DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabriker et al. (GB 2023392), hereinafter Fab in view of Schnell et al. (US 7,793,487 B1), hereinafter Schnell.
Regarding claim 1, Fab discloses a shiftable mowing deck (see below), comprising:
a mow deck (18, fig. 1 and 2, page 2 lines 27-45) having a mow deck right side and a mow deck left side opposite from the mow deck right side and offset in a width direction by a mow deck width (see annotated fig. 1),
a mow deck front and a mow deck back opposite from the mow deck front and offset in a depth direction by a mow deck depth (see annotated fig. 1),
a mow deck top and a mow deck bottom opposite from the mow deck top and offset in a height direction by a mow deck height (see annotated fig. 1), and the mower decks cutter is adapted to be operated to contribute to a mowing operation (page 2 Lines 16-28);
a shift mount (6+26+20+24+22, fig. 1-4, page 2 lines 27-45) adapted to be operationally engaged between the mow deck and an associated mower (2, fig. 1-4), and to movably engage the mow deck to the associated mower (fig. 1-4), the shift mount having
a fixed shift mount component (6+26, fig. 1-4, page 2 lines 27-45) adapted to be substantially fixed with respect to an associated mower (fig. 1-4), and
a movable shift mount component (20+22, fig. 1-4, page 2 lines 27-45) substantially fixed with respect to the mow deck (fig. 1-4), the movable shift mount component adapted to be moved with respect to the fixed shift mount component during the mowing operation along a shift path and to move the mow deck with respect to the fixed shift mount component along the shift path (fig. 1-4, page 2 lines 46-107).
Fab discloses the above but fails to explicitly disclose at least one blade set rotatably engaged with the mow deck bottom.
Schnell teaches a similar device in the same field of lawnmowers wherein there is at least one blade set rotatably engaged with the mow deck bottom (56, fig. 3-5, col. 3 lines 26-37).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the general cutting mechanism of Fab with the blade that rotates of Schnell to yield the predictable result of cutting grass (abstract of Schnell).
PNG
media_image1.png
854
940
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Fab in view of Schnell teaches wherein the shift path is substantially linear (fig. 2-4, wherein a small movement result in a mostly linear movement of Fab).
Regarding claim 3, Fab in view of Schnell teaches wherein the shift path is substantially perpendicular to the height direction (fig. 1-4, the movement is in parallel to the ground which is substantially perpendicular to the height direction of Fab).
Regarding claim 4, Fab in view of Schnell teaches wherein the shift path is substantially parallel to the width direction (fig. 2-4, wherein a small movement result in a mostly linear movement which is substantially parallel to the width direction of Fab).
Regarding claim 5, Fab in view of Schnell teaches wherein the shift mount comprises a straight-line mechanism that defines the shift path (fig. 1-2 of Fab).
Regarding claim 6, Fab in view of Schnell teaches wherein the straight-line mechanism comprises a Roberts linkage, a Peaucellier-Lipkin inversor, or a Watt's linkage (fig. 1-2 of Fab appears to show a Roberts linkage with 4 bars of 20 and the two front to back linkage of 2 and the linkage 24 of Fab).
Regarding claim 8, Fab in view of Schnell teaches wherein the shift mount comprises a straight-line mechanism (fig. 1-2 of Fab).
Regarding claim 9, Fab in view of Schnell teaches wherein the straight-line mechanism comprises a Roberts linkage, a Peaucellier-Lipkin inversor, or a Watt's linkage (fig. 1-2 of Fab appears to show a Roberts linkage with 4 bars of 20 and the two front to back linkage of 2 and the linkage 24 of Fab).
Regarding claim 11, Fab discloses a mower (see below), comprising:
a frame (see below) defining
a frame right side (see annotated fig. 1.2) and a frame left side opposite from the frame right side and offset in a width direction by a frame width (see annotated fig. 1.2),
a frame front (see annotated fig. 1.2) and a frame back opposite from the frame front and offset in a depth direction by a frame depth (see annotated fig. 1.2),
a frame top (see annotated fig. 1.2) and a frame bottom opposite from the frame top and offset in a height direction by a frame height (see annotated fig. 1.2);
a set of wheels operationally engaged with the frame and adapted to support the mower above a surface while moving over the surface during a mowing operation (32, fig. 1-4, page 2 lines 46-62);
a mow deck (18, fig. 1 and 2, page 2 lines 27-45) movably engaged with the frame (fig. 1-2), and the mower decks cutter is adapted to be operated to contribute to a mowing operation (page 2 Lines 16-28);
a shift mount (6+26+20+24+22, fig. 1-4, page 2 lines 27-45) operationally engaged between the mow deck and the frame (fig. 1), the shift mount being adapted to movably engage the mow deck to the mower (fig. 1), the shift mount having
a fixed shift mount component (6+26, fig. 1-4, page 2 lines 27-45) substantially fixed with respect to the frame (fig. 1-4), and
a movable shift mount component (20+22, fig. 1-4, page 2 lines 27-45) substantially fixed with respect to the mow deck (fig. 1-4), the movable shift mount component adapted to be moved with respect to the fixed shift mount component during the mowing operation along a shift path and to move the mow deck with respect to the frame along the shift path (fig. 1-4, page 2 lines 46-107); and
a power source (motor of tractor 4, fig. 1) adapted to supply sufficient energy to the shift mount to move the mow deck with respect to the frame along the shift path (fig. 1-2, wherein the movement of the tractor moves the rest of the device).
Fab discloses the above but fails to explicitly disclose at least one blade set rotatably engaged with the mow deck bottom.
Schnell teaches a similar device in the same field of lawnmowers wherein there is at least one blade set rotatably engaged with the mow deck bottom (56, fig. 3-5, col. 3 lines 26-37).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the general cutting mechanism of Fab with the blade that rotates of Schnell to yield the predictable result of cutting grass (abstract of Schnell).
Regarding claim 12, Fab in view of Schnell teaches wherein the shift path is substantially linear (fig. 2-4, wherein a small movement result in a mostly linear movement of Fab).
Regarding claim 13, Fab in view of Schnell teaches wherein the shift path is substantially parallel to the width direction (fig. 2-4, wherein a small movement result in a mostly linear movement which is substantially parallel to the width direction of Fab).
Regarding claim 18, Fab in view of Schnell teaches a method of conducting a mowing operation (see below) comprising:
providing a mower (fig. 1) having
a frame (see below) defining
a frame right side (see annotated fig. 1.2) and a frame left side opposite from the frame right side and offset in a width direction by a frame width (see annotated fig. 1.2),
a frame front (see annotated fig. 1.2) and a frame back opposite from the frame front and offset in a depth direction by a frame depth (see annotated fig. 1.2),
a frame top (see annotated fig. 1.2) and a frame bottom opposite from the frame top and offset in a height direction by a frame height (see annotated fig. 1.2),
a set of wheels operationally engaged with the frame and adapted to support the mower above a surface while moving over the surface during a mowing operation (32, fig. 1-4, page 2 lines 46-62),
a mow deck (18, fig. 1 and 2, page 2 lines 27-45) movably engaged with the frame (fig. 1-2), the mower decks cutter is adapted to be operated to contribute to a mowing operation (page 2 Lines 16-28),
a shift mount (6+26+24+20+22, fig. 1-4, page 2 lines 27-45) operationally engaged between the mow deck and the frame, the shift mount being adapted to movably engage the mow deck to the mower (fig. 1), the shift mount having
a fixed shift mount component (6+26, fig. 1-4, page 2 lines 27-45) substantially fixed with respect to the frame (fig. 1-4), and
a movable shift mount component (20+22, fig. 1-4, page 2 lines 27-45) substantially fixed with respect to the mow deck (fig. 1-4), the movable shift mount component adapted to be moved with respect to the fixed shift mount component during the mowing operation along a shift path and to move the mow deck with respect to the frame along the shift path (fig. 1-4, page 2 lines 46-107), and
a power source (page 2 line 20-25 and motor of tractor 4) adapted to supply sufficient energy to the shift mount to move the mow deck with respect to the frame along the shift path (fig. 1-2, wherein the movement of the tractor moves the rest of the device); and
operating the mower by moving it over a surface (fig. 1, page 2 lines 20-25);
using the blade to cut a mowable material (page 2 Lines 16-28); and
moving the mow deck with respect to the frame along the shift path (fig. 1-4).
Fab discloses the above but fails to explicitly disclose at least one blade set rotatably engaged with the mow deck bottom.
Schnell teaches a similar device in the same field of lawnmowers wherein there is at least one blade set rotatably engaged with the mow deck bottom (56, fig. 3-5, col. 3 lines 26-37).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the general cutting mechanism of Fab with the blade that rotates of Schnell to yield the predictable result of cutting grass (abstract of Schnell).
Regarding claim 19, Fab in view of Schnell teaches wherein operating the mower by moving it over a surface further comprises conducting a turning maneuver defining a direction of a turn (fig. 2 and 4, page 2 to 107 of Fab).
Regarding claim 20, Fab in view of Schnell teaches wherein moving the mow deck with respect to the frame along the shift path further comprises, while conducting the turning maneuver, using a control system to automatically move the mow deck along the shift path away from the direction of the turn (fig. 1-2 and 4, page 2 to 107 of Fab, wherein the turning wheel is a control system that directs the rest of the device).
Claims 7, 10, and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabriker et al. (GB 2023392), hereinafter Fab in view of Schnell et al. (US 7,793,487 B1), hereinafter Schnell further in view of Keski-Luopa et al. (US 2013/0333342 A1), hereinafter Keski.
Regarding claims 7 and 10, Fab in view of Schell teaches wherein there is a shift mount (6+26+24+20+22, fig. 1-4, page 2 lines 27-45 of Fab), but fails to explicitly teach wherein the shift mount comprises a track and roller pair, or a shaft and linear bearing pair that defines the shift path.
Keski teaches a similar device in the same field of lawnmowers wherein the the lawnmower includes comprises a track and roller pair, or a shaft and linear bearing pair that defines the shift path (linear bearing pair, [0065]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fab in view of Schell to incorporate the linear bearing pair of Keski in order to “automatically implement ground tracing and lifting and lowering” ([0065] of Keski).
Regarding claim 14, Fab in view of Schell teaches wherein the shift mount comprises a straight-line mechanism (fig. 1-2 of Fab), but fails to explicitly teach wherein the shift mount comprises a track and roller pair, or a shaft and linear bearing pair that defines the shift path.
Keski teaches a similar device in the same field of lawnmowers wherein the the lawnmower includes comprises a track and roller pair, or a shaft and linear bearing pair that defines the shift path (linear bearing pair, [0065]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fab in view of Schell to incorporate the linear bearing pair of Keski in order to “automatically implement ground tracing and lifting and lowering” ([0065] of Keski).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabriker et al. (GB 2023392), hereinafter Fab in view of Schnell et al. (US 7,793,487 B1), hereinafter Schnell further in view of Keski-Luopa et al. (US 2013/0333342 A1), hereinafter Keski in view of Ishii et al. (US 20090000839 A1), hereinafter Ishii.
Regarding claim 15, Fab in view of Schnell and Keski teaches that there is power source (), but fails is silent to what the power source is. Ishii teaches a similar device in the same field of lawnmowers wherein the power source is an electric battery ([0006] of Ishii). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted general power source of Fab with an electric battery of Ishii to yield the predictable result of powering the vehicle of the lawnmower ([0006] of Ishii).
Regarding claim 16, Fab in view of Schnell and Keski and Ishii teaches further comprising a control system adapted to control motion of the mow deck along the shift path (fig. 1-2 and 4, page 2 to 107 of Fab, wherein the turning wheel is a control system that directs the rest of the device).
Regarding claim 17, Fab in view of Schnell and Keski and Ishii teaches wherein the control system is an automated control which initiates motion of the mow deck along the shift path when the mower is turned (page 2 lines 74-87).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Komorida et al. (US 2007/0169456 A1) – a lawnmower with only one lawnmowing device where the mowing deck hangs down and is maneuverable, but it is maneuverable up and down.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer A Railey whose telephone number is (571)270-7353. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-4).
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.
/JENNIFER A RAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights