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 .
Summary
The amendments filed on 1/28/2026 have been entered, no new matter has been added. The arguments filed on 1/28/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive and moot. Claims 1-15 are rejected.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 1/28/2026 have been entered, no new matter has been added.
Response to Argument
The arguments filed on 1/28/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive but moot. Applicant persuasively argues that Baetica does not teach the battery holder disposed so as to be inclined as set forth in claim 1. However, upon additional searching, a different reference was found to teach these limitations in combination with the primary reference as set forth in the obviousness rejection below.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tottori (US 12157360 B2) in view of Zeiler (US 11626642 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Tottori teaches a vehicle comprising a front wheel (10 “front wheels” taught in figure 1), a rear wheel (11 “rear wheels” taught in figure 1), and a battery holder (53 “a battery support” taught in figure 2) configured to accommodate and hold an attachable and detachable battery (4 “a travel battery” taught in figure 1),
wherein at least a part of the battery holder is provided above the front wheel (taught by figure 1),
an opening configured to allow the attachable and detachable battery to be attached to and detached from the battery holder is provided in an upper portion of the battery holder (taught by column 5 lines 20-24 “The cover 12 is swingable about an open/close axis Q (see FIG. 2) extending in the left-right direction of the machine body. This allows the cover 12 to be opened and closed. The cover 12, when in the closed state, accommodates the travel battery 4”),
the vehicle comprises a covering portion configured to be openable and closable and to cover the opening (12 “cover” taught in figures 1 and 2, and by column 5 lines 20-24 “The cover 12 is swingable about an open/close axis Q (see FIG. 2) extending in the left-right direction of the machine body. This allows the cover 12 to be opened and closed. The cover 12, when in the closed state, accommodates the travel battery 4”), in a state in which the covering portion is closed, the covering portion covers the opening of the battery holder, and an upper surface of the covering portion is inclined downward toward a front side (taught by figure 2), in a state in which the covering portion is opened, the battery holder is exposed to an outside of a vehicle body (taught by figure 2 and by column 5 lines 20-24 “The cover 12 is swingable about an open/close axis Q (see FIG. 2) extending in the left-right direction of the machine body. This allows the cover 12 to be opened and closed. The cover 12, when in the closed state, accommodates the travel battery 4”), and the opening is inclined forward (taught by figure 2).
However, Tottori does not teach wherein the battery holder is disposed so as to be inclined with respect to a vertical direction in a manner so that at least a part of the opening is located more forward than a lower portion of the battery holder.
Zeiler teaches wherein the battery holder is disposed so as to be inclined with respect to a vertical direction in a manner so that at least a part of the opening is located more forward than a lower portion of the battery holder (taught by figure 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the battery holder of Tottori to be inclined as taught by Zeiler, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because having the battery at an angle allows it to be more easily removed by a user.
Regarding claim 2, Tottori in view of Zeiler teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Tottori also teaches wherein the vehicle is a work machine including a work section (13 “a tiller device” taught by figure 1), and
at least a part of the battery holder is disposed more forward than the work section (taught by figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Tottori in view of Zeiler teaches the vehicle according to claim 2, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Tottori also teaches further comprising an electrical component electrically connected to the battery holder (M “motor” taught in figure 1), wherein
at least a part of the electrical component is disposed more forward than the work section (taught in figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Tottori in view of Zeiler teaches the vehicle according to claim 3, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Tottori also teaches wherein at least a part of the battery holder and at least a part of the electrical component are disposed more forward than and above the work section (taught by figure 1).
However, Tottori does not teach wherein the work section includes a cutting blade configured to cut grass.
Zeiler teaches wherein the work section includes a cutting blade configured to cut grass (10 “lawn mower” taught in figure 1 and column 2 line 59 “the blade in a deck 14 of the lawn mower”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the work section of Tottori to cut grass as taught by Zeiler, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because that would allow the “electrical work vehicle” of Tottori to be a lawn mower.
Regarding claim 5, Tottori in view of Zeiler teaches the vehicle according to claim 2, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Tottori also teaches further comprising a conveying passage connected to the work section (37 “pto shaft” taught in figure 1), wherein
the conveying passage is provided so as to extend to a side of the work section different from a side on which the battery holder is disposed (taught in figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Tottori in view of Zeiler teaches the vehicle according to claim 5, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Tottori in view of Zeiler also teaches wherein the battery holder is provided so as to be inclined in a manner so that the opening is oriented in a direction different from an extending direction of the conveying passage, with respect to the work section (the extending direction is from front to back in the longitudinal direction as shown in Tottori figure 1, while the direction of the opening is upward at an angle when modified by the Zeiler as set forth in the obviousness rejection above).
Regarding claim 7, Tottori in view of Zeiler teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Tottori also teaches, wherein a seat for an occupant is disposed above the rear wheel (taught by figure 1), and
the opening of the battery holder is disposed so as to overlap the seat in a height direction (taught by figure 1).
However, Tottori does not teach that the vehicle is a riding lawn mower.
Zeiler teaches that the vehicle is a lawn mower (10 “lawn mower” taught in figure 1 and column 2 line 59 “the blade in a deck 14 of the lawn mower”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the work section of Tottori to cut grass as taught by Zeiler, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because that would allow the “electrical work vehicle” of Tottori to maintain the length of grass on a lawn.
Regarding claim 12, Tottori in view of Zeiler teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Zeiler also teaches wherein the battery holder includes an accommodating portion as a recessed portion that forms an accommodation space configured to accommodate the battery, and an axis of the accommodating portion is inclined forward by an angle of 100 to 450 with respect to the vertical direction (taught by figure 17).
Regarding claim 13, Tottori in view of Zeiler teaches the vehicle according to claim 2, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Zeiler also teaches wherein the battery holder includes an accommodating portion as a recessed portion that forms an accommodation space configured to accommodate the battery, and an axis of the accommodating portion is inclined forward by an angle of 100 to 450 with respect to the vertical direction (taught by figure 17).
Regarding claim 14, Tottori in view of Zeiler teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Tottori also teaches wherein the covering portion includes an upper panel portion facing the opening and inclined downward toward the front side, and the opening is inclined along the upper panel portion (taught by figure 2).
Regarding claim 15, Tottori in view of Zeiler teaches the vehicle according to claim 2, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Tottori also teaches wherein the covering portion includes an upper panel portion facing the opening and inclined downward toward the front side, and the opening is inclined along the upper panel portion (taught by figure 2).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tottori (US 12157360 B2) in view of Zeiler (US 11626642 B2), and in further view of Katayama (US 20200212519 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Tottori in view of Zeiler teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Tottori in view of Zeiler also teaches, further comprising an electrical component disposed below a rear portion of the battery holder (M “motor” taught in figure 1), and
a part of the lower portion of the battery holder is located forward of the electrical component (taught by figure 1).
However, Tottori does not teach that the electrical component is connected to the battery holder via a harness.
Katayama teaches that an electrical component is connected to a battery holder via a harness (23 “wire harness” taught by figure 6 and paragraph 38 “as shown in FIG. 6, wire harnesses 23 for charging of the battery 22 and supplying of the electric power from the battery 22”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the wire harness of Katayama to connect the electrical component and battery holder of Tottori, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because the battery of Tottori is taught to supply the motor with electrical power (Tottori abstract “a motor positioned under the battery and drivable on electric power supplied by the battery”), but no means of conveyance is taught. Thus, the wire harness of Katayama is a means of conveyance that enables the motor to be supplied with electric power from the battery.
Regarding claim 9, Tottori in view of Zeiler teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Tottori also teaches, further comprising an electrical component disposed below a rear portion of the battery holder (M “motor” taught in figure 1).
Zeiler teaches a device-side connector configured to be electrically connected to the attachable and detachable battery (175 “ports” taught in figure 4), and
at least a part of the opening of the battery holder is located more forward than the device-side connector (taught by figure 7).
Neither Tottori nor Zeiler explicitly teach that the device-side connector is provided at a bottom portion of the battery holder.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to move the device-side connector to a bottom portion of the battery holder, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
However, neither Tottori nor Zeiler teach the electrical component connected to the battery holder via a harness.
Katayama teaches that an electrical component is connected to a battery holder via a harness (23 “wire harness” taught by figure 6 and paragraph 38 “as shown in FIG. 6, wire harnesses 23 for charging of the battery 22 and supplying of the electric power from the battery 22”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the wire harness of Katayama to connect the electrical component and battery holder of Tottori, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because the battery of Tottori is taught to supply the motor with electrical power (Tottori abstract “a motor positioned under the battery and drivable on electric power supplied by the battery”), but no means of conveyance is taught. Thus, the wire harness of Katayama is a means of conveyance that enables the motor to be supplied with electric power from the battery.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tottori (US 12157360 B2) in view of Zeiler (US 11626642 B2), and in further view of Katayama (US 20200212519 A1), and Liu (US 11839178 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Tottori in view of Zeiler teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Tottori also teaches an electrical component disposed below a rear portion of the battery holder and connected to the battery holder (M “motor” taught in figure 1), wherein
a rear-side of the accommodating portion is disposed more rearward than a front-side of the accommodating portion and above the electrical component, and the front- side of the accommodating portion is disposed forward of the electrical component (taught by figure 1), and
in a state in which the covering portion is closed, the covering portion covers the opening of each of the front-side of the accommodating portion and the rear-side of the accommodating portion (taught by figure 1).
Zeiler teaches the front-side accommodating portion and the rear-side accommodating portion are inclined forward with respect to a vertical direction at a same inclination angle (taught by figure 17).
However, neither Tottori nor Zeiler teach the electrical component connected to the battery holder via a harness.
Katayama teaches that an electrical component is connected to a battery holder via a harness (23 “wire harness” taught by figure 6 and paragraph 38 “as shown in FIG. 6, wire harnesses 23 for charging of the battery 22 and supplying of the electric power from the battery 22”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the wire harness of Katayama to connect the electrical component and battery holder of Tottori, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because the battery of Tottori is taught to supply the motor with electrical power (Tottori abstract “a motor positioned under the battery and drivable on electric power supplied by the battery”), but no means of conveyance is taught. Thus, the wire harness of Katayama is a means of conveyance that enables the motor to be supplied with electric power from the battery.
However, neither Tottori, Zeiler, nor Katayama teach the battery holder includes a front-side accommodating portion configured to accommodate a first battery that is the attachable and detachable battery, and a rear-side accommodating portion configured to accommodate a second battery that is another attachable and detachable battery having a same shape as the first battery.
Liu teaches a battery holder includes a front-side accommodating portion configured to accommodate a first battery that is the attachable and detachable battery, and a rear-side accommodating portion configured to accommodate a second battery that is another attachable and detachable battery having a same shape as the first battery (161 “first battery packs,” and 162 “first battery compartments” taught by figure 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the single battery of Tottori to be two batteries as taught by Liu, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because multiple batteries would allow one battery to be removed and recharged while the other battery is still able to power the vehicle.
Regarding claim 11, Tottori in view of Zeiler teaches the vehicle according to claim 2, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Tottori also teaches, further comprising an electrical component disposed below a rear portion of the battery holder (M “motor” taught in figure 1)
a rear-side of the accommodating portion is disposed more rearward than a front-side of the accommodating portion and above the electrical component, and the front-side of the accommodating portion is disposed forward of the electrical component (taught by figure 1), and
in a state in which the covering portion is closed, the covering portion covers the opening of each of the front-side of the accommodating portion and the rear-side of the accommodating portion (taught by figure 1).
Zeiler teaches the front-side accommodating portion and the rear-side accommodating portion are inclined forward with respect to a vertical direction at a same inclination angle (taught by figure 17).
However, neither Tottori nor Zeiler teach the electrical component connected to the battery holder via a harness.
Katayama teaches that an electrical component is connected to a battery holder via a harness (23 “wire harness” taught by figure 6 and paragraph 38 “as shown in FIG. 6, wire harnesses 23 for charging of the battery 22 and supplying of the electric power from the battery 22”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the wire harness of Katayama to connect the electrical component and battery holder of Tottori, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because the battery of Tottori is taught to supply the motor with electrical power (Tottori abstract “a motor positioned under the battery and drivable on electric power supplied by the battery”), but no means of conveyance is taught. Thus, the wire harness of Katayama is a means of conveyance that enables the motor to be supplied with electric power from the battery.
However, neither Tottori, Zeiler, nor Katayama teach the battery holder includes a front-side accommodating portion configured to accommodate a first battery that is the attachable and detachable battery, and a rear-side accommodating portion configured to accommodate a second battery that is another attachable and detachable battery having a same shape as the first battery.
Liu teaches a battery holder includes a front-side accommodating portion configured to accommodate a first battery that is the attachable and detachable battery, and a rear-side accommodating portion configured to accommodate a second battery that is another attachable and detachable battery having a same shape as the first battery (161 “first battery packs,” and 162 “first battery compartments” taught by figure 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the single battery of Tottori to be two batteries as taught by Liu, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because multiple batteries would allow one battery to be removed and recharged while the other battery is still able to power the vehicle.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KANDAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5628. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, James A Shriver can be reached at (303)297-4337. 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.
/NICHOLAS R. KANDAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613