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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Accommodation Cavity for Manned Mower.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9, line 1 recites “a capacity of the each of the at least one”, should read – a capacity of each of the at least one –.
Claim 9, line 2 recites “a weight of the each of the at least one”, should read – a weight of each of the at least one –.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (CN 116114474 A).
Regarding claim 1, Chen et al. teaches a manned mower [100], comprising:
a seat [92];
a frame [91] for supporting the seat;
a cutting assembly [10] mounted on the frame and comprising a mowing element [12] for cutting grass;
a walking assembly [93] mounted on the frame and comprising a front walking assembly [931], wherein the front walking assembly comprises a left walking wheel [931L] and a right walking wheel [931R];
an energy storage device [96] disposed on a front side of the seat (see para. [009], lines 5-6 and Figs. 8a-8c) and configured to supply power to the cutting assembly and the walking assembly (see para. [009], lines 1-3); and
a front cover [23] disposed on a front portion (see Fig. 2) of the manned mower having an accommodation cavity [231] for accommodating at least the energy storage device (accommodates the energy storage device and the storage member [234], see para. [016], lines 1-2);
wherein in a front and rear direction (see below), a center of gravity (see below; center of gravity is the middle of the energy storage device) of the energy storage device is located before a line (line runs between the two center points) connecting a center point (see below) of the left walking wheel and a center point (while only one center point is shown, the center point of the right walking wheel is identical) of the right walking wheel.
PNG
media_image1.png
533
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Note: while Chen et al.’s Fig. 6 clearly shows the relationship between the center of gravity of the energy storage device and the center point of the walking wheels, Fig. 9A shows a center of gravity of the energy storage device more towards the front of the front cover and therefore would also be located before a line of the center points. It can be seen then that Chen et al. discloses an embodiment with a center of gravity before a line of the center points while also having a storage member.
Regarding claim 4, Chen et al. teaches wherein in the front and rear direction (see above), a distance (see above) between the center of gravity (see above) of the energy storage device [96] and the line (line runs between the two center points, see above) is greater than 0 mm and less than or equal to 200 mm (distance exists between the center of gravity and the line; therefore, is greater than 0 mm).
Regarding claim 5, Chen et al. discloses wherein in the front and rear direction (see above), the energy storage device [96] is disposed on the front side (see para. [009], lines 5-6 and Figs. 8a-8c) of the seat [92] and in a front portion (battery pack [161] and battery core module [163] are located in the front portion of the cavity, see Fig. 9A) of the accommodation cavity [231].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 116114474 A) in view of Allen et al. (US 3732671 A).
Regarding claim 2, Chen et al. discloses the manned mower as applied above, but fails to disclose wherein the energy storage device is undetachably mounted on the manned mower.
Allen et al. discloses a similar manned mower [10] wherein the energy storage device [94] is undetachably mounted (battery is charged via a cord plugged into a power source while still being mounted to the mower; therefore, the battery is undetachably mounted, see Col. 4, lines 51-61) on the manned mower.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the battery of the energy storage device of Chen et al. with the battery of the energy storage device of Allen et al. since both are batteries used to power the mower; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
Claim(s) 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 116114474 A).
Regarding claim 3, Chen et al. discloses wherein in an up and down direction (see below), a distance (see below) between the center of gravity (see below) of the energy storage device [96] and a walking plane [1f], but fails to explicitly disclose the distance is greater than or equal to 380 mm and less than or equal to 520 mm.
PNG
media_image2.png
533
661
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Chen et al. discloses the vertical height of the energy storage device at its highest point is much smaller than that of the engine, allowing for the front cover to be low for reducing the blind spot (see para. [013], lines 11-15); therefore, the distance between the center of gravity of the energy storage device and the walking plane is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the distance between the center of gravity of the energy storage device and the walking plane greater than or equal to 380 mm and less than or equal to 520 mm in order to lower the height of the front cover, reducing the blind spot for the user. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 19, Chen et al. discloses wherein in the front and rear direction (see above), a distance (see above) between the center of gravity (see above) of the energy storage device [96] and the line (line runs between the two center points, see above), but fails to explicitly disclose the distance is greater than or equal to 50 mm and less than or equal to 130 mm.
However, Chen et al. discloses a variety of different placements of the energy storage device (see Figs. 9A-9F), changing the center of gravity, in order to maximize the size of the storage member while still accommodating room for the energy storage device (see para. [0016], lines 4-40); therefore, the distance between the center of gravity of the energy storage device and the line is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the distance between the center of gravity of the energy storage device and the line be greater than or equal to 50 mm and less than or equal to 130 mm in order to arrange the energy storage device with enough space to create storage within the accommodation cavity for storing small tools, gloves, sun hats, or even clothes for the user. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 116114474 A) in view of Schmalz et al. (WO 2024015629 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Chen et al. discloses the manned mower as applied above, as well as, wherein the energy storage device [96] comprises at least one battery pack [161], but fails to disclose the energy of each of the at least one battery pack is greater than or equal to 2 kW
∙
h.
Schmalz et al. discloses a similar manned mower (see para. [0034], lines 1-5) with an energy storage device [100] comprising at least one battery pack [104], wherein the energy of each of the at least one battery pack is greater than or equal to 2 kW
∙
h (see para. [0036], lines 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the energy of the at least one battery pack of Chen et al. be greater than or equal to 2 kW
∙
h as taught by Schmalz et al. in order to provide adequate amount of power to operate and propel the vehicle for use (see Schmalz et al. para. [0035], lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 7, Chen et al. discloses the manned mower as applied above, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one battery pack is at least one of a lithium iron phosphate battery, a hydrogen fuel battery, or a ternary lithium battery.
Schmalz et al. discloses a similar manned mower (see para. [0034], lines 1-5) wherein the at least one battery pack [104] is at least one of a lithium iron phosphate battery (see para. [0036], lines 6-10), a hydrogen fuel battery, or a ternary lithium battery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the battery pack of the energy storage device of Chen et al. with the lithium iron phosphate battery pack of the energy storage device of Schmalz et al. since both are battery packs providing power to a manned mower; therefore, yielding the same predictable result. As well as, increasing the safety, longevity, and environmental friendliness of the manned mower.
Regarding claim 8, Chen et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses a cell length (see length of [161] in Fig. 9A-9F; cells not explicitly shown but every battery pack consists of cells) of the at least one battery pack [161] and a width (see width of [161] in Figs. 9A-9F) of the at least one battery pack, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein a ratio of a cell length of the at least one battery pack to a width of the at least one battery pack is greater than or equal to 0.7.
However, Chen et al. discloses different sized battery packs and therefore different sized cells within them (see Figs. 9A-9F) in order to accommodate enough space for storage within the accommodation cavity (see para. [0016], lines 6-39); therefore, the length and width ratio of the cell to the battery pack is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the ratio of a cell length of the at least one battery pack to a width of the at least one battery pack be greater than or equal to 0.7 in order to maximize the size of the storage space without losing power supplied to the mower. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 116114474 A) and Schmalz et al. (WO 2024015629 A1) as applied to claims 6-8 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 11942807 B2).
Regarding claim 9, the above combination discloses the manned mower as applied, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein a ratio of a capacity of the each of the at least one battery pack to a weight of the each of the at least one battery pack is greater than or equal to 2 Ah/kg.
Wang et al. discloses a similar manned mower [100] wherein a ratio of a capacity (capacity is 65 Ah when using a voltage of 2V, see Col. 4, lines 65-67, Col. 10, lines 66-67 and Col. 11, lines 1-4) of the each of the at least one battery pack [161] to a weight (see Col. 4, lines 55-56) of the each of the at least one battery pack is greater than or equal to 2 Ah/kg (ratio is 16.25 Ah/kg; therefore, greater than 2 Ah/kg).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery pack of Chen et al. and Schmalz et al. to have the ratio as taught by Wang et al. in order to satisfy the power output requirement while reducing the weight of the mower (see Wang et al. Col. 4, lines 54-60).
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 116114474 A), embodiment of Fig. 6 and Schmalz et al. (WO 2024015629 A1) in view of Chen et al. (CN 116114474 A), embodiment of Fig. 8C; hence forth Chen* et al. for clarity.
Regarding claim 10, Chen et al. discloses the manned mower as applied above, as well as, wherein the energy storage device [96] further comprises a battery management circuit board [964] disposed in the accommodation cavity [231], but fails to explicitly disclose the battery management circuit board is above the at least one battery pack.
Chen* et al. discloses an embodiment of the manned mower (see Fig. 8C) wherein the battery management circuit board [964] is disposed in the accommodation cavity [231] and above the at least one battery pack ([161]; see para. [015], lines 14-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the battery management circuit board above the at least one battery pack as disclosed by Chen* et al. to the manned mower of Chen et al. and Schmalz et al. in order for the battery management circuit board to be located near a vent in the front cover to dissipate heat (see Chen et al. para. [015], lines 14-19).
Regarding claim 11, Chen* et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein a front portion of the front cover [23] is provided with a vent (see para. [0015], lines 11-13), and an airflow (see para. [0015], lines 11-13) that enters from the vent is blown to the battery management circuit board [964] when the manned mower [100] travels forward.
Claim(s) 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 116114474 A) in view of Abe et al. (US 8910459 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Chen et al. discloses the manned mower as applied above, as well as, further comprising a storage member ([234], see para. [016], lines 1-6), but fails to disclose wherein at least part of the storage member is movably connected to the front cover.
Abe et al. discloses a similar manned mower [1] comprising of a storage member [22], wherein at least part of the storage member is movably connected ([22] is movably connected through hinge, see Figs. 2-3) to the front cover [12].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the movably connected lid of the storage member of Abe et al. to the storage member of Chen et al. in order to lift and lower the storage member lid without removing the front cover for ease of use for the user (see Abe et al. Col. 4, lines 44-56).
Regarding claim 13, Chen et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the storage member [234] is formed with a storage space opened upward (interior of member [234], see Fig. 9A), and the storage space is separated from the energy storage device [96] by the storage member (see Fig. 9A).
Regarding claim 14, Chen et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the storage space (interior of member [234], see Fig. 9A) is located behind the energy storage device [96] in the front and rear direction (see above).
Regarding claim 15, Chen et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the front cover [23] comprises an upper lid [232], the upper lid has an opened position (see Fig. 5) and a closed position (see Fig. 1), and the storage space (interior of member [234], see Fig. 9A) is touchable by a user when the upper lid is at the opened position (see para. [0016], lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 16, Chen et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein a maximum length (see length of the storage space in Figs. 9A-9F) of a storage space (interior of member [234], see Fig. 9A) of the storage member [234] in the front and rear direction (see above), but fails to disclose the length is greater than or equal to 150 mm and less than or equal to 300 mm.
However, Chen et al. discloses multiple different lengths of the storage space (see Figs. 9A-9F) dependent on the size of the energy storage device (see para. [0016], lines 3-40); therefore, the maximum length of the storage space is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the length of the storage space be greater than or equal to 150 mm and less than or equal to 300 mm in order to accommodate the energy storage device while still maximizing the amount of storage. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 17, Chen et al. discloses the manned mower as applied above, but fails to disclose wherein the storage member is a flip storage box, an end of the storage member is rotatably mounted to the front cover, the storage member is flipped relative to the front cover so that an opening direction of the storage space is changed.
However, Abe et al. discloses wherein the storage member [22] is a flip storage box (see Figs. 2-3), an end of the storage member (see end hinged to front cover in Fig. 3 and Col. 4, lines 45-49) is rotatably mounted to the front cover [12], the storage member is flipped relative to the front cover so that an opening direction of the storage space is changed (see Fig. 3).
It can be seen then that when the movably connected lid of the storage member of Abe et al. is provided to the storage member of Chen et al. that the storage member is a flip storage box rotatably mounted to the front cover of Chen et al. (see Abe et al. Col. 4, lines 45-49).
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 116114474 A) in view of Zeiler et al. (US 20200113133 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Chen et al. discloses the manned mower as applied above, as well as, a storage member [234], but fails to disclose wherein the storage member is detachably connected to the front cover.
Zeiler et al. discloses a similar manned mower [100] comprising of a storage member [130] that is detachably connected to the front cover ([142]; see para. [0039], lines 18-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the storage member of Chen et al. with the storage member of Zeiler et al. since both are storage containers used for holding items and connected to the front cover of the manned mower; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892 for the full list of references.
Reference US 5228531 A discloses a similar manned mower [10] with a storage space (space for battery [16]) with a moveable lid [18].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNNY WEBB whose telephone number is (571)272-3830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 to 5:30 E.T..
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 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.
/SUNNY D WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights