DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election was made for Group I on 03/20/2026.
The amendment filed on 03/20/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claim 20 has been canceled.
Claims 1-19 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of International Application Number PCT/CN2022/114756, filed on Aug. 25, 2022, through which this application also claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. §119(a) of Chinese Patent Application No. 202111338153.3, filed on Nov. 12, 2021, Chinese Patent Application No. 202111338145.9, filed on Nov. 12, 2021, Chinese Patent Application No. 202111338143.X, filed on Nov. 12, 2021, Chinese Patent Application No. 202111338560.4, filed on Nov. 12, 2021, Chinese Patent Application No. 202111338576.5, filed on Nov. 12, 2021, Chinese Patent Application No. 202111338541.1, filed on Nov. 12, 2021, Chinese Patent Application No. 202111338141.0, filed on Nov. 12, 2021, and Chinese Patent Application No. 202111338504.0, filed on Nov. 12, 2021.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I – Claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 03/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01/19/2024, 09/25/2024, 03/05/2025, 08/01/2025, 11/06/2025, and 11/24/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
traveling assembly for driving…in claim 1
power supply assembly for supplying… in claim 1
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The following are the interpreted corresponding structures found within the specifications for some the above limitations:
traveling assembly - Figure 1 - item 93, paragraph 0017
power supply assembly – Figure 1 - item 96, paragraph 0135
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the "same invention" type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that "whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process ... may obtain a patent therefor ..." (Emphasis added). Thus, the term "same invention," in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957); and In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the conflicting claims so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 10, 16, and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory non-obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 12, and 15-16 of Li et al., co-pending Application 19/230,804. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distant from each other because they are drawn to obvious variations.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the claims 1, 10, 16, and 19 of the instant application were fully disclosed in and covered by the claims 1-2, 12, and 15-16 of US co-pending application 19/230,804, allowing the claims to result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8-9, and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sugimura (USPGPub 2024/0130289). As per claim 1, Sugimura discloses a riding vehicle (see at least Figure 1; item 11), comprising: a seat for a user to sit on (see at least Figure 1; item 22); a frame for supporting the seat (see at least Figure 1); a traveling assembly for driving the riding vehicle to travel (see at least Figure 1; items 14, 16); a power supply assembly for supplying power to at least the traveling assembly (see at least paragraph 0024; wherein converts DC power of the batteries 40 into AC power to control the work motor 28 and the left and right travel motors 26L and 26R); and a front cover located on a front part of the riding vehicle and used for covering the power supply assembly (see at least Figure 1; item 78A); wherein the front cover is provided with a front accommodation cavity (see at least Figure 2; items 78A, 40) the power supply assembly comprises at least two battery packs (see at least paragraph 0017; wherein the battery holder 42 is configured to be able to accommodate and hold a total of four batteries 40), and the at least two battery packs are detachably disposed in the front accommodation cavity (see at least paragraph 0021 and Figure 2; wherein attaching the batteries 40 to and detaching the batteries 40 from the battery holder 42). As per claim 8, Sugimura discloses wherein the riding vehicle has a middle plane and the at least two battery packs are symmetrically distributed about the middle plane (see at least Figure 3).
As per claim 9, Sugimura discloses wherein the power supply assembly comprises a first battery holder, the first battery holder is formed with a first groove, and one of the at least two battery packs is capable of being detachably inserted into the first groove along an extension direction of the first groove and pulled out from the first groove along the extension direction of the first groove (see at least paragraph 0021; wherein openings 66 for attaching the batteries 40 to and detaching the batteries 40 from the battery holder 42 are provided in an upper portion of the battery holder 42). As per claim 12, Sugimura discloses wherein the riding vehicle is a lawn tractor, the lawn tractor comprises a cutting assembly comprising a cutting deck and a mowing element for mowing grass, the mowing element is at least partially accommodated in the cutting deck, and the cutting assembly is mounted to the frame (see at least paragraph 0010; wherein a work section 18 for cutting grass (lawn grass) is provided at a lower portion of the vehicle body 12, between the front wheels 14 and the rear wheels 16…see at least paragraph 0013; wherein a work motor 28 that drives the work section 18 as a working drive source).
As per claim 13, Sugimura discloses wherein the lawn tractor further comprises a control circuit board for controlling at least the cutting assembly and the traveling assembly, and at least part of the control circuit board is disposed between the seat and the power supply assembly (see at least paragraph 0013; wherein a work motor 28 that drives the work section 18 as a working drive source…see at least paragraph 0024; wherein the power drive unit 76 is a control unit that converts DC power of the batteries 40 into AC power to control the work motor 28).
As per claim 14, Sugimura discloses wherein a center of gravity of the riding vehicle is located between the control circuit board and the seat in a front and rear direction (see at least Figure 2).
As per claim 15, Sugimura discloses wherein the traveling assembly comprises a first traveling assembly and a second traveling assembly, the first traveling assembly comprises a left first traveling wheel and a right first traveling wheel and the first traveling assembly is at least partially located in front of the power supply assembly in a front and rear direction of the lawn tractor (see at least Figure 2; items 14, 40, 66). As per claim 16, Sugimura discloses a riding mowing device (see at least Figure 1; item 11), comprising: a seat used for a user to sit on and comprising a seat cushion and a backrest (see at least paragraph 0011; wherein the seat 22 includes a backrest 22a (seat back) and a seat bottom 22b (seat cushion)); a frame for supporting the seat (see at least Figure 1); a cutting assembly comprising a cutting deck and a mowing element for mowing grass, wherein the mowing element is at least partially accommodated in the cutting deck, and the cutting assembly is mounted to the frame (see at least paragraph 0010; wherein a work section 18 for cutting grass (lawn grass) is provided at a lower portion of the vehicle body 12, between the front wheels 14 and the rear wheels 16…see at least paragraph 0013; wherein a work motor 28 that drives the work section 18 as a working drive source); a traveling assembly for driving the riding mowing device to travel (see at least Figure 1; items 14, 16); a control circuit board for controlling at least the cutting assembly and the traveling assembly (see at least paragraph 0013; wherein a work motor 28 that drives the work section 18 as a working drive source…see at least paragraph 0024; wherein the power drive unit 76 is a control unit that converts DC power of the batteries 40 into AC power to control the work motor 28); and a power supply assembly for supplying power to at least the cutting assembly and the traveling assembly (see at least paragraph 0024; wherein converts DC power of the batteries 40 into AC power to control the work motor 28 and the left and right travel motors 26L and 26R); wherein the power supply assembly is disposed on the front part of the riding mowing device, and at least part of the control circuit board is disposed between the seat and the power supply assembly (see at least paragraph 0013 and Figure 2; wherein a work motor 28 that drives the work section 18 as a working drive source…see at least paragraph 0024; wherein the power drive unit 76 is a control unit that converts DC power of the batteries 40 into AC power to control the work motor 28).
As per claim 17, Sugimura discloses further comprising a front cover located on the front part of the riding mowing device (see at least Figure 2; items 78A, 40) and used for covering the power supply assembly (see at least paragraph 0021 and Figure 2; wherein attaching the batteries 40 to and detaching the batteries 40 from the battery holder 42), and wherein the control circuit board is disposed between the seat and the front cover (see at least Figure 2).
As per claim 18, Sugimura discloses wherein a center of gravity of the riding mowing device is located between the control circuit board and the seat in a front and rear direction (see at least Figure 2).
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.
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(a) 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 2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimura (USPGPub 2024/0130289) in view of Design Choice. As per claim 2, Sugimura discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the power supply assembly comprises six battery packs disposed in the front accommodation cavity. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to add more battery packs, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in design of the component. A change in design is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
As per claim 5, Sugimura discloses wherein the traveling assembly comprises at least a first traveling wheel disposed on the front part of the riding vehicle, see at least Figure 1; item 14. Sugimura discloses the claimed invention except for a height difference between a highest point of a battery pack farthest from the seat among the at least two battery packs and a center point of the first traveling wheel is less than or equal to 45 cm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the height difference, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in design of the component. A change in design is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). As per claim 6, Sugimura discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a vertical distance between a highest point of a battery pack farthest from the seat among the at least two battery packs and a plane where the riding vehicle is located is less than or equal to 63 cm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the distance, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in design of the component. A change in design is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). As per claim 7, Sugimura discloses wherein the first traveling wheel is at least partially located in front of the at least two battery packs in a front and rear direction of the riding vehicle (see at least Figure 2).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimura (USPGPub 2024/0130289) in view of Koenen (USPGPub 2024/0175417). As per claim 3, Sugimura does not explicitly mention wherein the power supply assembly further comprises a built-in cell module. However Koenen does disclose: wherein the power supply assembly further comprises a built-in cell module (see at least paragraph 0024; wherein the battery pack 40 includes six individual battery cells 34 that are organized and connected to each other and are contained within the outer battery housing 22. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 2, the six individual battery cells 34 are stacked in two rows each including three cells). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Koenen with the teachings as in Sugimura. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a longer usable life, better power density, and is inherently safer, see Koenen paragraph 0026.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimura (USPGPub 2024/0130289), in view of Koenen (USPGPub 2024/0175417), and further in view of Design Choice.
As per claim 4, Sugimura discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the built-in cell module is disposed behind the at least two battery packs. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to place the module at a specific location, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in design of the component. A change in design is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 10-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimura (USPGPub 2024/0130289) in view of Feldkamp et al. (USPGPub 2022/0289045). As per claim 10, Sugimura does not explicitly mention wherein the front cover is further formed with a storage space at least partially disposed above the power supply assembly. However Feldkamp does disclose: wherein the front cover is further formed with a storage space at least partially disposed above the power supply assembly (see at least paragraph 0248; wherein the storage area is disposed above at least one battery of the lawnmower, the at least one battery providing energy to power a motor to drive a walking element of the lawnmower, and wherein a floor of the storage area is defined at least in part by a moveable cover for the at least one battery). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Feldkamp with the teachings as in Sugimura. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide quiet, clean, and efficient mowing, see Feldkamp paragraph 0005. As per claim 11, Feldkamp discloses wherein a partition is disposed between the storage space and the power supply assembly (see at least paragraph 0248; wherein the storage area is disposed above at least one battery of the lawnmower, the at least one battery providing energy to power a motor to drive a walking element of the lawnmower, and wherein a floor of the storage area is defined at least in part by a moveable cover for the at least one battery). As per claim 19, Sugimura does not explicitly mention wherein the front cover is further formed with a storage space at least partially disposed above the power supply assembly. However Feldkamp does disclose: wherein the front cover is further formed with a storage space at least partially disposed above the power supply assembly (Feldkamp see at least paragraph 0248; wherein the storage area is disposed above at least one battery of the lawnmower, the at least one battery providing energy to power a motor to drive a walking element of the lawnmower, and wherein a floor of the storage area is defined at least in part by a moveable cover for the at least one battery). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Feldkamp with the teachings as in Sugimura. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide quiet, clean, and efficient mowing, see Feldkamp paragraph 0005.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: USPGPub 2015/0359168 – Provide a riding mower is provided with a mower assembly supported on a vehicle body frame between front wheels and rear wheels. A steering assembly is configured to be operated by a driver. A driver seat is supported on the vehicle body frame. A floor panel extends from an area including the driver seat toward the front. The floor panel is provided with a main panel located in front of the driver seat, as well as left and right footrests extending further forward from the main panel. A recessed portion is formed on at least one side edge of the floor panel and includes a side edge drop off point. USPGPub 2026/0066367 – Provides a battery pack includes a battery housing, a positive terminal, a negative terminal, and a plurality of cell module assemblies. The plurality of cell module assemblies are received within an internal cavity of the battery housing, and include a top CMA cell holder frame defining a plurality of first pockets, a bottom CMA cell holder frame defining a plurality of second pockets, a top collector plate coupled to the top CMA cell holder frame, a bottom collector plate coupled to the bottom CMA cell holder frame, and a plurality of battery cells.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD S ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1326. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights