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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The amendments to claim 1 recite that “rear rolling mechanisms…define a cutting height of the mower deck” and “rear rolling mechanisms pivot relative to the housing as the…rear rolling mechanisms pass over bumps…so that the cutting height remains substantially constant.” It is not clear how the cutting height is to both remain constant and be defined by the rear roller if the rear roller is to pivot. It seems that if the roller is to define the cutting height, the cutting height should be adjusted/re-defined as the roller pivots.
Furthermore, fig. 4A-4C shows that the cutting height remains constant as the bracket and roller pivot over a bump. Therefore, it appears that the roller does not set or define the cutting height, but that the cutting height must be set by 115 or some other height adjustment mechanism that is known in the art. For examination purposes, it is understood that the height of the rear roller mechanism(s) is defined by the cutting height when they are in contact with the grass/ground and not pivoted by any bumps in the ground.
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons used to reject claim 1. Claims 2-11, 13-17, and 19-20 are rejected as they depend upon claims 1, 12, and 18.
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)(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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-11, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eavenson (US 7631477 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Eavenson discloses a mower deck (deck 20) comprising:
a housing that is supported off the ground by one or more rear rolling mechanisms (32) that rest on the ground and define a cutting height of the mower deck;
one or more cutting units (col. 3 line 12) housed within the housing; and
a suspension by which each rear rolling mechanism is coupled to the housing, the suspension comprising opposing brackets (36) that are each connected to the housing at a pivot point (40) and oriented rearwardly relative to the housing at a maximum angle less than 90 degrees from horizontal (see fig. 2-3) and opposing springs (66) that bias the respective brackets into the maximum angle, wherein the suspension is configured to enable the one or more rear rolling mechanisms to pivot relative to the housing as the one or more rear rolling mechanisms pass over bumps or uneven ground so that the cutting height remains substantially constant (col. 4 line 63- col. 5 line 8).
Regarding claim 2, Eavenson discloses the mower deck of claim 1, wherein the opposing springs (66) are configured to enable the opposing brackets to pivot rearwardly and upwardly to a reduced angle when the one or more rear rolling mechanisms encounter a bump (col. 4 lines 46-62).
Regarding claim 3, Eavenson discloses the mower deck of claim 1, wherein the one or more rear rolling mechanisms (32) are a rear roller (col. 3 lines 20-23).
Regarding claim 4, Eavenson discloses the mower deck of claim 3, wherein the pivot point is towards front ends of the opposing brackets and the rear roller is coupled between rear ends of the opposing brackets (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Eavenson discloses the mower deck of claim 1, wherein the mower deck does not include a front rolling mechanism (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Eavenson discloses the mower deck of claim 1, wherein the opposing springs comprise one or more of a compression spring (66), a leaf spring, or a polymer insert.
Regarding claim 10, Eavenson discloses the mower deck of claim 1, wherein a spring rate of the opposing springs is adjustable (col. 4 line 63- col. 5 line 3).
Regarding claim 11, Eavenson discloses the mower deck of claim 1, further comprising:
a support structure that supports the mower deck from a mower, the support structure locking a pitch of the mower deck (col. 1 lines 40-50).
Regarding claim 18, Eavenson discloses a mower deck (20) comprising:
a housing in which one or more cutting units (col. 3 line 12) are housed;
a rear rolling mechanism (32) that supports the housing above the ground and defines a cutting height of the mower deck;
a bracket (36) by which the rear rolling mechanism is coupled to the housing, the bracket being angled rearwardly relative to the housing at a maximum angle less than 90 degrees from horizontal (see fig. 2-3); and
a spring (66) that biases the bracket into the maximum angle and allows the bracket to pivot rearwardly and upwardly to a reduced angle when the rear rolling mechanism encounters a bump in the ground (col. 4 lines 46-62) so that the cutting height remains substantially constant as the rear rolling mechanism passes over the bump (col. 4 line 63- col. 5 line 8).
Regarding claim 19, Eavenson discloses the mower deck of claim 18, wherein the rear rolling mechanism is a rear roller, the bracket is a first bracket that couples a first end of the rear roller to the housing, and the spring is a first spring the biases the first bracket into the maximum angle, the mower deck further comprising:
a second bracket (36) that couples a second end of the rear roller to the housing, the second bracket being angled rearwardly relative to the housing at a maximum angle less than 90 degrees from horizontal (see fig. 2, two brackets are provided); and
a second spring (66) that biases the second bracket into the maximum angle and allows the second bracket to pivot to the reduced angle (see fig. 2, two springs are provided).
Regarding claim 20, Eavenson discloses the mower deck of claim 18, wherein a spring rate of the spring is adjustable (col. 4 line 63- col. 5 line 3).
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.
Claims 12, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eavenson (US 7631477 B2) in view of Sugden (US 7237374 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Eavenson discloses a mower deck (20) comprising:
a housing that is supported from a mower (10) by a support structure (11);
one or more cutting units (col. 3 line 12) housed within the housing;
a rear roller (32) that rests on the ground and defines a cutting height of the mower deck; and
a suspension by which the rear roller is coupled to the housing, the suspension comprising opposing brackets (36) that are each connected to the housing at a pivot point (40) and oriented rearwardly relative to the housing at a maximum angle less than 90 degrees from horizontal (see fig. 2-3) and opposing springs (66) that bias the respective brackets into the maximum angle, wherein the suspension is configured to enable the rear roller to pivot relative to the housing as the rear roller passes over bumps or uneven ground so that cutting height remains substantially constant (col. 4 line 63- col. 5 line 8).
Eavenson does not disclose wherein the support structure locks a pitch of the mower deck.
In the same field of endeavor, Sugnden discloses a support structure that locks a pitch of a mower deck (col. 4 lines 30-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Eavenson with a locking structure that locks a pitch of the mower deck, as disclose by Sugden, as a way of precenting the cutting height from being unintentionally adjusted.
Regarding claim 14, Eavenson, of the resultant combination, discloses the mower deck of claim 12, wherein the opposing springs (66) are configured to enable the opposing brackets to pivot rearwardly and upwardly to a reduced angle when the one or more rear rolling mechanisms encounter a bump (col. 4 lines 46-62).
Regarding claim 15, Eavenson, of the resultant combination, discloses the mower deck of claim 12,
Eavenson does not disclose wherein the maximum angle is between 35 and 70 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the maximum roller angle, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 16, Eavenson, of the resultant combination, discloses the mower deck of claim 12.
Eavenson does not disclose wherein the maximum angle is between 55 and 65 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the maximum roller angle, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 17, Eavenson, of the resultant combination, discloses the mower deck of claim 12, wherein a spring rate of the opposing springs is adjustable (col. 4 line 63- col. 5 line 3).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eavenson (US 7631477 B2) in view of Sugden (US 7237374 B2), and further in view of Sugden (US 7237374 B2), hereinafter Sugden ‘374.
Regarding claim 13, Eavenson, of the resultant combination, discloses the mower deck of claim 12.
The combination does not disclose stops that prevent the opposing brackets from pivoting beyond the maximum angle.
In the same field of endeavor, Sugden ‘374 discloses opposing stops (94) that prevent opposing brackets (52) from pivoting beyond the maximum angle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Eavenson with stops, as disclosed by Sugden ‘374, as a way of ensuring the mower deck is not raised too high to effectively cut the grass.
Claims 5-6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eavenson (US 7631477 B2) in view of Sugden (US 7237374 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Eavenson discloses the mower deck of claim 1.
Eavenson does not disclose wherein the one or more rear rolling mechanisms (32) comprise opposing wheels.
In the same field of endeavor, Sugden ‘374 discloses a rear rolling mechanism comprising opposing wheels (38a-h) to create a striped appearance in the cut grass (col. 3 lines 11-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the single rolling mechanism of Eavenson with opposing wheels, as disclosed by Sugden ‘374, to create a striped appearance over freshly cut grass.
Regarding claim 6, Eavenson, of the resultant combination, discloses the mower deck of claim 5, wherein the pivot point (40) is towards front ends of the opposing brackets (36) and each opposing wheel is coupled to a rear end of the respective opposing bracket (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Eavenson discloses the mower deck of claim 1.
Eavenson does not disclose opposing stops that prevent the opposing brackets from pivoting beyond the maximum angle.
In the same field of endeavor, Sugden ‘374 discloses opposing stops (94) that prevent opposing brackets (52) from pivoting beyond the maximum angle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Eavenson with stops, as disclosed by Sugden ‘374, as a way of ensuring the mower deck is not raised too high to effectively cut the grass.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The remarks argue that Eavenson does not disclose rollers that define a cutting height of the mower deck. However, it is not understood how the rear roller can both define a cutting height and pivot without re-defining the cutting height. This limitation presents a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), detailed above.
The remarks argue that Sugden does not cure the deficiencies of Eavenson as Sugden’s rollers are not rear rolling mechanisms that rest on the ground, define the cutting height of a mower deck, and pivot as part of the claimed suspension so that the cutting height remains substantially constant over bumps or uneven ground. As previously mention, it is unclear how the rear roller can both define a cutting height and pivot without re-defining the cutting height, detailed in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Additionally, Sugden’s roller is a striping roller that is in contact with the grass/ground and serves the same purpose as the striping roller disclosed by Eavenson. Applicant has not present persuasive arguments explain why the stops of Sugden cannot be combined with Eavenson, and the examiner maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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 MADELINE RUNCO whose telephone number is (469)295-9123. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 M-F.
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 Rocca can be reached at 5712728971. 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.
/MADELINE I RUNCO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
