separate idler pulleys (i.e., at least two idler pulley) or if these at least one idler pulleys are one and the same.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the first and second idler pulleys" in the ultimate line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “a plurality of idler pulleys” in lines 1-2. However, the relationship between these pulleys and the “at least one of an idler and tensioner pulley” already set forth in independent claim 5, line 8, is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if these pulleys are one and the same or two sets of pulleys altogether.
Claim 11, lines 1-2, sets forth a pair of idler pulleys. However, it is unclear how these idler pulleys relate to the idler pulley already set forth in independent claim 8, line 10. Specifically it is unclear if these pulleys are the same or two different sets of idler pulleys altogether.
Claims 2-3 are rejected for their dependence on rejected base claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lydy et al. 5,542,241 in view of Marier et al. 4,878,339, Buss et al. 7,240,474 and Hohnl EP 0623766 A1.
Independent Claim 1: Lydy discloses a compact mower deck belt system, comprising:
a mower (10) having an engine (15) rigidly mounted to a frame (14) of the mower over a mower deck (17);
a first deck belt (61) engaging a drive pulley (60) on a driveshaft of the engine, at least one idler pulley (63) rotatably mounted to the mower deck, an upper pulley (62) on a first blade spindle (as seen in Fig. 4a, see the belt overlap pattern at 62, 72), and a tensioner pulley (68);
a second deck belt (70) below the first deck belt (see the belt overlap pattern of 62, 72 in Fig. 4a), engaging a lower pulley (72) on the first blade spindle, a pulley (71) on a second blade spindle (as seen in Fig. 4a), as per claim 1.
However, Lydy fails to disclose wherein the mower is a stand on mower;
a lift system to raise or lower the mower deck to a plurality of height of cut positions;
the second deck belt engaging at least one idler pulley;
wherein the first deck belt has a maximum fleet angle of less than 7 degrees, as per claim 1.
Marier discloses a similar mower comprising a stand on mower (see Fig. 1), as per claim 1.
Buss discloses a similar mower wherein the second deck belt (123) engages at least one idler pulley (138--144), as per claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the stand on capability of Marier on the mower of Lydy in light of Marier’s teaching that providing both a walk-behind mode and a standing mode provides variable maneuverability and speeds of operation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the idler pulley(s) of Buss engaged with the second deck belt of Lydy in order to provide the belt with needed tension and routing for turning the blades in the desired rotational directions.
Hohnl discloses a similar mower (10) comprising a lift system (not shown, see the boxed text in page 3 of the attached document) to raise or lower the mower deck (16) to a plurality of height of cut positions. Regarding the maximum fleet angle of the first deck belt being less than 7 degrees, Hohnl discloses a similar mower comprising a deck belt (34) designed in such a way that the angular position of the belt does not change extremely when the mower deck is adjusted in height, this provides better power transmission and prevents excessive wear on the belt (see the boxed text in page 4 of the attached document). This fleet angle is therefore a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a maximum fleet angle of less than 7 degrees, as per claim 1, in order to maintain positive power transmission and reduce wear on the first deck belt even throughout mower deck height adjustments. Such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and, furthermore, it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine optimization.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Dependent Claims 2, 4: Lydy further discloses wherein the tensioner pulley (68) engages a back side of the first deck belt (61, as seen in Fig. 3a), as per claim 2.
Hohnl further discloses wherein the tensioner pulley (42 with spring 52) is mounted to a tensioner arm (unnumbered, seen in Fig. 3) biased forwardly to urge the tensioner pulley between the first (either pulley 42 on the outside of belt 38 as seen in Fig. 3) and second (the other pulley 42 on the outside of belt 38 as seen in Fig. 3) idler pulleys, as per claim 4.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lydy et al. 5,542,241 in view of Marier et al. 4,878,339, Buss et al. 7,240,474 and Hohnl EP 0623766 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wenzel 4,879,867.
Dependent Claim 3: The system is disclosed as applied above. However, the combination fails to disclose a third belt on a second pulley on the engine driveshaft to an integrated hydrostatic transaxle, as per claim 3.
Wenzel discloses a similar mower system comprising a third belt (23) on a second pulley (22) on the engine driveshaft (20) to an integrated hydrostatic transaxle (24), as per claim 3.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the hydrostatic drive belt connection of Wenzel on the mower of Lydy, Marier, Buss and Hohnl in order to provide infinitely variable speed adjustment from reverse through neutral to a maximum forward speed.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lydy et al. in view of Marier et al.
Independent Claim 5: Lydy discloses compact mower deck belt system, comprising:
an engine driveshaft (not shown, shaft of engine 15 extending to pulley 60, col. 3, lns. 24-25, 51-53) extending downwardly over a rear portion of a mower deck (17) and having an engine driveshaft pulley (60) attached thereto;
a first deck belt (61) engaging the engine driveshaft pulley and a first blade spindle pulley (62, 72);
a second deck belt (70) engaging the first blade spindle pulley (62, 72) and a second blade spindle pulley (71); and
at least one of an idler pulley (63) and a tensioner pulley mounted to a front portion of the mower deck and engaging the first deck belt between the engine driveshaft pulley and the first blade spindle pulley, as per claim 5.
However, Lydy fails to disclose wherein the mower is a stand on mower, as per claim 5.
Marier discloses a similar mower comprising a stand on mower (see Fig. 1), as per claim 5.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the stand on capability of Marier on the mower of Lydy in light of Marier’s teaching that providing both a walk-behind mode and a standing mode provides variable maneuverability and speeds of operation.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lydy et al. in view of Marier et al. as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Buss et al. 7,240,474.
Dependent Claim 6: The system is disclosed as applied above. However, the combination fails to disclose wherein a plurality of idler pulleys are mounted to a front portion of the mower deck for engaging the first deck belt between the engine driveshaft pulley and first blade spindle pulley, as per claim 6.
Buss discloses a similar system wherein a plurality of idler pulleys (138-139, 143-144) are mounted to a front portion of the mower deck (101-103) for engaging the first deck belt (123) between the engine driveshaft pulley (130) and first blade spindle pulley (127, 129), as per claim 6.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the idler pulley(s) of Buss engaged with the deck belt of Lydy and Marier in order to provide the belt with needed tension and routing for turning the blades in the desired rotational directions.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lydy et al. in view of Marier et al. as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Wenzel.
Depeendent Claim 7: The system is disclosed as applied above. However, the combination fails to disclose a third belt engaging a second engine driveshaft pulley and an integrated hydrostatic transmission, as per claim 7.
Wenzel discloses a similar mower system comprising a third belt (23) engaging a second engine driveshaft pulley (22) and an integrated hydrostatic transmission (24), as per claim 7.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the hydrostatic drive belt connection of Wenzel on the mower of Lydy and Marier in order to provide infinitely variable speed adjustment from reverse through neutral to a maximum forward speed.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lydy et al. in view of Marier et al. and Crowl et al. 11,178,815.
Independent Claim 8: Lydy discloses a compact mower deck belt system, comprising:
a first blade spindle (62, 72) and a second blade spindle (71) rotatably mounted to a mower deck (17) under a mower frame (14);
an engine (15) rigidly mounted to the mower frame and having a driveshaft (not shown, shaft of engine 15 extending to pulley 60, col. 3, lns. 24-25, 51-53) over the mower deck;
a first deck belt (61) transmitting rotational power from a driveshaft pulley (60) to a pulley (62, 72 or 71) on one of the first and second blade spindles on the mower deck;
a second deck belt (70) transmitting rotational power between the pulleys on the first and second blade spindles;
at least one of an idler pulley (63) and a tensioner pulley rotatably mounted on the mower deck forwardly of the first and second blade spindles (as seen in Fig. 3a) and engaged by the first deck belt, as per claim 8.
However, Lydy fails to disclose wherein the mower is a stand on mower;
wherein the mower deck is a height adjustable mower deck;
whereby a maximum fleet angle of the first deck belt is between the driveshaft pulley and one of the idler pulley and the tensioner pulley, as per claim 8.
Marier discloses a similar mower comprising a stand on mower (see Fig. 1), as per claim 8.
Crowl discloses a similar mower system wherein the mower deck (172) is a height adjustable mower deck (col. 14, lns. 57-65);
whereby a maximum fleet angle of the deck belt (136) is between the driveshaft pulley (130) and one of the idler pulley (190) and the tensioner pulley (184, see Figs. 7A-C), as per claim 8.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the stand on capability of Marier on the mower of Lydy in light of Marier’s teaching that providing both a walk-behind mode and a standing mode provides variable maneuverability and speeds of operation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fleet angle of Crowl between the driveshaft pulley and the idler pulley of Lydy in order to provide drive transmission through a range of mower deck heights.
Dependent Claims 9-11: Crowl, of the resultant combination above, further discloses
wherein a maximum fleet angle of the deck belt (136) is between the driveshaft pulley (130) and an idler pulley (190, idler 190 is at the same height as tensioning pulley 184, as seen in Figs. 7A-C, as both are mounted over the mower deck see Fig. 3) at a highest height of cut (Fig. 7A), as per claim 9;
wherein a maximum fleet angle of the deck belt (136) is between the driveshaft pulley (130) and a tensioner pulley (184) at a lowest height of cut (Fig. 7C), as per claim 10.
However, the combination fails to specifically disclose wherein the a pair of idler pulleys are rotatably mounted to a front portion of the mower deck, as per claim 11.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a pair of idler pulleys at the front portion of the mower deck, as per claim 11, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 247 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTOL-892. Fergus et al. 11,758,843, also assigned to Deere & Company, discloses a similar mower deck belt system Fig. 3 as it has two belts 206 and 208, as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alicia M. Torres whose telephone number is 571-272-6997. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-6997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph M. Rocca, can be reached at (571) 272-8971.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the group receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-3600. The fax number for this Group is 571-273-8300.
/Alicia Torres/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 December 22, 2025