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 4/9/2026 have been entered, no new matter has been added. The arguments filed on 4/9/2026 have been fully considered and are a combination of persuasive but moot, and not persuasive. Claims 1-14 are rejected.
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed on 4/9/2026 have been entered, no new matter has been added.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed on 4/9/2026 have been fully considered and are a combination of persuasive but moot, and not persuasive.
Applicant persuasively argues that amended claim 1 overcomes the prior art of record. Changing the drive wheel assemblies to include a motor instead of merely being coupled to a motor means that each drive wheel needs what is commonly referred to as an in-wheel electric motor, and no such motor is taught in the prior art of record. Upon additional searching Wei was found which teaches in-wheel electric motors for drive wheel assemblies of a lawnmower and can be obviously combined with Dimsey to teach all the limitations of claim 1 as set in the 103 rejection below. Thus this argument is persuasive but moot in light of newly found prior art.
Applicant argues that the electric power pack of Dimsey is not taught as supplying electric energy to the motors because paragraph 39 “merely discloses a starter battery for an electric starting motor to automatically start an IC engine.” This is not persuasive because it is not true. Paragraph 39 does teach a starter battery for automatically starting the engine but it does not merely teach that. It also teaches replacing that engine with “one or more electric motors,” which would then be connected to the battery, and indeed must be connected to a battery in order to operate. Thus this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that claims 11 is not taught by Dimsey because Dimsey uses its lights to illuminate indicators or a control panel, not to indicate the status of the machine. This is not persuasive. If the lights of Dimsey are on, that indicates a status of the machine, particularly that it is on. Applicant argues that the specification explains the status may be communicated through “changing colors, blinking, or a flashing pattern.” That is not relevant to this claim as the claim is not limited to those methods of communication, and in fact, claims 12 and 13 further limit claim 11 to these methods of communication.
Applicant further argues that claim 14 is not taught by Dimsey because Dimsey uses its lights to illuminate indicators or a control panel, not to indicate whether the electric power pack is charged. This is not persuasive. If the lights of Dimsey are on, that indicates that the electric power pack is charged.
Applicant further argues that Dimsey and Elgh fail to obviously teach claim 2. Applicant argues that “Elgh relates to lighting structures without addressing multi-directional visibility through geometrically configured lighting surfaces.” This is not true. Elgh figure 4 teaches a multidirectional light with multiple geometrically configured lighting surfaces. Figure 2 teaches this light as illuminating nearly 360 degrees around the machine, including lateral sides and the front of the machine. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that claims 12 and 13 are not taught by combination of Dimsey and Iwasaki because Iwasaki teaches blinking and color variation for signal purposes, but that signaling is not multidirectional. This is not persuasive. Claims 12 and 13 depend upon claim 11 which depends upon claim 1. In this chain, only claim 1 includes limitations to the multidirectional nature of the lighting package, and it only requires the lighting package to be visible from the front or rear, and from the left or right side of the machine. Dimsey teaches a lighting package with separate lights for the front, rear, and each side. Thus, all Iwasaki needs to teach, is how to indicate status on each individual light of Dimsey, through blinking for claim 12, and through a predetermined color of light for claim 13, which Iwasaki does. Applicant argues that the invention integrates this signaling with a multi-surface lighting geometry, which is true. But that multi-surface lighting geometry is not required by claims 12 or 13. Thus this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that the combinations used in the previous office action were the result of impermissible hindsight reconstruction and that there is no teaching or suggestion of the claimed combinations in the prior art. Each 103 rejection cites how the prior art reference teaches the various limitations of the claim, and what motivation for combining exists to justify the combination. For an argument against these rejections to be persuasive, such an argument must specifically explain the deficiency of a teaching or the deficiency of the motivation for combining, not a general argument of hindsight bias. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous 112 rejections have been overcome by amendment.
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, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimsey (US 20180347803 A1) in view of Wei (US 12083903 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Dimsey teaches an outdoor power machine (110 “snowthrower” taught by figure 1), comprising:
a chassis including main frame rails (taught by figures 2-5 and 8);
two or more drive wheel assemblies physically mounted to the chassis (114 “a pair of drive wheels” taught by figures 1-5), each drive wheel assembly coupled to an electric motor (taught by paragraph 39 “While not shown in FIG. 6, in other embodiments, engine 212 may be replaced by any other suitable powerhead, such one or more electric motors”);
an electrical power pack configured to supply electric energy to the electric motors (taught by paragraph 39 “Alternatively and/or additionally, a starter battery housing 218 may be present to accept a starter battery (not shown) for utilization of an electric starting motor”);
one or more steer wheels (taught by figure 8); and
a lighting package mounted on the machine such that the lighting package is visible from at least one of: the forward and rear aspects of the machine, and at least one of: the left and right aspects of the machine (132 “one rear lighting device”, 136 “one right lighting device”, 140 “one left side lighting device”, 144 “one forward-projecting lighting device” taught by figure 1).
However, Dimsey does not teach wherein the two or more drive wheel assemblies include an electric motor.
Wei teaches wherein two or more drive wheel assemblies include an electric motor (taught by figure 3 and column 4 lines 8-12 “In some embodiments, both the front wheels 112 and the rear wheels 122 are driven by at least one driving motor to rotate. In some embodiments, the driving motor may be in-wheel motor”).
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 drive wheel assemblies and motors of Dimsey (144 “forward-projecting lighting device” taught in figure 1) to be in-wheel motors of Wei, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because in-wheel motors improve torque response.
Regarding claim 11, Dimsey in view of Wei teaches the outdoor power machine of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Dimsey also teaches wherein the lighting package is configured to indicate the status of the machine (taught by paragraph 27 “Alternatively, in some embodiments, a portion of light emitted by rear lighting device(s) 132 may be directed substantially upward and/or laterally outward so as to illuminate one or more indicators on control panel 121. For example, indicators for drive direction and/or speed (i.e., “F” for forward, “R” for rear, “1” for slow, etc.) may be cut out of control panel 121 or otherwise made to be transparent, thereby allowing light emitted by rear lighting device(s) 132 to illuminate the indicators”).
Regarding claim 14, Dimsey in view of Wei teaches the outdoor power machine of claim 11, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Dimsey also teaches wherein the machine includes batteries and the status is indicative of whether the electrical power pack is charged (taught by claim 8 “wherein the at least one power source is at least one of a battery”).
Claim(s) 2-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimsey (US 20180347803 A1) in view of Wei (US 12083903 B2) and in further view of Elgh (US 10744927 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Dimsey in view of Wei teaches the outdoor power machine of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Dimsey does not teach wherein the lighting package includes at least one forward quarter lighting panel.
Elgh teaches wherein the lighting package includes at least one forward quarter lighting panel (408 “second light source” taught by figure 4).
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 front light of Dimsey (144 “forward-projecting lighting device” taught in figure 1) with the quarter lighting panel of Elgh with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the quarter lighting panel would allow Dimsey to illuminate the sides of the outdoor power machine.
Regarding claim 3, Dimsey in view of Wei and in further view of Elgh teaches the outdoor power machine of claim 2, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Elgh also teaches wherein the forward quarter lighting panel defines two light-emitting surfaces (408 “second light source” taught by figure 4).
Regarding claim 4, Dimsey in view of Wei and in further view of Elgh teaches the outdoor power machine of claim 3, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Elgh also teaches wherein the two light- emitting surfaces intersect at a region where the lighting panel bends and twists such that a first surface is generally perpendicular to view from the left or right aspect of the machine and a second surface is generally perpendicular and exposed to view from areas forward of the machine (408 “second light source” taught by figure 4).
Regarding claim 5, Dimsey in view of Wei teaches the outdoor power machine of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Dimsey does not teach wherein the lighting package includes at least one rear quarter lighting panel.
Elgh teaches wherein the lighting package includes at least one rear quarter lighting panel (408 “second light source” taught by figure 4).
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 rear light of Dimsey (132 “rear lighting device” taught in figure 1) with the quarter lighting panel of Elgh with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the quarter lighting panel would allow Dimsey to illuminate the sides of the outdoor power machine.
Regarding claim 6, Dimsey in view of Wei and in further view of Elgh teaches the outdoor power machine of claim 5, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Elgh also teaches wherein the rear quarter lighting panel defines two light-emitting surfaces (408 “second light source” taught by figure 4).
Regarding claim 7, Dimsey in view of Wei in view of Elgh teaches the outdoor power machine of claim 6, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Elgh also teaches wherein the two light- emitting surfaces intersect at a region where the lighting panel bends such that a first surface is generally perpendicular to view from the left or right aspect of the machine and a second surface is generally perpendicular and exposed to view from areas rear of the machine (408 “second light source” taught by figure 4).
Regarding claim 8, Dimsey in view of Wei teaches the outdoor power machine of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Dimsey does not teach wherein the lighting package includes at least one forward quarter lighting panel and at least one rear quarter lighting panel.
Elgh teaches wherein the lighting package includes at least one quarter lighting panel (408 “second light source” taught by figure 4).
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 forward and rear lights of Dimsey (144 “forward-projecting lighting device,” and 132 “rear lighting device” taught in figure 1) with the quarter lighting panel of Elgh with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the quarter lighting panel would allow Dimsey to illuminate the sides of the outdoor power machine.
Regarding claim 9, Dimsey in view of Wei and in further view of Elgh teaches the outdoor power machine of claim 8, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Dimsey in view of Wei and in further view of Elgh also teaches wherein each of the forward and rear quarter lighting panels define two light-emitting surfaces (taught by Elgh 408 “second light source” and figure 4).
Regarding claim 10, Dimsey in view of Wei and in further view of Elgh teaches the outdoor power machine of claim 9, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Dimsey in view of Wei and in further view of Elgh also teaches wherein the two light- emitting surfaces of the forward quarter lighting panel intersect at a region where the lighting panel is configured such that a first surface is generally perpendicular to view from the left or right aspects of the machine and a second surface is generally perpendicular and exposed to view from areas forward of the machine (taught by modifying the “forward-projecting lighting device,” of figure 1 of Dimsey with Elgh’s 408 “second light source” taught by figure 4 as set forth in the obviousness rejection above); and
the two light-emitting surfaces of the rear quarter lighting panel intersect at a region where the lighting panel is configured such that a first surface is generally perpendicular to view from the left or right aspects of the machine and a second surface is generally perpendicular and exposed to view from areas rear of the machine (taught by modifying the 132 “rear lighting device” of figure 1 of Dimsey with Elgh’s 408 “second light source” taught by figure 4 as set forth in the obviousness rejection above).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimsey (US 20180347803 A1) in view of Wei (US 12083903 B2) and in further view of Iwasaki (US 11084416 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Dimsey in view of Wei teaches the outdoor power machine of claim 11, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
However, Dimsey does not teach wherein the status is indicated by blinking lights.
Iwasaki teaches wherein the status is indicated by blinking lights (150 “ID lamp” taught by column 11 lines 14-16 “the display of the ID lamp 150 controlled in the second mode in which the ID lamp 150 is caused to blink in green”).
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 lights of Dimsey to indicate a status by blinking as taught by Iwasaki, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because by flashing lights, a large range of information can be clearly communicated to users and non-users within sight of the lights.
Regarding claim 13, Dimsey in view of Wei teaches the outdoor power machine of claim 11, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
However, Dimsey does not teach wherein the status is indicated by a predetermined color of light.
Iwasaki teaches wherein the status is indicated by a predetermined color of light (150 “ID lamp” taught by column 11 lines 14-16 “the display of the ID lamp 150 controlled in the second mode in which the ID lamp 150 is caused to blink in green”).
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 lights of Dimsey to indicate a status by a color as taught by Iwasaki, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because implementing a colored light allows information to be clearly communicated to users and non-users within sight of the light.
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
Prosecution Insights