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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/524,310 filed on 11/30/2023.
Claims 1-29 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Jeffrey Chalhoub.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 17th, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
“106”,
“108”,
“116”,
“260”.
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. 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.
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.
Claims 17-19, 22, 24-25, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over Stover (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0061146 A1).
Regarding Claim 17:
Stover teaches:
A grounds maintenance vehicle comprising: a chassis comprising a front end, a rear end, and a longitudinal axis extending between the front and rear ends; a support platform extending along the longitudinal axis, wherein the support platform is positioned at an operating position under operator load; at least one hand control carried by the support platform and configured to control at least one of propulsion and steering of the vehicle; a suspension system comprising: a first suspension apparatus operatively acting between the chassis and the support platform, wherein the first suspension apparatus comprises one or more springs, and wherein the one or more springs are configured to elastically deflect when the support platform is displaced relative to the chassis;, (See (Stover: Summary – 8th-9th paragraphs and Detailed Description of Exemplary Embodiments – 51st-52nd paragraphs, FIG. 1))
and an actuator configured to adjust a preload applied to the one or more springs; and a controller operatively coupled to the actuator and configured to move the actuator to adjust the preload to maintain the operating position of the support platform within a range of travel., (See (Stover: Detailed Description of Exemplary Embodiments – 73rd-93rd and 102nd paragraphs, FIG. 7-15))
Regarding Claim 18:
Stover, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 17. Stover further teaches:
The grounds maintenance vehicle of claim 17, wherein the controller is further operatively coupled to the at least one hand control and configured to control the at least one of propulsion and steering of the vehicle based on manipulation of the at least one hand control., (See (Stover: Detailed Description of Exemplary Embodiments – 51st-52nd paragraphs, FIG. 1))
Regarding Claim 19:
Stover, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 17. Stover further teaches:
The grounds maintenance vehicle of claim 17, wherein the at least one hand control comprises: a first hand control operable to control a speed and rotational direction of a left side drive member; and a second hand control operable to control a speed and rotational direction of a right side drive member., (See (Stover: Detailed Description of Exemplary Embodiments – 51st-52nd paragraphs, FIG. 1))
Regarding Claim 22:
Stover, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 17. Stover further teaches:
The grounds maintenance vehicle of claim 17, wherein the support platform comprises a seat support portion supporting an operator seat., (See (Stover: Summary – 8th-10th paragraphs and Detailed Description of Exemplary Embodiments – 44th-47th and 52nd-68th paragraphs, FIG. 1))
Regarding Claim 24:
Stover, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 17. Stover further teaches:
The grounds maintenance vehicle of claim 17, further comprising a control input operatively connected to the controller, wherein the control input is configured to be manipulated by an operator to select a ride setting., (See (Stover: Detailed Description of Exemplary Embodiments – 73rd-93rd and 102nd paragraphs, FIG. 7-15))
Regarding Claim 25:
Stover, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 24. Stover further teaches:
The grounds maintenance vehicle of claim 24, wherein the controller is configured to adjust the preload applied to the one or more springs based upon the ride setting., (See (Stover: Detailed Description of Exemplary Embodiments – 73rd-93rd and 102nd paragraphs, FIG. 7-15))
Regarding Claim 29:
Stover, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 17. Stover further teaches:
The grounds maintenance vehicle of claim 17, further comprising a second suspension apparatus longitudinally spaced-apart from the one or more springs, the second suspension apparatus operatively connected to both the support platform and the chassis., (See (Stover: Summary – 8th-9th paragraphs and Detailed Description of Exemplary Embodiments – 57th-66th and 88th paragraphs, FIG. 2))
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 1-10, 12, 14-15, 20-21, 23, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stover (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0061146 A1) in view of Berglund (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0169155 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Stover teaches:
A grounds maintenance vehicle comprising: a chassis comprising a front end, a rear end, and a longitudinal axis extending between the front and rear ends; a support platform extending along the longitudinal axis; at least one hand control carried by the support platform and configured to control at least one of propulsion and steering of the vehicle; a suspension system comprising: a first suspension apparatus operatively acting between the chassis and the support platform, wherein the first suspension apparatus comprises one or more springs, and wherein the one or more springs are configured to elastically deflect when the support platform is displaced relative to the chassis;, (See (Stover: Summary – 8th-9th paragraphs and Detailed Description of Exemplary Embodiments – 51st-52nd paragraphs, FIG. 1))
and an actuator configured to adjust a preload applied to the one or more springs;, (See (Stover: Detailed Description of Exemplary Embodiments – 73rd-88th and 102nd paragraphs, FIG. 7-15))
Stover does not teach but Berglund teaches:
a load sensor configured to measure a weight applied to the support platform; and a controller operatively coupled to the actuator and configured to adjust the actuator to modify the preload based on the weight measured by the load sensor., (See (Berglund: Detailed Description – 58th, 70th, 74th, 104th, 116th, and 131st-132nd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stover with these above aforementioned teachings from Berglund in order to create an effective grounds maintenance vehicle with a remote or automatic operator suspension adjustment. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Stover’s grounds maintenance vehicle with an adjustable suspension system with Berglund’s suspension system for a utility vehicle in order to include a load sensor to measure a weight applied to a support platform of a grounds maintenance vehicle with a remote or automatic operator suspension adjustment and adjust an actuator of the grounds maintenance vehicle to modify the preload based on the weight measured by the load sensor. Combining Stover and Berglund would thus provide “a utility vehicle including a frame, a first ground-engaging element coupled to a first portion of the frame, a second ground-engaging element coupled to a second portion of the frame an operator platform supported by the frame, and a suspension system coupled between the operator platform and the frame to accommodate motion of the frame relative to the operator platform” (Berglund: Summary – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 2:
Stover in view of Berglund, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Stover further teaches:
The grounds maintenance vehicle of claim 1, wherein the controller is further operatively coupled to the at least one hand control and configured to adjust the at least one of propulsion and steering of the vehicle based on the at least one hand control., (See (Stover: Detailed Description of Exemplary Embodiments – 51st-52nd paragraphs, FIG. 1))
Regarding Claim 3:
Stover in view of Berglund, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Stover further teaches:
The grounds maintenance vehicle of claim 1, wherein the at least one hand control comprises: a first hand control operable to control a speed and rotational direction of a left side drive member; and a second hand control operable to control a speed and rotational direction of a right side drive member., (See (Stover: Detailed Description of Exemplary Embodiments – 51st-52nd paragraphs, FIG. 1))
Regarding Claim 4:
Stover in view of Berglund, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Stover does not teach but Berglund teaches:
The grounds maintenance vehicle of claim 1, further comprising a hand control sensor configured to detect a force applied to, or movement of, the at least one hand control., (See (Berglund: Detailed Description – 58th paragraph))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stover with these above aforementioned teachings from Berglund in order to create an effective grounds maintenance vehicle with a remote or automatic operator suspension adjustment. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Stover’s grounds maintenance vehicle with an adjustable suspension system with Berglund’s suspension system for a utility vehicle in order to include a load sensor to measure a weight applied to a support platform of a grounds maintenance vehicle with a remote or automatic operator suspension adjustment and adjust an actuator of the grounds maintenance vehicle to modify the preload based on the weight measured by the load sensor. Combining Stover and Berglund would thus provide “a utility vehicle including a frame, a first ground-engaging element coupled to a first portion of the frame, a second ground-engaging element coupled to a second portion of the frame an operator platform supported by the frame, and a suspension system coupled between the operator platform and the frame to accommodate motion of the frame relative to the operator platform” (Berglund: Summary – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 5:
Stover in view of Berglund, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 4. Stover does not teach but Berglund teaches:
The grounds maintenance vehicle of claim 4, wherein the hand control sensor is adapted to transmit an input signal to the controller, and wherein the controller is adapted to transmit a command signal to one or more prime movers., (See (Berglund: Detailed Description – 58th paragraph))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stover with these above aforementioned teachings from Berglund in order to create an effective grounds maintenance vehicle with a remote or automatic operator suspension adjustment. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Stover’s grounds maintenance vehicle with an adjustable suspension system with Berglund’s suspension system for a utility vehicle in order to include a load sensor to measure a weight applied to a support platform of a grounds maintenance vehicle with a remote or automatic operator suspension adjustment and adjust an actuator of the grounds maintenance vehicle to modify the preload based on the weight measured by the load sensor. Combining Stover and Berglund would thus provide “a utility vehicle including a frame, a first ground-engaging element coupled to a first portion of the frame, a second ground-engaging element coupled to a second portion of the frame an operator platform supported by the frame, and a suspension system coupled between the operator platform and the frame to accommodate motion of the frame relative to the operator platform” (Berglund: Summary – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 6:
Stover in view of Berglund, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Stover further teaches:
The grounds maintenance vehicle of claim 1, wherein the support platform comprises a seat support portion supporting an operator seat,, (See (Stover: Summary – 8th-10th paragraphs and Detailed Description of Exemplary Embodiments – 44th-47th and 52nd-68th paragraphs, FIG. 1))
Stover does not teach but Berglund teaches:
[…] wherein the load sensor is operatively connected to the operator seat., (See (Berglund: Detailed Description – 70th, 74th, 104th, 116th, and 131st-132nd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stover with these above aforementioned teachings from Berglund in order to create an effective grounds maintenance vehicle with a remote or automatic operator suspension adjustment. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Stover’s grounds maintenance vehicle with an adjustable suspension system with Berglund’s suspension system for a utility vehicle in order to include a load sensor to measure a weight applied to a support platform of a grounds maintenance vehicle with a remote or automatic operator suspension adjustment and adjust an actuator of the grounds maintenance vehicle to modify the preload based on the weight measured by the load sensor. Combining Stover and Berglund would thus provide “a utility vehicle including a frame, a first ground-engaging element coupled to a first portion of the frame, a second ground-engaging element coupled to a second portion of the frame an operator platform supported by the frame, and a suspension system coupled between the operator platform and the frame to accommodate motion of the frame relative to the operator platform” (Berglund: Summary – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 7:
Stover in view of Berglund, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 6. Stover further teaches:
The grounds maintenance vehicle of claim 6, further comprising one or more seat posts positioned between the support platform and the operator seat,, (See (Stover: Summary – 8th-10th paragraphs and Detailed Description of Exemplary Embodiments – 44th-47th and 52nd-68th paragraphs, FIG. 1))
Stover does not teach but Berglund teaches:
[…] wherein at least one of the one or more seat posts comprises the load sensor., (See (Berglund: Detailed Description – 70th, 74th, 104th, 116th, and 131st-132nd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stover with these above aforementioned teachings from Berglund in order to create an effective grounds maintenance vehicle with a remote or automatic operator suspension adjustment. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Stover’s grounds maintenance vehicle with an adjustable suspension system with Berglund’s suspension system for a utility vehicle in order to include a load sensor to measure a weight applied to a support platform of a grounds maintenance vehicle with a remote or automatic operator suspension adjustment and adjust an actuator of the grounds maintenance vehicle to modify the preload based on the weight measured by the load sensor. Combining Stover and Berglund would thus provide “a utility vehicle including a frame, a first ground-engaging element coupled to a first portion of the frame, a second ground-engaging element coupled to a second portion of the frame an operator platform supported by the frame, and a suspension system coupled between the operator platform and the frame to accommodate motion of the frame relative to the operator platform” (Berglund: Summary – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 8:
Stover in view of Berglund, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Stover further teaches:
The grounds maintenance vehicle of claim 1, wherein the actuator is configured to adjust the preload based upon one or more parameters comprising, (See (Stover: Detailed Description of Exemplary Embodiments – 73rd-88th and 102nd paragraphs, FIG. 7-15))
Stover does not teach but Berglund teaches:
[…] at least one of: a desired ride type; a seat position; a weight of an operator; an acceleration of the vehicle; and an acceleration of the support platform relative to the chassis., (See (Berglund: Detailed Description – 70th, 74th, and 78th-87th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stover with these above aforementioned teachings from Berglund in order to create an effective grounds maintenance vehicle with a remote or automatic operator suspension adjustment. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Stover’s grounds maintenance vehicle with an adjustable suspension system with Berglund’s suspension system for a utility vehicle in order to include a load sensor to measure a weight applied to a support platform of a grounds maintenance vehicle with a remote or automatic operator suspension adjustment and adjust an actuator of the grounds maintenance vehicle to modify the preload based on the weight measured by the load sensor. Combining Stover and Berglund would thus provide “a utility vehicle including a frame, a first ground-engaging element coupled to a first portion of the frame, a second ground-engaging element coupled to a second portion of the frame an operator platform supported by the frame, and a suspension system coupled between the operator platform and the frame to accommodate motion of the frame relative to the operator platform” (Berglund: Summary – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 9:
Stover in view of Berglund, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Stover further teaches:
The grounds maintenance vehicle of claim 1, further comprising a control input operatively connected to the controller, wherein the control input is configured to be manipulated by an operator to select a ride setting., (See (Stover: Detailed Description of Exemplary Embodiments – 73rd-93rd and 102nd paragraphs, FIG. 7-15))
Regarding Claim 10:
Stover in view of Berglund, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 9. Stover further teaches:
The grounds maintenance vehicle of claim 9, wherein the controller is configured to adjust the preload applied to the one or more springs based upon the ride setting., (See (Stover: Detailed Description of Exemplary Embodiments – 73rd-93rd and 102nd paragraphs, FIG. 7-15))
Regarding Claim 12:
Stover in view of Berglund, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Stover further teaches:
The grounds maintenance vehicle of claim 1, wherein the actuator is configured to adjust the preload applied to the one or more springs to maintain an operating position of the support platform within a range of travel., (See (Stover: Detailed Description of Exemplary Embodiments – 65th, 73rd-88th, and 102nd paragraphs, FIG. 7-15))
Regarding Claim 14:
Stover in view of Berglund, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Stover further teaches:
The grounds maintenance vehicle of claim 1, further comprising a second suspension apparatus longitudinally spaced-apart from the one or more springs, the second suspension apparatus operatively connected to both the support platform and the chassis., (See (Stover: Summary – 8th-9th paragraphs and Detailed Description of Exemplary Embodiments – 57th-66th and 88th paragraphs, FIG. 2))
Regarding Claim 15:
Stover in view of Berglund, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Stover does not teach but Berglund teaches:
The grounds maintenance vehicle of claim 1, wherein the suspension system further comprises an actuator sensor operatively coupled to one or both of the actuator and the chassis, and wherein the actuator sensor is configured to determine a position of at least a portion of the actuator relative to the chassis., (See (Berglund: Detailed Description – 116th paragraph))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stover with these above aforementioned teachings from Berglund in order to create an effective grounds maintenance vehicle with a remote or automatic operator suspension adjustment. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Stover’s grounds maintenance vehicle with an adjustable suspension system with Berglund’s suspension system for a utility vehicle in order to include a load sensor to measure a weight applied to a support platform of a grounds maintenance vehicle with a remote or automatic operator suspension adjustment and adjust an actuator of the grounds maintenance vehicle to modify the preload based on the weight measured by the load sensor. Combining Stover and Berglund would thus provide “a utility vehicle including a frame, a first ground-engaging element coupled to a first portion of the frame, a second ground-engaging element coupled to a second portion of the frame an operator platform supported by the frame, and a suspension system coupled between the operator platform and the frame to accommodate motion of the frame relative to the operator platform” (Berglund: Summary – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 20:
Stover, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 17. Stover does not teach but Berglund teaches:
The grounds maintenance vehicle of claim 17, further comprising a hand control sensor configured to detect a force applied to, or movement of, the at least one hand control., (See (Berglund: Detailed Description – 58th paragraph))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stover with these above aforementioned teachings from Berglund in order to create an effective grounds maintenance vehicle with a remote or automatic operator suspension adjustment. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Stover’s grounds maintenance vehicle with an adjustable suspension system with Berglund’s suspension system for a utility vehicle in order to include a load sensor to measure a weight applied to a support platform of a grounds maintenance vehicle with a remote or automatic operator suspension adjustment and adjust an actuator of the grounds maintenance vehicle to modify the preload based on the weight measured by the load sensor. Combining Stover and Berglund would thus provide “a utility vehicle including a frame, a first ground-engaging element coupled to a first portion of the frame, a second ground-engaging element coupled to a second portion of the frame an operator platform supported by the frame, and a suspension system coupled between the operator platform and the frame to accommodate motion of the frame relative to the operator platform” (Berglund: Summary – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 21:
Stover, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 20. Stover does not teach but Berglund teaches:
The grounds maintenance vehicle of claim 20, wherein the hand control sensor is adapted to transmit an input signal to the controller, and wherein the controller is adapted to transmit a command signal to one or more prime movers., (See (Berglund: Detailed Description – 58th paragraph))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stover with these above aforementioned teachings from Berglund in order to create an effective grounds maintenance vehicle with a remote or automatic operator suspension adjustment. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Stover’s grounds maintenance vehicle with an adjustable suspension system with Berglund’s suspension system for a utility vehicle in order to include a load sensor to measure a weight applied to a support platform of a grounds maintenance vehicle with a remote or automatic operator suspension adjustment and adjust an actuator of the grounds maintenance vehicle to modify the preload based on the weight measured by the load sensor. Combining Stover and Berglund would thus provide “a utility vehicle including a frame, a first ground-engaging element coupled to a first portion of the frame, a second ground-engaging element coupled to a second portion of the frame an operator platform supported by the frame, and a suspension system coupled between the operator platform and the frame to accommodate motion of the frame relative to the operator platform” (Berglund: Summary – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 23:
Stover, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 17. Stover further teaches:
The grounds maintenance vehicle of claim 17, wherein the actuator is configured to adjust the preload based upon one or more parameters comprising, (See (Stover: Detailed Description of Exemplary Embodiments – 73rd-88th and 102nd paragraphs, FIG. 7-15))
Stover does not teach but Berglund teaches:
[…] at least one of: a desired ride type; a seat position; a weight of an operator; an acceleration of the vehicle; and an acceleration of the support platform relative to the chassis., (See (Berglund: Detailed Description – 70th, 74th, and 78th-87th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stover with these above aforementioned teachings from Berglund in order to create an effective grounds maintenance vehicle with a remote or automatic operator suspension adjustment. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Stover’s grounds maintenance vehicle with an adjustable suspension system with Berglund’s suspension system for a utility vehicle in order to include a load sensor to measure a weight applied to a support platform of a grounds maintenance vehicle with a remote or automatic operator suspension adjustment and adjust an actuator of the grounds maintenance vehicle to modify the preload based on the weight measured by the load sensor. Combining Stover and Berglund would thus provide “a utility vehicle including a frame, a first ground-engaging element coupled to a first portion of the frame, a second ground-engaging element coupled to a second portion of the frame an operator platform supported by the frame, and a suspension system coupled between the operator platform and the frame to accommodate motion of the frame relative to the operator platform” (Berglund: Summary – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 27:
Stover, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 17. Stover does not teach but Berglund teaches:
The grounds maintenance vehicle of claim 17, wherein the suspension system further comprises an actuator sensor operatively coupled to one or both of the actuator and the chassis, and wherein the actuator sensor is configured to determine a position of at least a portion of the actuator relative to the chassis., (See (Berglund: Detailed Description – 116th paragraph))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stover with these above aforementioned teachings from Berglund in order to create an effective grounds maintenance vehicle with a remote or automatic operator suspension adjustment. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Stover’s grounds maintenance vehicle with an adjustable suspension system with Berglund’s suspension system for a utility vehicle in order to include a load sensor to measure a weight applied to a support platform of a grounds maintenance vehicle with a remote or automatic operator suspension adjustment and adjust an actuator of the grounds maintenance vehicle to modify the preload based on the weight measured by the load sensor. Combining Stover and Berglund would thus provide “a utility vehicle including a frame, a first ground-engaging element coupled to a first portion of the frame, a second ground-engaging element coupled to a second portion of the frame an operator platform supported by the frame, and a suspension system coupled between the operator platform and the frame to accommodate motion of the frame relative to the operator platform” (Berglund: Summary – 3rd paragraph)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stover (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0061146 A1) in view of Berglund (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0169155 A1) in further view of Castillo (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0178690 A1).
Regarding Claim 13:
Stover in view of Berglund, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Stover in view of Berglund does not teach but Castillo teaches:
The grounds maintenance vehicle of claim 1, wherein the actuator comprises at least one of: a linear actuator and a rotary actuator., (See (Castillo: Summary – 5th paragraph and Detailed Description – 22nd-24th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stover in view of Berglund with these above aforementioned teachings from Castillo in order to create a smart grounds maintenance vehicle with a remote or automatic operator suspension adjustment. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Stover’s grounds maintenance vehicle with an adjustable suspension system with Castillo’s active vehicle seat architecture for inertial compensation in motor vehicles in order to include an actuator of a grounds maintenance vehicle comprising a linear actuator and a rotary actuator. Combining Stover and Castillo would thus “minimize motion disturbances that are otherwise transmitted through a vehicle seat assembly to improve the occupant's experience during operation of the vehicle.” (Castillo: Introduction – 3rd paragraph)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stover (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0061146 A1) in view of Berglund (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0169155 A1) in further view of Smith (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0179022 A1).
Regarding Claim 16:
Stover in view of Berglund, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 15. Stover in view of Berglund does not teach but Smith teaches:
The grounds maintenance vehicle of claim 15, wherein the actuator sensor comprises a target coupled to the actuator and a detector coupled to the chassis., (See (Smith: Summary of the Invention – 6th-13th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 41st-51st and 77th-81st paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stover in view of Berglund with these above aforementioned teachings from Smith in order to create a precise grounds maintenance vehicle with a remote or automatic operator suspension adjustment. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Stover’s grounds maintenance vehicle with an adjustable suspension system with Smith’s rotating shielded magnetic actuator in order to include an actuator sensor of a grounds maintenance vehicle comprising a magnet coupled to the actuator and magnetic sensor coupled to a chassis of the grounds maintenance vehicle. Combining Stover and Smith would thus provide “magnetic actuators, systems comprising such magnetic actuators, and methods of using such actuators and systems.” (Smith: Summary of the Invention – 6th paragraph)
Claims 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stover (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0061146 A1) in view of Smith (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0179022 A1).
Regarding Claim 28:
Stover, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 27. Stover does not teach but Smith teaches:
The grounds maintenance vehicle of claim 27, wherein the actuator sensor comprises a target coupled to the actuator and a detector coupled to the chassis., (See (Smith: Summary of the Invention – 6th-13th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 41st-51st and 77th-81st paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stover with these above aforementioned teachings from Smith in order to create a precise grounds maintenance vehicle with a remote or automatic operator suspension adjustment. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Stover’s grounds maintenance vehicle with an adjustable suspension system with Smith’s rotating shielded magnetic actuator in order to include an actuator sensor of a grounds maintenance vehicle comprising a magnet coupled to the actuator and magnetic sensor coupled to a chassis of the grounds maintenance vehicle. Combining Stover and Smith would thus provide “magnetic actuators, systems comprising such magnetic actuators, and methods of using such actuators and systems.” (Smith: Summary of the Invention – 6th paragraph)
Comment on the Closest Prior Art References
Claims 11 and 26 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 allowable subject matter in claims 11 and 26 includes maintaining a preload applied to one or more springs until either the vehicle is turned off or a reset button is engaged, and reverting to the preload applied to the one or more springs when the vehicle is turned back on or when the reset button is engaged again.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey Chalhoub whose telephone number is (571) 272-9754. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. 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.
/J.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663