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.
Claim 21 is 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.
Claim 21 reads “wherein an axis of rotation of the deck height spacer is substantially perpendicular to an axis of rotation of the rotary selector and the bevel gear assembly” in the final two lines of the claim. However, figure 4b shows that the axis of bevel gear 414 (one of the bevel gears of bevel gear assembly 410) and the axis of the rotary selector 420 are colinear. Therefore, it is not understood how the axis of rotation of the bevel gear assembly can be considered perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the rotary selector. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komorida (US 20070169456 A1) in view of Nichols (US 11006574 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Komorida discloses a deck height adjustment assembly for a riding lawn care vehicle (a riding mower, shown in fig. 1), the deck height adjustment assembly comprising:
a carriage assembly operably coupling a frame (3) of the riding lawn care vehicle to a cutting deck (31) of the riding lawn care vehicle; and
a rotary assembly (fig. 14) configured to set a height for the cutting deck,
wherein the carriage assembly and the rotary assembly are each operable by an operator of the riding lawn care vehicle from an operating position (11) of the riding lawn care vehicle,
wherein the rotary assembly comprises a rotary selector (54), a bevel gear assembly (66, 65) and a deck height spacer (50),
wherein the rotary selector is operably coupled to the bevel gear assembly to transmit torque from the rotary selector to the bevel gear assembly (paragraph 0054),
wherein the bevel gear assembly is operably coupled to the deck height spacer to transmit torque from the rotary selector to the deck height spacer (paragraph 0054, fig. 14).
Komorida does not disclose wherein the rotary assembly further comprises a feedback mechanism configured to provide tactile feedback to the rotary selector responsive to the operator turning the rotary selector.
In the same field of endeavor, Nichols discloses a feedback mechanism (80) so that an operator may receive tactile and audible feedback regarding the selected cut height position (col. 5 lines 10-18).
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 Komorida with a feedback mechanism, as disclosed by Nichols, to allow an operator to more accurately and precisely adjust the cutting height of the cutting deck.
Regarding claim 3, Komorida, of the resultant combination, discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the carriage assembly comprises a pedal (18, 19) and a height selector arm (53), and
wherein the pedal is operably coupled to the height selector arm (via 43, 44, 42) such that the height selector arm moves from an engaged state with the deck height spacer to a disengaged state responsive to the operator engaging the pedal (see fig. 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 13-15, 17-19 are allowed.
Claims 4-10 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 the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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
