DETAILED ACTION
This is on the merits of Application No. 18/749844, filed on 06/21/2024. Claims 1, 5-10, 12, 14-19, 21-22, 30, and 35-37 are pending. It is noted claims 32-34 are missing. These appear to also be cancelled, as only claims 1, 5-10, 12, 14-19, 21-22, 30, and 35-37 are to be considered according to the Remarks filed 08/14/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 102a, 102b, 111a, 111b, 112a, 112b, 113a, 113b, 114a, 114b, 115a, 115b, 116a, 116b, 117a, 117b, 118a, 118b, 119a, 119b, 124a, 124b, 126a, 126b. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 102, 114, 113, 117, 119, 124, 126, 132. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “176” has been used to designate both a drive pulley as shown in Fig. 5 and pointing to a tire in Fig. 4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 17 and 35 state “3 inches”. In order to minimize the necessity in the future for converting dimensions given in the English system of measurements to the metric system of measurements when using printed patents as research and prior art search documents, all patent applicants should use the metric (S.I.) units followed by the equivalent English units when describing their inventions in the specifications of patent applications (see MPEP 608.01 IV.)
Claim 21 states “a minimum longitudinal clearance” and should state --the minimum longitudinal clearance--.
Claim 22 states “a minimum longitudinal clearance” and should state --the minimum longitudinal clearance--.
Claim 37 line 4 states “platform adapted to support a standing operator” and should state --platform adapted to support a standing operator;--
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0133039 to Bryant et al.
Bryant discloses:
(Claim 1) A grounds maintenance vehicle (Fig. 1) comprising: a vehicle frame (102) extending between a first end (F) and a second end (R) in a longitudinal direction; a prime mover (104) coupled to the vehicle frame; a hydraulic pump assembly (107) coupled to the vehicle frame, wherein the hydraulic pump assembly is in mechanical communication with the prime mover; a hydraulic fluid line (see annotated Fig. 9 below element HL) having a first end (annotated Fig. 9 element E1) and a second end (annotated Fig. 9 element E2), wherein the first end is fluidly coupled to the hydraulic pump assembly (107a) and the first end of the hydraulic fluid line extends longitudinally outward from the hydraulic pump assembly in a direction away from the prime mover (see annotated Fig. 9 E1); and a drive wheel motor (105a 105b) fluidly coupled to the second end of the hydraulic fluid line (see Fig. 3 and annotated Fig. 9 E2).
(Claim 6) wherein the vehicle frame comprises a first siderail and a second siderail (Fig. 2 siderails 117) spaced laterally from the first siderail, the prime mover comprises a base (Fig. 4 element 116), and the base is positioned vertically below most of the length of each of the first siderail and the second siderail (see Fig. 4).
(Claim 7) further comprising a standing platform (112) coupled to the vehicle frame towards the second end, the standing platform adapted to support a standing operator.
(Claim 10) further comprising a drive wheel (106) in mechanical communication with the drive wheel motor, and the standing platform is laterally spaced from the drive wheel and longitudinally aligned with the drive wheel (see Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
822
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 19, 21-22, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 7640738 to Hauser et al.
Hauser discloses:
(Claim 19) A grounds maintenance vehicle (Figs. 53-58) comprising: a vehicle frame (925) extending between a first end and a second end in a longitudinal direction; a prime mover (921) coupled to the vehicle frame; a hydraulic pump assembly (Fig. 55 element 950) coupled to the vehicle frame, wherein the hydraulic pump assembly is in mechanical communication with the prime mover; a hydraulic fluid line (Fig. 58 see unlabeled hydraulic line between 950 and 140) having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end is fluidly coupled to the hydraulic pump assembly (end of hydraulic fluid line connected to 950) and wherein a minimum longitudinal clearance is defined between the prime mover and hydraulic pump assembly that is less than or equal to 120% of a maximum longitudinal distance from the hydraulic pump assembly across the hydraulic fluid line; and a drive wheel motor (140) fluidly coupled to the second end of the hydraulic fluid line (see Fig. 58, distance between 921 and 950 is slightly less than the distance between the end of the hydraulic line).
(Claim 21) wherein a minimum longitudinal clearance is defined between the prime mover and hydraulic pump assembly that is less than or equal to 110% of a maximum longitudinal distance from the hydraulic pump assembly across the hydraulic fluid line (see Fig. 58, distance between 921 and 950 is slightly less than the distance between the end of the hydraulic line).
(Claim 22) wherein a minimum longitudinal clearance is defined between the prime mover and hydraulic pump assembly that is less than or equal to a maximum longitudinal distance from the hydraulic pump assembly across the hydraulic fluid line (see Fig. 58, distance between 921 and 950 is slightly less than the distance between the end of the hydraulic line).
(Claim 30) wherein between the first end and the second end of the hydraulic fluid line, the hydraulic fluid line extends from the hydraulic pump assembly towards the prime mover in the longitudinal direction (see Fig. 58, extends from 950 towards prime mover 921), and the second end of the hydraulic fluid line extends longitudinally outwardly from the drive wheel motor towards the prime mover (Fig. 58, extends from 140 towards an end of the prime mover).
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryant.
Bryant discloses:
Fig. 3 of Bryant shows the hydraulic line mostly far away from prime mover 104. Some portions are closer than others. It cannot be determined if these portions constitute more than 20% of the length of the line and if these portions are within 3 inches of 104 or not.
Bryant does not specifically disclose:
(Claim 17) wherein no more than 20% of the length of the hydraulic fluid line is within 3 inches of the prime mover.
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, with a reasonable expectation of success, the structure of Bryant to have no more than 20% of the length of the hydraulic fluid line within 3 inches of the prime mover 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.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauser.
Hauser discloses:
Fig. 56 of Hauser shows the hydraulic line mostly far away from prime mover 921. Some portions are closer than others. It cannot be determined if these portions constitute more than 20% of the length of the line and if these portions are within 3 inches of 921 or not.
Hauser does not specifically disclose:
(Claim 35) wherein no more than 20% of the length of the hydraulic fluid line is within 3 inches of the prime mover.
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, with a reasonable expectation of success, the structure of Hauser to have no more than 20% of the length of the hydraulic fluid line within 3 inches of the prime mover 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8-9, 12, 14-16, 18, and 36 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.
Claim 37 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious the limitations of claims 5, 8-9, 12, 14-16, and 37.
Particularly in claim 5, wherein the first end of the hydraulic fluid line faces a first longitudinal direction and the second end of the hydraulic fluid line faces a second longitudinal direction opposite the first longitudinal direction.
Particularly in claim 8, the standing platform having a first end defining a pivot joint coupled to the vehicle frame, wherein the pivot joint is positioned forward of the first end of the hydraulic fluid line.
Particularly in claim 9, further comprising a drive wheel in mechanical communication with the drive wheel motor, wherein the drive wheel has a drive wheel axis and most of the standing platform is positioned vertically below the drive wheel axis.
Particularly in claim 10, further comprising a drive wheel in mechanical communication with the drive wheel motor, and the standing platform is laterally spaced from the drive wheel and longitudinally aligned with the drive wheel.
Particularly in claim 12, wherein between the first end and the second end of the hydraulic fluid line, the hydraulic fluid line extends from the hydraulic pump assembly towards the prime mover in the longitudinal direction, and the second end of the hydraulic fluid line extends longitudinally outwardly from the drive wheel motor towards the prime mover.
Particularly in claim 14, further comprising a hydraulic filter in fluid communication with the hydraulic pump assembly, wherein the hydraulic filter is positioned rearwardly of the hydraulic pump.
Particularly in claims 18 and 36, further comprising a drive wheel in mechanical communication with the drive wheel motor, wherein the drive wheel has a drive wheel axis and a length, and the first end of the hydraulic fluid line is positioned in the longitudinal direction within 10% of the length of the drive wheel from the drive wheel axis.
Particularly in claim 37, a first hydraulic fluid line having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end is fluidly coupled to the first hydraulic pump assembly and the first end of the first hydraulic fluid line extends longitudinally outward from the first hydraulic pump assembly in a direction away from the prime mover, and wherein a minimum longitudinal clearance is defined between the prime mover and first hydraulic pump assembly that is less than or equal to 120% of a maximum longitudinal distance from the first hydraulic pump assembly across the first hydraulic fluid line.
Bryant and Hauser are the closest prior art of record. Bryant discloses a hydraulic line with the first end extending away from the prime mover. Bryant does not disclose a clearance between the prime mover and the hydraulic pump assembly, as required by claims 19 and 37. Bryant does not disclose the second end of the hydraulic line extending in a longitudinal direction, as required by claims 5 and 12. While Bryant does disclose a standing platform, Bryant does not disclose the particular limitations regarding the standing platform required by claims 8-10. Bryant does not disclose the first end longitudinally within 10% of the length of the wheel measured from the wheel axis. This would require the first end to be very close to the wheel axis, which would require major reorganization of parts. While a filter may be known to use in a hydraulic pump assembly, none of the prior art of record disclose nor render obvious a filter positioned rearwardly of the hydraulic pump in combination with the other spatial features required by claim 1.
Hauser does not disclose the first end extending away from the prime mover, as required by claims 1 and 37. Hauser also does not disclose a standing platform, as required by claim 37. It would not have been obvious to modify Hauser to change the location of the first end of the hydraulic line without improper hindsight reasoning. Hauser does not disclose the first end longitudinally within 10% of the length of the wheel measured from the axis of the wheel. This would essentially be where the second end of the hydraulic line of Hauser resides.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hauser et al (US 7146809) discloses a valve for a hydraulic drive apparatus.
Barkey e al (US 2022/0192095) discloses a mower propulsion apparatus including a split transaxle.
Ishii et al (US 2008/0152517) discloses multiple pump unit and vehicle with multiple pump unit.
Ohashi (US 2006/0272496) discloses HST unit.
Ohashi et al (US 2003/0033803) discloses a tandem pump unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY HANNON whose telephone number is (571)270-1943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-6.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/TIMOTHY HANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights