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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 6-25-2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kubinski (USPN 7730705).
Regarding claim 1, Kubinski discloses a mower (12), comprising: a chassis (14); a tractive element (18) coupled to the chassis; a mower deck (20) coupled to the chassis and including a cutting element; and a deck actuator assembly (depicted in figure 1) configured to raise the mower deck relative to the chassis, the deck actuator assembly including: a frame coupled to the chassis (Frame is defined as the housing of the actuator 70); an output interface coupled to the mower deck and slidably coupled to the frame (Rod 46 and shaft 30 are an output interface, Rod 46 is slidably received within the defined frame and shaft 30 is coupled to the mower deck via linkage 38); a first stop fixedly coupled to the output interface (arm 34); a second stop positioned to (a) engage the first stop to limit movement of the output interface in a first direction (Second stop is defined as the end of pin 58 that comes into contact with arm 34 and bracket 60 that holds the threaded actuation portion of the pin, Column 3 lines 53-65) and (b) permit movement of the first stop in a second direction opposite the first direction; and an actuator configured to reposition the second stop relative to the frame (Actuated by a knob at the end of the threaded pin and bracket).
Regarding claim 2, Kubinski discloses wherein movement of the output interface in the first direction lowers the mower deck, and wherein movement of the output interface in the second direction raises the mower deck (The deck is moved up and down by the actuator. The first direction is downwards and is limited by the position of the second stop).
Regarding claim 3, Kubinski discloses wherein the actuator includes a threaded rod engaging the second stop (the end of the pin is engaged to move by the threads) and a knob configured to drive rotation of the threaded rod to reposition the second stop relative to the frame (The end of the pin is connected to a knob which is driving portion of the actuator).
Kubinski discloses the claimed invention except for the use of a motor in place of a manual knob. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to motorize the pin, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 17, Kubinski discloses a mower (12), comprising: a chassis (14); a mower deck (20) coupled to the chassis and including a cutting element; and a deck actuator assembly (depicted in figure 1) configured to raise the mower deck relative to the chassis, the deck actuator assembly including: a frame coupled to the chassis (Frame is defined as the housing of the actuator 70); an actuator shaft coupled to the mower deck and slidably coupled to the frame (Rod 46 is slidably received within the defined frame and is connected to the mower deck via an assembly); a shaft stop (shaft 30) fixedly coupled to the actuator shaft; a control stop positioned to engage the shaft stop (control stop is defined as critical structure of the stop to include the end portion of the pin 58 that engages the shaft stop through shaft element 34 and the bracket 60 that hold the pin in place), wherein the actuator shaft is configured to move freely relative to the frame throughout a longitudinal range of motion, and wherein an end of the longitudinal range of motion is defined by the shaft stop engaging the control stop; and an actuator configured to vary the longitudinal range of motion of the actuator shaft by repositioning the control stop relative to the frame (Actuated by a knob and a threaded pin that move the end stop portion of the pin into position via the end stop bracket in relationship to the all other elements).
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.
Claim(s) 5-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubinski (USPN 7730705) in view of Abraham (USPN 4858481).
Regarding claim 5, Kubinski is considered to anticipate the claims with manual or obviously motorized extension and retraction of the second stop to position the height of the deck. Kubinski is lacking detail of specific actuation structures that can accomplish the movement of the second stop.
The problem to be solved is linear actuation of a known stop element of Kubinski, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would look into known linear actuation devices to solve the problem.
Abraham is one example of many linear actuation devices and teaches a gear train coupling the motor (electric motor 44) to a threaded rod (54), the gear train including a first gear (48) coupled to the motor (through shaft 92) and a second gear (50) coupled to the threaded rod (via gear 52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kubinski by using the electronic actuator as taught by Abraham to move a stop end linearly to control the height of the mower deck as an obvious type of linear electronic actuation system that may be used to automate a manual activity for the purpose of easier operator control from an operator seat.
Regarding claim 6, the combination discloses a third gear coupling the first gear to the second gear (Abraham figure 1, in an alternative interpretation shows a first gear 48, a second gear 52, and a third gear 50 coupling the gears together).
Regarding claim 7, the combination discloses, wherein the third gear is in meshing engagement with the first gear (Figure 1 Abraham), and wherein a diameter of the third gear is larger than a diameter of the first gear.
Regarding claim 8, the combination discloses wherein the first gear is longitudinally offset from the second gear (The first and second gears do not align in any direction and are offset in both an X and Y direction).
Regarding claim 10, the combination discloses wherein the first gear is in meshing engagement with the second gear (Abraham figure 1).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubinski (USPN 7730705) in view of Erhart (USPN 5557154).
Regarding claim 16, Kubinski in view of claims 1 and 3 is considered to anticipate the claims with manual or obviously motorized extension and retraction of the second stop to position the height of the deck. Kubinski is lacking detail of specific actuation structures that can accomplish the movement of the second stop to include a sensor.
The problem to be solved is linear actuation of a known stop element of Kubinski, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would look into known linear actuation devices to solve the problem.
Erhart is one example of many linear actuation devices and teaches a linear actuator with a positional sensor (510, figures 9 and 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kubinski by using the electronic actuator with a positional sensor as taught by Erhart to move a stop end linearly to control the height of the mower deck as an obvious type of linear electronic actuation system that may be used to automate a manual activity for the purpose of easier operator control from an operator seat.
An operator would be considered capable of controlling the deck height via a controller that uses the positional sensor to control the actuator based on a desired height of the deck.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 9, 11-15 and 18 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Swart (US 2009/0173052).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J BEHRENS whose telephone number is (303)297-4336. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-2pm MST.
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, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at (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 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.
/ADAM J BEHRENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights