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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 “one of the traveling electric motors is at least partially disposed inside one of the traveling wheels” (claim 19) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Following on the heels of Liebel-Flarsheim v. Medrad, this case reaffirms the principle that the full scope of a claim must be enabled. Enablement of a single embodiment is not sufficient. As a matter of law, enablement of the novel aspects of an invention must be enabled by the specification even if implementation would have been within the PHOSITA’s skill level.
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
The title of an invention should clearly and comprehensively reflect the subject matter and kind of the invention for which protection is sought, in other words the title should be commiserate with the claimed invention.
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 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.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sasahara et al (2011/0247886).
It should be noted that the recitation "configured to” etc. is considered as merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
[AltContent: textbox (Overlaps & between a projection of the duct/pipe in a plane; and the motor is arranged vertically below the duct & behind the axle)]Since it is the language itself of the claims which must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention, without limitations imported from the specification, whether such language is couched in terms of means plus function or consists of a detailed recitation of the inventive matter. Limitations in the specification not included in the claim may not be relied upon to impart patentability to an otherwise unpatentable claim. In re Lundberg, 113 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1957).
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
426
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
16. A riding mower, comprising:
a mowing assembly comprising a mowing element and a deck accommodating at least part of the mowing element (par. 77);
a traveling assembly configured to drive the riding mower to travel on the ground (rear axle & drive wheels 3);
a traveling electric motor configured to drive the traveling assembly (par. 73; electric motors behind of the drive axles, shown above);
a power supply device configured to supply power to the traveling electric motor (par. 81; battery 24); and
a grass collecting pipe connected to the deck to guide grass clippings (duct 22);
wherein a projection of the traveling electric motor on a first plane (i.e. the plane taken along the chassis) supporting the traveling assembly at least partially overlaps a projection of the grass collecting pipe on the first plane (shown/taught above).
17. The riding mower of claim 16, wherein the traveling electric motor is located below the grass collecting pipe in an up and down direction (shown/taught above).
18. The riding mower of claim 16, wherein the traveling assembly comprises a rear left traveling wheel and a rear right traveling wheel, the rear left traveling wheel and the rear right traveling wheel are connected through a rear axle, and the traveling electric motor is located behind the rear axle in a front and rear direction (already addressed in cl. 16; shown/taught above).
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) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasahara et al (2011/0247886), in view of Laymon et al (9499199).
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
19. A riding mower, comprising: a mowing assembly comprising a mowing element and a deck accommodating at least part of the mowing element; a traveling assembly comprising traveling wheels and traveling electric motors driving the traveling wheels to rotate, wherein the traveling wheels comprise left traveling wheels and right traveling wheels; a grass collecting pipe connected to the deck to guide grass clippings; and a power supply device configured to supply power to the traveling electric motors; wherein a projection of the grass collecting pipe on a first plane supporting the traveling assembly (i.e. the plane taken along the chassis) is at least partially located between the left traveling wheels and the right traveling wheels (already addressed in cl. 16, 18; and shown/taught above); and
one of the traveling electric motors is at least partially disposed inside (not shown) one of the traveling wheels.
Sasahara discloses the claimed invention except for the arrangement of the motor being “inside” the wheel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably position / arrange the motor without conflicting with the duct/pipe, such as partially inside, or within the projection of the wheel on the first plane (as shown above), since there is no criticality disclosed (see Applicant’s Disclosure, par. 114).
Furthermore, Laymon teaches the claimed arrangement of parts in fig 4, 5, motors 410a, 410b.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the motors at least partially inside one of the traveling wheels, in order to provide greater stability, traction and avoid tipping over on side hills.
20. The riding mower of claim 19, wherein a projection of a rotor of one of the traveling electric motors on the first plane is basically located within a projection of one of the traveling wheels on the first plane (as shown above, located behind & within / between the wheels).
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasahara et al (2011/0247886), in view of Zeiler et al (2020/0113133).
Sasahara teaches the claimed invention, see detailed rejection above, except as noted:
1. A riding mower, comprising:
a mowing assembly comprising a mowing element and a deck accommodating at least part of the mowing element; a traveling assembly comprising left traveling wheels and right traveling wheels; a traveling electric motor for driving the traveling assembly; a grass collecting pipe connected to the deck to guide grass clippings; and a power supply device configured to supply power to the traveling electric motor; wherein a projection of the grass collecting pipe on a first plane supporting the traveling assembly is at least partially located between the left traveling wheels and the right traveling wheels (cl. 16-18), and
maximum total energy of the power supply device is greater than or equal to 0.5 kWh and less than or equal to 6 kWh (obvious energy supply range, however not specified in the prior art).
Zeiler ‘133 teaches that it has been known the lawn mower to include an energy storage (batteries) having various capacities, including 0.5 – 6 kWh (par. 41).
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 power supply of Sasahara with the teachings of Zeiler, with a reasonable expectation of success since one skilled could pick and choose energy storage having various capacities to efficiently power the mower.
2. The riding mower of claim 1, wherein the power supply device is at least partially located in front of front traveling wheels in a front and rear direction (taught in the combination, see Sasahara, fig 1).
3. The riding mower of claim 2, wherein the front traveling wheels are connected through a front axle and, in the front and rear direction, a distance L1 between a front side of the power supply device and the front axle is greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 500 mm.
It would have been obvious to pick and choose from any of the well known distance such as 0 to 500 mm distance. In either case, the constructions of the device as claimed would have been obvious logical steps or to achieve the above function would have clearly been within this range.
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
The Federal Circuit has held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claim device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc. 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed Cir. 1984), cert. denied 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
4. The riding mower of claim 1, wherein a ratio of a width W1 of the power supply device in a left and right direction to a width W2 of the riding mower in the left and right direction is greater than or equal to 0.2 and less than or equal to 1.5 (same obviousness as discussed above, in re cl. 3).
To adequately traverse a finding of Official Notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. See 37 CFR 1.111(b). See also Chevenard, 139 F.2d at 713, 60 USPQ at 241 (“[I]n the absence of any demand by appellant for the examiner to produce authority for his statement, we will not consider this contention.”). A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the examiner’s assertion of official notice would be inadequate. If applicant adequately traverses the examiner’s assertion of official notice, the examiner must provide documentary evidence in the next Office action if the rejection is to be maintained. See 37 CFR 1.104(c)(2). See also Zurko, 258 F.3d at 1386, 59 USPQ2d at 1697 (“[T]he Board [or examiner] must point to some concrete evidence in the record in support of these findings” to satisfy the substantial evidence test). If the examiner is relying on personal knowledge to support the finding of what is known in the art, the examiner must provide an affidavit or declaration setting forth specific factual statements and explanation to support the finding. See 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2).
If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. If the traverse was inadequate, the examiner should include an explanation as to why it was inadequate.
Consequently, the following is deemed to be "well known": the battery being pluggable (see cl. 5) or adaptable (cl. 6), connector (cl. 13).
5. The riding mower of claim 1, wherein the power supply device comprises at least one battery pack pluggably connected to the riding mower to supply power to at least the traveling electric motor (see above).
6. The riding mower of claim 5, wherein the at least one battery pack is adaptable to another electrical device, and the electrical device comprises a lighting device or a handheld power tool (see above).
13. The riding mower of claim 1, further comprising a seat supported by a first support member and a second support member, wherein a connector is disposed between the first support member and the second support member, and at least part of the connector is located above the grass collecting pipe (see above).
7. The riding mower of claim 1, further comprising a frame and a back plate assembly, wherein the mowing assembly and the traveling assembly are mounted to the frame, the back plate assembly comprises a fixing bracket and a back plate mounted on the fixing brackets, and the fixing bracket is mounted to the frame (bracket & plate best shown in fig 5, ref. 54b, 2b, Sasahara).
8. The riding mower of claim 7, wherein the grass collecting pipe comprises a first end connected to the deck and a second end opposite to the first end (fig 13, Sasahara), and the second end is rotatably connected to the back plate (freely rotatable, fig 5, Sasahara).
10. The riding mower of claim 7, wherein the mowing assembly further comprises a first mowing motor for driving a first mowing element and a second mowing motor for driving a second mowing element, and a direction of rotation of the first mowing motor is opposite to a direction of rotation of the second mowing motor (taught in the combination, motors 110 for blades 155, Zeiler).
11. The riding mower of claim 1, further comprising a brake mechanism, wherein the brake mechanism comprises a first brake assembly for braking a front left traveling wheel and a second brake assembly for braking a front right traveling wheel, the brake mechanism further comprises a first connection assembly connecting the first brake assembly to the second brake assembly, and the first connection assembly comprises a first connector located on an upper side or a lower side of the grass collecting pipe (taught in the combination, obvious from par. 143, Sasahara).
12. The riding mower of claim 1, further comprising a height adjustment member, wherein the height adjustment member comprises a first height adjustment assembly, a second height adjustment assembly, and a second connection assembly for connecting the first height adjustment assembly to the second height adjustment assembly, the first height adjustment assembly and the second height adjustment assembly are connected to the deck, and at least part of the second connection assembly is located above the grass collecting pipe (taught in the combination, obvious from par. 78, 95, Sasahara).
14. The riding mower of claim 1, wherein the power supply device comprises a first battery pack and a second battery pack, and a maximum energy of the first battery pack or the second battery pack is greater than or equal to 0.1 kWh and less than or equal to 4 kWh (already addressed in re cl. 16).
15. The riding mower of claim 1, wherein a projection of the traveling electric motor on the first plane supporting the traveling assembly at least partially overlaps the projection of the grass collecting pipe on the first plane (already addressed in re cl. 16).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasahara et al (2011/0247886), in view of Zeiler et al (2020/0113133), in further view of Tokunaga et al (EP 3653041) in re cl. 9.
Sasahara & Zeiler combination teaches the claimed invention, including the “accommodation device” or grass receptacle (fig 1, Sasahara), except:
9. The riding mower of claim 7, further comprising a full grass detection device for detecting a state of the grass clippings in an accommodation device, wherein the full grass detection device is mounted to the back plate and comprises a non-contact switch.
Tokunaga teaches that it has been well known include a full grass detection device for detecting a state of the grass clippings in a grass collecting container:
“The detection means 466 is fixed to the lateral plates 467b of the bent sheet metal 467, and is provided with an operation piece 466a that detects that the grass collecting container 432 has entered a full state upon the sensor plate 462 entering a non-contact state, as described below. As described below, the operation piece 466a detects whether or not the grass collecting container 432 is full based on the state of contact between the sensor plate 462 and the switch operation portion 462c.”
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 accommodation device of Sasahara & Zeiler with the teachings of Tokunaga, with a reasonable expectation of success since emptying the container is advantageous to avoid plugging, in particular a non-contact switch would have been known to avoid false detection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Tanabe et al (2017/0265384) teaches a rear discharge ride on mower (fig 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARPAD FABIAN-KOVACS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6990. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th.
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 on (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.
/ARPAD FABIAN-KOVACS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671