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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application. All claims are eligible for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fillman et al. (US 6571542 hereinafter Fillman).
With respect to claim 1, Fillman discloses an all-electric turf vehicle (in the abstract, Fillman discloses an all-electric riding mower), said vehicle comprising:
a chassis (in the abstract, Fillman discloses a frame – element 12 in the figures, which reads on a chassis);
a plurality of ground engaging wheels operatively connected to the chassis (in figure 1, Fillman discloses wheels 14 and 16 that are connected to the frame);
an operator station (in figure 1, Fillman discloses seat 32);
a turf cutting unit operatively connected to the chassis, wherein the turf cutting unit comprises a plurality of rotary cutting blades (in figure 1, Fillman discloses reel lawn mowers 18a-18c each of which reads on rotary cutting blades and collectively read on a turf cutting unit – see lines 20-23 of column 5) driven by a plurality of electric rotary cutting blade motors (in lines 29-30 of column 5, Fillman discloses that each reel mower is driven by an electric reel motor 111 as shown in figure 2);
a battery bank structured and operable to provide electrical power to the plurality of electric rotary cutting blade motors (in figure 3, Fillman discloses batteries 26 and connector 94 by which the batteries provide power to the vehicle and its various motors, including those driving the blades); and
a battery bank cradle that is removably connected to the chassis (in figure 3, Fillman discloses frame 96 which holds the batteries 26 and thus reads on a battery bank cradle), wherein the battery bank cradle houses the battery bank and is structured to be installed and connected to the chassis from a first side of the chassis and removed and disconnected from the chassis from a second side of the chassis (in figure 9 and lines 16-35 of column 10, Fillman discloses swapping out a full frame of batteries by sliding the used batteries to the right onto a stand 174 – the new set of batteries are loaded from the left; the left side from whence the battery frame is loaded reads on the first side while the right side from whence the battery frame is removed reads on the second side).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fillman in view of Legault et al. (US 2020/0245560 hereinafter Legault).
With respect to claim 2, Fillman discloses the limitations of claim 1. Fillman does not disclose a longitudinal center of the battery bank cradle is located approximately equidistance from a front wheel axis and a rear wheel axis of the vehicle.
However, Legault discloses a longitudinal center of the battery bank cradle is located approximately equidistance from a front wheel axis and a rear wheel axis of the vehicle (in paragraph 22, Legault discloses battery pods 18 – or banks – that are approximately evenly spaced between the front and rear wheels, further shown in figure 2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to modify the placement of the Fillman’s battery frame so that it is approximately between the front and rear wheel axes as taught by Legault with the motivation that the modification “improves the overall fore and aft . . . balance of [the] mower” (Legault, paragraph 22).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fillman in view of Legault as applied to claim 2 and further in view of Forney, III et al. (US 2005/0205181 hereinafter Forney).
With respect to claim 3, Fillman in view of Legault discloses the limitations of claim 2. Fillman in view of Legault further discloses that the battery bank cradle is connected to the chassis (in figure 1, Fillman discloses that the batteries are connected to the frame). Fillman in view of Legault has not been shown to disclose the battery bank cradle is connected to the chassis such that a bottommost portion of the battery bank cradle is between 250 mm and 300 mm from a ground surface on which the vehicle is disposed.
However, in figure 2, Legault discloses that the battery bank cradle is connected to the chassis such that a bottommost portion of the battery bank cradle is [about even with a portion of a lawnmower tire between its axle and its uppermost point] (in figure 2, Legault discloses that the lowest point of battery pods 18 is even with the portion of the tire 6C between the top of the tire and the axle – note that this corresponds with figure 4 of the current application, in which applicant discloses the lowermost portion of the battery bank cradle as between the axle and topmost portion of wheel 20 – however, since Legault does not provide a scale, it is not relied upon to teach the 250 to 300 mm range).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute the lowered battery location of Legault for the elevated battery location of Fillman because the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The predictable result of the substitution would be a lawnmower at less risk of tipping over because its center of mass has been lowered (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Furthermore, Forney discloses [a portion of a lawnmower tire between its axle and its uppermost point that is] between 250 mm and 300 mm from a ground surface on which the vehicle is disposed (in paragraph 46, Forney discloses a tire that is 14.7 inches in diameter, which corresponds to 373 mm; as such, the midpoint between the axis and the uppermost point is about 280 mm; Forney discloses the tires as being suitable for lawnmowers in paragraph 44).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the height of a lawnmower tire disclosed by Forney with the lawnmower tires of Fillman in view of Legault because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The predictable result of the combination is a lawnmower that provides good stability by carrying batteries so that their bottommost surface is about 280 mm above the ground, which is within the range of 250 to 300 mm (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
With respect to claim 4, Fillman in view of Legault and Forney discloses the limitations of claim 3. Fillman in view of Legault and Forney further discloses the battery bank cradle is connected to the chassis such that with the battery bank disposed therein a center-of-gravity of the vehicle is approximately equidistance from the front wheel axis and the rear wheel axis of the vehicle (in paragraph 22, Legault discloses that the central location of the batteries improves the overall balance of the mower – improving the overall balance of the mower renders obvious placing the center-of-gravity approximately equidistant from the front and rear axles).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fillman in view of Legault and Forney as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Podolefsky (US 2020/0266496).
With respect to claim 5, Fillman in view of Legault and Forney discloses the limitations of claim 4. Fillman in view of Legault and Forney further discloses the battery bank cradle is removably connected to the chassis utilizing a chassis mounting bracket (in figure 3, Fillman discloses rails or channels 82 and 84 that maintain the position of the power source 24 and thus read on a chassis mounting bracket).
Fillman in view of Legault Forney does not disclose a mounting bracket that includes an isolation mount.
However, Podolefsky, which is directed to batteries used in electric vehicles as disclosed in the abstract, discloses a mounting bracket that includes an isolation mount (in paragraph 45 and figure 3, Podolefsky discloses isolation mounts 114 on brace members 112a and 112b where the brace members are used to hold a battery assembly).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine isolation mounts of Podolefsky with the rails of Fillman in view of Legault and Forney because each element would merely perform the same function as it does separately. The predictable result of the combination would be that the rails or channels of Fillman would protect the battery bank from violently striking sides of the space in which it used (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fillman in view of Legault and Forney as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Zeiler et al. (US 2023/0180657 hereinafter Zeiler).
With respect to claim 11, Fillman in view of Legault and Forney discloses the limitations of claim 4. Fillman in view of Legault and Forney further discloses a controller structured and operable to control the operation of the plurality of rotary cutting blade motors to thereby control the operational status and the rotational speed of each rotary cutting blade (in figure 2, Fillman discloses controller 85, which is connected to reel motor 111).
Fillman in view of Legault and Forney does not disclose a plurality of rotary cutting unit motor controllers structured and operable to independently control the operation of a respective one of the plurality rotary cutting blade motors to thereby independently control the operational status and the rotational speed of each rotary cutting blade, wherein the plurality of the rotary cutting unit motor controllers are mounted to the vehicle at a front of the operator station such that the rotary cutting unit motor controllers are exposed to an air flow when the vehicle is moving forward.
However, Zeiler discloses a plurality of rotary cutting unit motor controllers structured and operable to independently control the operation of a respective one of the plurality rotary cutting blade motors to thereby independently control the operational status and the rotational speed of each rotary cutting blade (in paragraph 62, Zeiler discloses chore motors 110 that each have their own motor controllers – chore motos in Zeiler drive the blades of the lawnmower), wherein the plurality of the rotary cutting unit motor controllers are mounted to the vehicle at a front of the operator station such that the rotary cutting unit motor controllers are exposed to an air flow when the vehicle is moving forward (in paragraph 57 and figure 1, Zeiler discloses housing the motor controllers in motor controller housing 118 that is shown as forward from the operator station of Zeiler’s lawnmower and provides conceive cooling to the motor controller).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute the multiple motor controllers housed so as to be cooled by convection from Zeiler for the single controller of Fillman in view of Legault and Forney because the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The predictable result of the substitution would be better control of the mowing as well as more resilient electronics that do not overheat as easily (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fillman in view of Podolefsky and Legault.
With respect to claim 12, Fillman discloses an all-electric turf mower (in the abstract, Fillman discloses an all-electric riding mower), said mower comprising:
a chassis (in the abstract, Fillman discloses a frame – element 12 in the figures, which reads on a chassis);
a plurality of ground engaging wheels operatively connected to the chassis (in figure 1, Fillman discloses wheels 14 and 16 that are connected to the frame);
an operator station (in figure 1, Fillman discloses seat 32);
a turf cutting unit operatively connected to the chassis, wherein the turf cutting unit comprises a plurality of rotary cutting blades (in figure 1, Fillman discloses reel lawn mowers 18a-18c each of which reads on rotary cutting blades and collectively read on a turf cutting unit – see lines 20-23 of column 5) driven by a plurality of electric rotary cutting blade motors (in lines 29-30 of column 5, Fillman discloses that each reel mower is driven by an electric reel motor 111 as shown in figure 2);
a battery bank structured and operable to provide electrical power to the plurality of electric rotary cutting blade motors (in figure 3, Fillman discloses batteries 26 and connector 94 by which the batteries provide power to the vehicle and its various motors, including those driving the blades); and
a battery bank cradle having the battery bank disposed therein (in figure 3, Fillman discloses a frame 96 that houses the batteries 26 that collectively make up a battery bank), the battery bank cradle removably connected to the chassis utilizing a chassis mounting bracket (in figure 3, Fillman discloses rails or channels 82 and 84 that maintain the position of the power source 24 and thus read on a chassis mounting bracket) structured and operable to install and connect the battery bank cradle to the chassis from a first side of the chassis and remove and disconnect the battery bank cradle from the chassis from a second side of the chassis (in figure 9 and lines 16-35 of column 10, Fillman discloses swapping out a full frame of batteries by sliding the used batteries to the right onto a stand 174 – the new set of batteries are loaded from the left; the left side from whence the battery frame is loaded reads on the first side while the right side from whence the battery frame is removed reads on the second side).
Fillman does not disclose:
the chassis mounting bracket comprises an isolation mount that is structured and operable to absorb movement of the battery bank cradle relative to the chassis such that movement of the battery bank cradle relative to the chassis will not damage the battery bank cradle, and
the battery bank cradle having the battery bank disposed therein is connected to the chassis such that a center-of-gravity of the mower is approximately equidistance from a front wheel axis and a rear wheel axis of the mower.
However, Podolefsky, which is directed to batteries used in electric vehicles as disclosed in the abstract, discloses a chassis mounting bracket comprises an isolation mount that is structured and operable to absorb movement of the battery bank cradle relative to the chassis such that movement of the battery bank cradle relative to the chassis will not damage the battery bank cradle (in paragraph 45 and figure 3, Podolefsky discloses isolation mounts 114 on brace members 112a and 112b where the brace members are used to hold a battery assembly; as seen in figure 3, the isolation mounts will absorb movement of whatever is placed on them – in this case, a battery structure).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine isolation mounts of Podolefsky with the rails of Fillman in view of Legault because each element would merely perform the same function as it does separately. The predictable result of the combination would be that the rails or channels of Fillman would protect the battery bank from violently striking sides of the space in which it used (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Furthermore, Legault discloses the battery bank cradle having the battery bank disposed therein is connected to the chassis such that a center-of-gravity of the mower is approximately equidistance from a front wheel axis and a rear wheel axis of the mower (in paragraph 22, Legault discloses battery pods 18 – or banks – that are approximately evenly spaced between the front and rear wheels, further shown in figure 2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to modify the placement of the Fillman’s battery frame so that the mower’s center of gravity is approximately between the front and rear wheel axes as taught by Legault with the motivation that the modification “improves the overall fore and aft . . . balance of [the] mower” (Legault, paragraph 22).
With respect to claim 13, Fillman in view of Podolefsky and Legault discloses the limitations of claim 12. Fillman in view of Podolefsky and Legault further discloses a longitudinal center of the battery bank cradle is located approximately equidistance from a front wheel axis and a rear wheel axis of the mower (in paragraph 22, Legault discloses battery pods 18 – or banks – that are approximately evenly spaced between the front and rear wheels, further shown in figure 2).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fillman in view of Podolefsky and Legault as applied to claim 13 and further in view of Forney.
With respect to claim 14, Fillman in view of Podolefsky and Legault discloses the limitations of claim 13. Fillman in view of Podolefsky and Legault further discloses the battery bank cradle is connected to the chassis such that a bottommost portion of the battery bank cradle is connected to the chassis such that a bottommost portion of the battery bank cradle is [about even with a portion of a lawnmower tire between its axle and its uppermost point] (in figure 2, Legault discloses that the lowest point of battery pods 18 is even with the portion of the tire 6C between the top of the tire and the axle – note that this corresponds with figure 4 of the current application, in which applicant discloses the lowermost portion of the battery bank cradle as between the axle and topmost portion of wheel 20 – however, since Legault does not provide a scale, it is not relied upon to teach the 250 to 300 mm range).
Fillman in view of Podolefsky and Legault does not explicitly disclose that he bottommost portion of the battery bank cradle is disposed between 250 mm and 300 mm from a ground surface on which the mower is disposed.
However, in figure 2, Legault discloses that the battery bank cradle is connected to the chassis such that a bottommost portion of the battery bank cradle is [about even with a portion of a lawnmower tire between its axle and its uppermost point] (in figure 2, Legault discloses that the lowest point of battery pods 18 is even with the portion of the tire 6C between the top of the tire and the axle – note that this corresponds with figure 4 of the current application, in which applicant discloses the lowermost portion of the battery bank cradle as between the axle and topmost portion of wheel 20 – however, since Legault does not provide a scale, it is not relied upon to teach the 250 to 300 mm range).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute the lowered battery location of Legault for the elevated battery location of Fillman in view of Podolefsky and Legault because the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The predictable result of the substitution would be a lawnmower at less risk of tipping over because its center of mass has been lowered (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Furthermore, Forney discloses [a portion of a lawnmower tire between its axle and its uppermost point that is] between 250 mm and 300 mm from a ground surface on which the vehicle is disposed (in paragraph 46, Forney discloses a tire that is 14.7 inches in diameter, which corresponds to 373 mm; as such, the midpoint between the axis and the uppermost point is about 280 mm; Forney discloses the tires as being suitable for lawnmowers in paragraph 44).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the height of a lawnmower tire disclosed by Forney with the lawnmower tires of Fillman in view of Podolefsky and Legault because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The predictable result of the combination is a lawnmower that provides good stability by carrying batteries so that their bottommost surface is about 280 mm above the ground, which is within the range of 250 to 300 mm (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fillman in view of Podolefsky, Legault, and Forney as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Zeiler.
With respect to claim 20, Fillman in view of Podolefsky, Legault, and Forney discloses the limitations of claim 14. Fillman in view of Podolefsky, Legault, and Forney does not disclose a plurality of rotary cutting unit motor controllers structured and operable to independently control the operation of a respective one of the plurality rotary cutting blade motors to thereby independently control the operational status and the rotational speed of each rotary cutting blade, wherein the plurality of the rotary cutting unit motor controllers are mounted to the vehicle at a front of the operator station such that the rotary cutting unit motor controllers are exposed to an air flow when the vehicle is moving forward.
However, Zeiler discloses a plurality of rotary cutting unit motor controllers structured and operable to independently control the operation of a respective one of the plurality rotary cutting blade motors to thereby independently control the operational status and the rotational speed of each rotary cutting blade (in paragraph 62, Zeiler discloses chore motors 110 that each have their own motor controllers – chore motos in Zeiler drive the blades of the lawnmower), wherein the plurality of the rotary cutting unit motor controllers are mounted to the vehicle at a front of the operator station such that the rotary cutting unit motor controllers are exposed to an air flow when the vehicle is moving forward (in paragraph 57 and figure 1, Zeiler discloses housing the motor controllers in motor controller housing 118 that is shown as forward from the operator station of Zeiler’s lawnmower and provides conceive cooling to the motor controller).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute the multiple motor controllers housed so as to be cooled by convection from Zeiler for the single controller of Fillman in view of Podolefsky, Legault, and Forney because the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The predictable result of the substitution would be better control of the mowing as well as more resilient electronics that do not overheat as easily (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 and 15-19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 6-10 and 15-19 all require electrical components to be disposed on top of the battery bank and under an hood. Fillman discloses storing electrical components on portions of the lawnmower that are not above the battery bank, and the prior art does not teach or suggest transferring the electrical components so that they are above the battery bank.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Haug et al. (2014/0356670) discloses an electric vehicle in which batteries are inserted at one location and taken out at another, as disclosed in figure 2. Note that Haug et al. suggests a lawnmower as the electric vehicle in paragraph 74.
Carlson et al. (US 2007/0095039) discloses a lawnmower that includes lifting the entire battery unit 120 – which includes the frame – for installation or removal; paragraph 28 discloses that the battery unit is also slidable within its seating.
Hammerslag (US 2009/0198372) discloses a battery replacement system for motor vehicles that slides the batteries in one side and out the other, as shown in figure 13.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS JAMES MEISLAHN whose telephone number is (703)756-1925. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 EST M-Th, M-F.
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.
/DOUGLAS J MEISLAHN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671