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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract exceeds 150 words.
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(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugden (US 8141886 B1) in view of Fredenburg (US 20250145217 A1) and In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Regarding claim 1, Sugden discloses a lawn mower (mower 5) comprising: at least one cutting blade (multi-blade cutting deck 20) configured to be driven for cutting grass; a footplate (riding platform assembly 100 with main platform 110 and extender 300) configured to support feet of a standing operator of the mower during mower operations (figs.1-9), wherein the footplate comprises a foot supporting surface (standing portion 114 of main platform 110) including a central portion (standing portion 114 of main platform 110); and a support (support assembly 105 and support 150, figs.1-9) under and at least partially overlapped by the footplate, wherein the support comprises a central support portion (support assembly 105) between at least first and second cross supports (spring supports 150), wherein at least part of the first and second cross supports of the support are each angled upwardly from the central support portion of the support (spring supports 150 angle upwardly as seen in figures 1-9) by from about 8- 40 degrees (spring supports 150 are angled, figs.1-9; In Gardner v. TEC Syst. discloses the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device) in order to increase clearance at bottom sides of the mower. Sugden fails to disclose the footplate having first and second side portions.
However, Fredenburg discloses a central portion (platform 150 with center portion 147, fig.9) and first and second side portions (angled platform portions 158, fig.9) for supporting respective feet of the operator during turns and/or sidehill operations, the central portion being located between at least the first and second side portions of the foot supporting surface (center portion 147 is between angled portions 158, fig.9), at least part of each of the first and second side portions of the foot supporting surface defining an angle of from about 8-40 degrees (angled portions 158 are angled, fig.9; In Gardner v. TEC Syst. discloses the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device) with the central portion of the foot supporting surface (angled portions 158, fig.9). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc.,
Sugden and Fredenburg are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lawn mowers. Therefore, 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 Sugden with the angled side portions of the foot plate of Fredenburg with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of assist in operator stabilization on ground surface slopes and during turns (paragraph [0054] of Fredenburg).
Regarding claim 2, Sugden in combination with Fredenburg, Sugden discloses wherein the footplate is pivotal and is configured to pivot about an axis during mower operations (pivots 212 and 214 define a pivot axis), and wherein the support under the footplate is not pivotal so as to not pivot with the footplate (support assembly 105 and supports 150 are fixed).
Regarding claim 4, Sugden in combination with Fredenburg, wherein the central support is configured to be substantially parallel to the ground during flat ground mower operations (support assembly 105 is substantially parallel to the ground as seen in figure 1-9).
Regarding claim 5, Sugden in combination with Fredenburg disclose wherein each of the first and second side portions of the foot supporting surface defining an angle of from about 10-30 degrees with the central portion of the foot supporting surface (Fredenburg; angled portions 158 are angled, fig.9; In Gardner v. TEC Syst. discloses the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device), and wherein the first and second cross supports of the support are each angled upwardly from the central support portion of the support by from about 10-30 degrees (Sugden; spring supports 150 are angled, figs.1-9; In Gardner v. TEC Syst. discloses the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device).
Regarding claim 8, Sugden in combination with Fredenburg, Sugden discloses wherein the foot supporting surface of the footplate is textured and includes a plurality of apertures defined therein (riding platform assembly 100 is textured and has apertures, figs.1-9).
Regarding claim 9, Sugden in combination with Fredenburg, Sugden discloses further comprising a plurality of elastomeric cushions (springs 170) positioned between a bottom of the footplate and the support (between bottom of support 160 on foot plate and support 150), in order to cushion pivotal movement of the footplate during mower operations.
Regarding claim 11, Sugden in combination with Fredenburg disclose wherein the central portion of the foot supporting surface is substantially flat (Sugden, standing portion 114 is flat; Fredenburg, center portion 147 is flat, fig.9).
Regarding claim 12, Sugden in combination with Fredenburg, Fredenburg disclose wherein the central portion of the foot supporting surface of the footplate is contiguous to the first and second side portions of the foot supporting surface (angled portions 158 are contiguous with the center portion 147 as seen in figs.1-9).
Regarding claim 13, Sugden in combination with Fredenburg, Sugden discloses wherein the footplate is at least partially located between first and second rear drive wheels of the mower (riding platform assembly 100 with main platform 110 and extender 300 is partially between the rear drive wheels 30 and 32, fig.3).
Claim(s) 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugden (US 8141886 B1) in view of Fredenburg (US 20250145217 A1) and In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), and in further view of Korthals (US 6782964 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Sugden in combination with Fredenburg, Sugden discloses wherein as viewed from a side of the mower the support, including the central support portion and the first and second cross supports, is partially located within a radius of at least one of first and second rear drive wheels of the mower (support assembly 105 and supports 150 are partially located inside the radius of the rear drive wheels 30 and 32, figs.1-9)., but fails to disclose them being entirely within the radius.
However, Korthals discloses wherein as viewed from a side of the mower the support, including the central support portion and the first and second cross supports, is entirely located within a radius of at least one of first and second rear drive wheels of the mower (central cross bar between plates 38 is located within the radius of the drive wheels 24, figs.1-4).
Sugden and Korthals are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lawn mowers. Therefore, 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 Sugden with the forward placement of the support assembly and footplate of Korthals with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of having the weight of the user supported inside the wheelbase for better stability and control.
Regarding claim 7, Sugden in combination with Fredenburg discloses the mower of claim 1, but fails to disclose the first and second cross supports and the central portion located between vertical sidewalls.
However, Korthals discloses wherein the first and second cross supports and the central portion are located between first and second substantially vertically oriented sidewalls (central cross bar between plates 38 is between vertical sidewalls of the frame 12, figs.1-4).
Sugden and Korthals are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lawn mowers. Therefore, 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 Sugden with the forward placement of the support assembly and footplate of Korthals with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of having the weight of the user supported inside the wheelbase for better stability and control.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugden (US 8141886 B1) in view of Fredenburg (US 20250145217 A1) and In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), and in further view of Moore (US 20230210047 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Sugden in combination with Fredenburg, Fredenburg discloses a thigh pad (support pad 152).
However, Moore discloses further comprising a pivotal thigh pad (leg pad 130 pivotal at 154) configured to support at least thighs of the operator during mower operations.
Fredenburg and Moore are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lawn mowers. Therefore, 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 the thigh pad of Fredenburg to be pivotable as the thigh pad of Moore with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of allowing the thigh pad to be easily removed and attached for easier access to parts behind the thigh pad for routine maintenance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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 6 depends upon claim 1 which is rejected but claim 6 has the limitation of “wherein the first and second side portions of the foot supporting surface of the footplate are substantially parallel to the first and second cross supports of the support, respectively.” The primary reference of Sugden discloses the first and second cross supports of the support (support assembly 105 and supports 150) and the teaching reference of Fredenburg discloses the first and second side portions of the foot supporting surface (angled portions 158 of platform 150). They fail to disclose them being substantially parallel. Modifying the combination of Sugden and Fredenburg to have the side portions and cross supports be parallel would be unreasonable and hindsight reconstruction. The prior art either alone or in combination fail to teach or fairly suggest at this time all of the limitations of claim 6. For the reasons above claim 6 has allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art not relied upon but considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure is included in the 892 form. The art included has features related to claim limitations, the general structural of the invention, teachings, and other analogous art to the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN BRYCE SHELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303)-297-4337. 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.
/IAN BRYCE SHELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights