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 § 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 1-2, 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayton (US 20080105445 A1) in view of Dunham (US 3205643 A).
Regarding claim 1, Dayton discloses a modular equipment assembly comprising:
a base unit (100) comprising
a base frame (122) extending along a transverse direction between a rear end and a front end,
a motor (paragraph 0046) mounted on the base frame,
a tool interface (418, 420, fig. 4) disposed within the base frame in mechanical communication with the motor to removably attach a first tool head (410) to the base frame,
one or more wheels (438) mounted to the base frame apart from the tool interface to support the base unit, and
a handle (402) mounted to and extending rearwardly from the base frame.
Dayton further discloses that the tool head is driven apart from the wheels (paragraph 0046, multiple motors can be used).
Dayton does not disclose a secondary front unit removably attached to the base unit, the secondary front unit comprising and a secondary front frame selectively disposed in front of the base frame forward from the tool interface to move with the base unit, wherein the secondary front unit further comprises a secondary tool head rotatably supported on the secondary front frame, and wherein the secondary tool head is in mechanical communication with the tool interface to be driven by the motor through the tool interface and apart from the one or more wheels.
In the same field of endeavor, Dunham discloses a mower having a secondary front unit (13 and the portion of 7 attached to 13) removably attached (col. 1 lines 23-25) to a base unit (the portion of 7 attached to 11), the secondary front unit comprising a secondary front frame (the portion of 7 attached to 13) selectively disposed in front of the base frame forward from the tool interface to move with the base unit, wherein the secondary front unit further comprises a secondary tool head (13) rotatably supported on the secondary front frame, and wherein the secondary tool head is in mechanical communication with a tool interface to be driven through the tool interface (via chain 21, col. 2 lines 8-14) and apart from the one or more wheels (the wheels are not driven by the engine but are hand propelled, col. 1 lines 44-57).
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 Dayton with a secondary front unit driven apart from the wheels, as disclosed by Dunham, so that an operator may sweep vegetation into the path of the mower.
Regarding claim 2, Dayton, of the resultant combination, discloses the modular equipment assembly of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of tool heads (202, 204, 208, 210) interchangeably mounted against the tool interface, the plurality of tool heads comprising the first tool head (paragraphs 0030, 0080-81).
Regarding claim 3, Dunham, of the resultant combination, discloses the modular equipment assembly of claim 1, wherein the base frame extends along a lateral direction between a first side and a second side, wherein the base unit further comprises a pair of frame locks () disposed on the first and second sides in selective locked engagement with the secondary front frame.
Regarding claim 4, Dunham, of the resultant combination, discloses the modular equipment assembly of claim 1, wherein the base unit further comprises a support bar () disposed on the front end, and wherein the secondary front unit further comprises a support hook () extending rearwardly in selective engagement with the support bar.
Regarding claim 5, Dunham, of the resultant combination, discloses the modular equipment assembly of claim 1, wherein the secondary tool head comprising one or more spikes (19) or blades (col. 2 lines 2-10).
Regarding claim 7, Dunham, of the resultant combination, discloses the modular equipment assembly of claim 1, wherein the secondary front unit further comprises one or more wheels (16) mounted to the secondary front frame apart from the base unit to support the secondary front unit.
Regarding claim 8, Dayton, of the resultant combination, discloses the modular equipment assembly of claim 1, further comprising a secondary rear unit (408) removably attached to the base unit, the secondary rear unit comprising
a secondary rear frame selectively disposed behind the base frame rearward from the tool interface to move with the base unit (see fig. 4, hopper 408 is shown to have a frame generally around its perimeter).
Regarding claim 9, Dayton, of the resultant combination, discloses the modular equipment assembly of claim 8, wherein the secondary rear unit further comprises
a hopper (408) defining a storage chamber for a distributed material supported on the secondary rear frame and a material outlet downstream from the storage chamber to release the distributed material behind the base unit (paragraph 0080).
Regarding claim 10, Dayton, of the resultant combination, discloses the modular equipment assembly of claim 8, wherein the secondary rear unit further comprises a collection bin (408) supported on the secondary rear frame downstream from the first tool head to receive a particulate therefrom (paragraph 0080).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayton (US 20080105445 A1) in view of Dunham (US 3205643 A), and further in view of Spies (US 6606845 B1).
Regarding claims 11, Dayton, of the resultant combination, discloses the modular equipment assembly of claims 10.
Dayton does not disclose wherein the base unit further comprises a support bar disposed on the rear end, and wherein the secondary rear unit further comprises a support hook extending forwardly in selective engagement with the support bar.
In the same field of endeavor, Spies discloses a mower having a support bar (10.3) disposed on its rear end and a rear collection unit (42) having a pair of hooks (44) extending forwardly in selective engagement with the support bar.
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 the resultant combination with a bar and pair of hooks as disclosed by Spies as an alternative way of attaching the secondary rear unit to the base unit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-20 are allowed.
Claims 3-4 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because a new grounds of rejection is being applied utilizing a new interpretation of the prior art references in light of the claim amendments. Please see the above rejections for further details.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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
Prosecution Insights