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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 line 4 “each drive wheel assembly coupled to an electric motor” should be –each drive wheel assembly coupled to an electric drive motor--, and claim 13 line 3 “one or more drive motors” should read –one or more of the drive motors— to make clear that it is the same electric motor references in both cases.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holeton et al. (US 20230122499 A1) in view of Bejcek et al. (US 20170142898 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Holeton discloses an outdoor power machine (10, Fig. 1), comprising:
a chassis (20);
two or more drive wheel assemblies (rear drive wheels 35) physically mounted to the chassis, each drive wheel assembly coupled to an electric motor (45) (Fig. 3, para. [0093] “electric…drive motors 45 may each include an output shaft that is directly coupled to one of the drive wheels 35”);
an electric power pack (50) configured to supply electric energy to the electric motors (para. [0094]);
one or more steer wheels (front caster wheels 30 passively steer mower);
a steering lever (72);
a speed control button (410) positioned on the steering lever (Fig. 16, speed adjustment mechanism 410 is “a button or dial switch…integrated within the maneuvering controls 72…during operation…the user may easily access the adjustment mechanism 410 without removing their hands from the maneuvering controls 72…to safely switch between the different selections, para. [0144]); and
wherein actuation of the speed control button sends a signal to a control system (400) and instructs the control system to progress from one gross speed range to another gross speed range (para. [0145] “adjustment mechanism 410 may include three positions such as…low, standard, or maximum speed modes 420, 430, 440”, e.g. corresponding to speed ranges of 0-5 mph, 0-8 mph, and 0-11 mph, respectively, see Fig. 17A, para. [0147]).
Holeton does not explicitly detail wherein the signal is a discrete progression signal such that the progression from one gross speed range to another occurs in a predetermined order.
In the same area, Becjek discloses a system for selecting different operating modes of a mower, wherein actuation of a single button (542) sends a discrete progression signal to a control system (200) to progress from one operating mode to another in a predetermined order (para. [0042] “a user may cycle through each of the…control modes by toggling the mode actuator 542 to select the preferred control mode…Each actuation or toggling of the mode actuator 542 may select a different control mode, allowing the user to cycle through each selectable control mode, and repeating the cycle when a pass through all possible selections is completed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the speed control button of Holeton as a push button for cycling through the set gross speed ranges in a predetermined order, as taught by Becjek, in order to limit the mode selection to a single button thereby simplifying the selection process (Becjek at para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 2, Holeton in view of Becjek discloses the outdoor power machine of claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to sequentially cycle through a predetermined set of speed ranges (see Holeton at para. [0145], “three preset adjusted maximum speed modes”, 420, 430, 440 i.e. low [Wingdings font/0xE0] standard [Wingdings font/0xE0] high speed range).
Regarding claim 3, Holeton in view of Becjek discloses the outdoor power machine of claim 2. Holeton further teaches wherein there are three speed ranges (420, 430, 440) that each have different maximum speeds (Fig. 17A, maximum speeds of 5 mph, 8 mph, 11mph, respectively).
Regarding claim 4, Holeton in view of Becjek discloses the outdoor power machine of claim 3. Holeton further teaches wherein the speed ranges (420, 430, 440) are low, medium, and high (Fig. 16, para. [0145] “three preset adjusted maximum speed modes”, e.g. low [Wingdings font/0xE0] standard [Wingdings font/0xE0] high speed range).
Regarding claim 5, Holeton in view of Becjek discloses the outdoor power machine of claim 1. Holeton further teaches wherein the speed control button (410) is configured to control the speed of at least one of the drive wheel assembly (35) (para. [0147]).
Regarding claim 7, Holeton in view of Becjek discloses the outdoor power machine of claim 1. Holeton further teaches wherein the speed control button (410) is positioned at the distal end of the steering lever (inherent from para. [0144] button is “positioned on or integrated within the maneuvering controls 72“ so as to be “operable with the user's thumb” in para. [0144]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holeton in view of Becjek as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Feng et al. (US 20200253115 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Holeton in view of Becjek discloses the outdoor power machine of claim 1. Holeton further teaches wherein the speed control button (410) is configured to control the speed of the drive wheel assemblies (35) instead of the speed of a means (40) for driving a blade (84).
Feng in the same area of riding mowers discloses a vehicle speed control button (1090) and a blade speed control button (1095), wherein the vehicle speed control button and blade speed control button are configured to sequentially select between vehicle speed (1405, 1420) and blade speed (1435, 1440) respectively (Figs. 31-32, para. [0109-0110]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include an additional speed control button on the steering lever of Holeton for selecting a blade speed, in order to optimize power management and allow a user to selectively choose between blade speeds as desired for different lawn conditions.
Claims 12-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 20200253115 A1) in view of Peters et al. (US 12457922 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Feng discloses an outdoor power machine (10, Fig. 1), comprising:
a chassis (25);
two or more drive wheel assemblies (200a, 200b) physically mounted to the chassis, each drive wheel assembly coupled to an electric drive motor (230a, 230b);
an electric power pack (1005) configured to supply electric energy to the electric motors (para. [0059]);
one or more steer wheels (195a, 195b);
first and second steering levers (235a, 235b);
a drive speed control button (1090) and a blade speed control button (1095); and wherein:
actuation of the drive speed control button (1090) sends a discrete progression signal to a control system (1000) and instructs the control system to progress from one gross drive speed range (1405) to another gross drive speed range (1420) (see Fig. 31, para. [0118]) in a predetermined order (para. [0109] drive speed control button 1090 “may cycle between indicating an active state and an inactive state each time it is depressed”, wherein the inactive state corresponds to a normal drive speed operating mode and the active state corresponds to a reduced drive speed operating mode); and
actuation of the blade speed control button (1095) sends a discrete progression signal to the control system and instructs the control system to progress from one gross blade speed range (1435) to another gross blade speed range (1440) (Fig, 32, para. [0121]) in a predetermined order (para. [0010] blade speed control button 1095 “may cycle between indicating an active state and an inactive state each time it is depressed” wherein the inactive state corresponds to a normal blade speed operating mode and the active state corresponds to a reduced blade speed operating mode).
Feng fails to teach wherein the drive and blade speed control button are positioned on the first and second steering lever, respectively.
In the same area, Peters discloses a similar ZTR mower comprising a first and second control button located on first and second steering levers (34), respectively (Figs. 4-5, see any of the buttons located on each module 100), wherein the buttons are configured to control a blade speed and/or engine speed of the mower (col. 9 lines 48-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the speed control buttons of Feng to be located on a respective steering lever, as taught by Peters, such that the buttons can be operated without looking away from the normal field of view and without removing hands from the steering levers, thereby allowing an operator to maintain positive control of the steering levers and full attention to the immediate surroundings (Peters at col. 10 lines 37-54).
Regarding claim 13, Feng in view of Peters discloses the outdoor power machine of claim 12. Feng further teaches wherein actuation of the drive speed control button (1090) causes the control system (1000) to generate a signal determining a gross speed (1405, 1420) of one or more of the drive motors (230a, 230b) (para. [0109, 0118]).
Regarding claim 14, Feng in view of Peters discloses the outdoor power machine of claim 12. Feng further teaches wherein actuation of the blade speed control button (1095) causes the control system (1000) to generate a signal determining a gross speed (1435, 1440) of one or more blade motors (105a, 105b) (para. [0110, 0121]).
Regarding claim 15, Feng in view of Peters discloses the outdoor power machine of claim 12. Feng further teaches wherein the predetermined order of progressing from one gross drive speed range (1405) to another gross drive speed range (1420) is sequential (para. [0109] drive speed control button 1090 cycles between states each time it is depressed, i.e. active (slow) state [Wingdings font/0xE0] inactive (normal) state [Wingdings font/0xE0] active (slow) state [Wingdings font/0xE0] inactive (normal) state).
Regarding claim 17, Feng in view of Peters discloses the outdoor power machine of claim 12, wherein the predetermined order of progressing from one gross blade speed range (1435) to another gross blade speed range (1440) is sequential (para. [0110] blade speed control button 1095 cycles between states each time it is depressed, i.e. active (slow) state [Wingdings font/0xE0] inactive (normal) state [Wingdings font/0xE0] active (slow) state [Wingdings font/0xE0] inactive (normal) state).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng in view of Peters as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Holeton et al. (US 20230122499 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Feng in view of Peters discloses the outdoor power machine of claim 15. Feng further teaches wherein the sequential progression from one gross drive speed range to another gross drive speed range is from a low speed range (1420) to a medium speed range (1405) and back to the low speed range (para. [0109] drive speed control button 1090 cycles between states each time it is depressed, i.e. active (low speed range 1420) state [Wingdings font/0xE0] inactive (medium speed range 1405) state [Wingdings font/0xE0] active (low speed range 1420) state).
Feng fails to disclose wherein the sequential progression also comprises a high drive speed range.
In the same area, Holeton discloses a similar riding mower operable in three gross drive speed ranges selectable by a user: a low speed range 420, a medium speed range 430, and a high speed range 440 (Fig. 16-17A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a high drive speed range as one of the gross speed range options, as taught by Holeton, in order to increase versatility and optimize speed for different operations (i.e. provide a high-speed transport option).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng in view of Peters as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Borinato (US 20120228041 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Feng in view of Peters discloses the outdoor power machine of claim 17, wherein the sequential progression from one gross blade speed range to another gross blade speed range is from a low speed range (1440) to a medium speed range (1435) and back to the low speed range (para. [0110] blade speed control button 1095 cycles between states each time it is depressed, i.e. active (low blade speed 1440) state [Wingdings font/0xE0] inactive (medium blade speed 1435) state [Wingdings font/0xE0] active (low blade speed 1440) state).
Feng fails to disclose wherein the sequential progression also comprises a high blade speed range.
Borinato discloses a lawn mower having three blade speed modes selectable by a user, the three blade speed modes comprising a low, medium, and high speed mode (para. [0072] blade speed selection device 28 “may have three speed options, respectively 2,500 rpm constant speed, 3,000 rpm constant speed and full speed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a high blade speed as one of the gross blade speed options of Feng, as taught by Borinato, in order to provide a high- speed setting suitable for mowing a lawn with a high grass density (Borinato at para. [0069]).
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-7, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, these arguments are moot given the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
The examiner also cites Siebert et al. (US 20230329143 A1) below for similar teachings of selecting between three different operating modes (240, 260, 280) (see Fig. 6), wherein selection is made using a single “mode selector push button…where each actuation is a request to proceed to the next mode so that the modes may be cycled through” (para. [0038]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Siebert (US 20230329143 A1) discloses a vehicle control module for a lawn mower.
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 JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Joesph 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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights