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 .
Introduction
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application and are subject to examination herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/23/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “fixing components” in claim 4 (and claim 5 depending therefrom); “linkage adjustment mechanism” in claim 13 (and claims 14-20 depending therefrom).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(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) 1-2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0352098 to Fujii et al. (hereinafter Fujii).
Regarding claim 1, Fujii discloses a mower (Abstract; Figs. 1-4; Para. [0015]), comprising:
a frame (vehicle body frame 10) (Fig. 1; Para. [0016]-[0017], [0019]-[0020], [0024]);
a working assembly (mower unit 8) (Figs. 1-2; Paras. [0016]), connected with the frame (vehicle body frame 10) (Fig. 1; Para. [0016]-[0017], [0019]-[0020], [0024]); and
a platform assembly, connected to the frame (vehicle body frame 10) (Fig. 1; Para. [0016]-[0017], [0019]-[0020], [0024]), and comprising:
a supporting plate (stationary base 51) (Figs. 3-4; Paras. [0024]-[0026]), fixedly connected with the frame;
a platform (footrest face 50 and/or intermediate member 60) (Figs. 2-3; Paras. [0024]-[0027]), one side of the platform (footrest face 50 and/or intermediate member 60) (Figs. 2-34; Paras. [0024]-[0027]) rotatably connected (about pitching shaft 64) (see Figs. 3-4; Para. [0028]) with the frame (vehicle body frame 10) (Fig. 1; Para. [0016]-[0017], [0019]-[0020], [0024]) and located above the supporting plate (stationary base 51) (Figs. 3-4; Paras. [0024]-[0026]); and
a damper (pitching damper(s) 72) (Figs. 3-4; Paras. [0028]-[0029]), mounted on the supporting plate (stationary base 51) (Figs. 3-4; Paras. [0024]-[0026]) and located between the platform (footrest face 50 and/or intermediate member 60) (Figs. 2-4 Paras. [0024]-[0027]) and the supporting plate (stationary base 51) (Figs. 3-4; Paras. [0024]-[0026]).
Regarding claim 2, Fujii discloses the mower according to claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Fujii discloses a mower (Abstract; Figs. 1-4; Para. [0015]) wherein, the damper (pitching damper(s) 72) (Figs. 3-4; Paras. [0028]-[0029]) comprises at least a first damper (see Annotated Fig. 3 infra) and a second damper (see Annotated Fig. 3 infra), and the first damper (see Annotated Fig. 3 infra) and the second damper (see Annotated Fig. 3 infra) are respectively mounted on two sides (see Figs. 3-4) of the supporting plate (stationary base 51) (Figs. 3-4; Paras. [0024]-[0026]).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second Damper)][AltContent: textbox (First Damper)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
354
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Fujii.
Regarding claim 10, Fujii discloses the mower according to claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Fujii discloses a mower (Abstract; Figs. 1-4; Para. [0015]) further comprising an elastic component (damper(s) 72) (Fig. 3; Paras. [0029]-[0030]), connected between the frame (vehicle body frame 10) (Fig. 1; Para. [0016]-[0017], [0019]-[0020], [0024]) and the platform (footrest face 50 and/or intermediate member 60) (Figs. 2-3; Paras. [0024]-[0027]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii.
Regarding claim 3, Fujii discloses the mower according to claim 1 (see above). However, Fujii does not expressly disclose a distance L1 between an orthographic projection on the supporting plate of a rotation center of the platform rotatably connected with the frame and the damper is set between 180mm and 200 mm. Nevertheless, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 6, Fujii discloses the mower according to claim 1 (see above). However, Fujii does not expressly disclose that, when a driver stands on the platform, a distance L3 between an orthographic projection on the supporting plate of a rotation center of the platform rotatably connected with the frame and the driver’s center of gravity is set between 80mm and 100mm. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to swap the locations of the dampers and the springs such that the compression spring assembly would be located between the first damper and the second damper, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 7, Fujii discloses the mower according to claim 2 (see above). Furthermore, Fujii discloses a mower (Abstract; Figs. 1-4; Para. [0015]) further comprising a compression spring assembly (second coil spring(s) 74 and/or first coil spring(s) 73) (Figs. 3-4; Paras. [0029]-[0030]), mounted between the platform (footrest face 50 and/or intermediate member 60) (Figs. 2-4; Paras. [0024]-[0027]) and the supporting plate (stationary base 51) (Figs. 3-4; Paras. [0024]-[0026]). However, Fujii does not disclose that the compression spring assembly is located between the first damper and the second damper. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to swap the locations of the dampers and the springs such that the compression spring assembly would be located between the first damper and the second damper, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii in view of U.S. Pat. No. 9,821,689 to Busboom to et al. (hereinafter Busboom).
Regarding claim 4, Fujii discloses the mower according to claim 2 (see above). However, Fujii does not disclose a plurality of mounting holes is arranged on one side of the platform, and the damper is mounted on different mounting holes through fixing components. Nevertheless, Busboom teaches a plurality of mounting holes (either set of mounting holes 232a-236a on right side of platform or 232b-236b on left side of platform) (Fig. 3; Col. 7, lines 13-61) is arranged on one side of the platform (Col. 7, lines 55-61), and the damper (resilient element 254a and/or resilient element 254b) (Fig. 3; Col. 7, line 55 to col. 8, line 5) is mounted on different mounting holes (either set of mounting holes 232a-236a on right side of platform or 232b-236b on left side of platform) (Fig. 3; Col. 7, lines 13-61) through fixing components (tabs 256a and/or 256b of support member 252) (Fig. 3; Col. 6, line 57 to col. 7, line 12; col. 9, line 62 to col. 10, line 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the mower disclosed in Fujii with the plurality of mounting holes to allow the damper to be mounted on different mounting holes taught in Busboom with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow the operator to alter the stiffness characteristics of the suspension system as taught in Busboom (Col. 9, line 62 to col. 10, line 24). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the mower disclosed in Fujii with the plurality of mounting holes to allow the damper to be mounted on different mounting holes taught in Busboom with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 5, Fujii in view of Busboom teaches the mower according to claim 4 (see above). Furthermore, Busboom teaches that the plurality of the mounting holes (either set of mounting holes 232a-236a on right side of platform or 232b-236b on left side of platform) (Fig. 3; Col. 7, lines 13-61) is arranged in a straight line along a width direction of the supporting plate (each pair of mounting holes, such as 232a and 232b, are arranged in a straight line along a width direction of the supporting plate) (see Fig. 3). However, neither Fujii nor Busboom discloses or teaches that a maximum distance L2 between two of the plurality of mounting holes is set to 100 mm. Nevertheless, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii in view of U.S. Pat. No. 11,498,532 to Fund et al. (hereinafter Funk).
Regarding claim 12, Fujii discloses the mower according to claim 1 (see above). However, Fujii does not disclose an operator presence switch, arranged on the platform assembly. Nevertheless, Funk teaches a mower comprising an operator presence switch (operator presence detection system 270) (Figs. 2-3; Col. 7, line 61 to col. 8, line 11), arranged on the platform assembly (see Figs. 2-3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the mower disclosed in Fujii with the operator presence detection system taught in Funk with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase safety by disabling the mower when the operator presence detection system detects the operator is not present on the platform. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the mower disclosed in Fujii with the operator presence detection system taught in Funk with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii in view of U.S. Pat. Pat. No. 2019/0082592 to Berglund et al. (hereinafter Berglund).
Regarding claim 13, Fujii discloses the mower according to claim 1 (see above). However, Fujii does not expressly disclose the working assembly comprising:
a cutting deck, connected on the frame and one side of the cutting deck provided with an opening;
a cutting deck baffle, rotatably mounted at the opening, and when the cutting deck baffle is located at the opening to close the opening, the mower being in a lawn crushing state;
a lawn discharging plate, rotatably mounted with the cutting deck through a rotation shaft of the lawn discharging plate; and
a linkage adjustment mechanism, mounted on the frame, connected with the cutting deck baffle and the lawn discharging plate, and comprising a connecting rod mechanism, the connecting rod mechanism connected between the cutting deck baffle and the lawn discharging plate, and the linkage adjustment mechanism configured to adjust positions of the lawn discharging plate and the cutting deck baffle through the connecting rod mechanism to enable the mower to switch between the lawn crushing state and a lawn discharging state.
Nevertheless, Berglund discloses a working assembly comprising:
a cutting deck, connected on the frame and one side of the cutting deck provided with an opening;
a cutting deck baffle (baffle plate 178) (Abstract; Figs. 2-3, 7-11; Paras. [0032], [0035]), rotatably mounted at the opening (see Figs. 2-3, 7-11), and when the cutting deck baffle (baffle plate 178) (Abstract; Figs. 2-3, 7-11; Paras. [0032], [0035]) is located at the opening to close the opening (see Figs. 2-3, 7-11), the mower being in a lawn crushing state;
a lawn discharging plate (discharge chute 182) (Abstract; Figs. 2-4, 6, 9-11; Paras. [0032], [0039], [0043]-[0044], [0046]-[0050], [0062]), rotatably mounted (see Figs. 2-4, 6, 9-11) with the cutting deck through a rotation shaft (see Figs. 2-4, 6, 9-11) of the lawn discharging plate (discharge chute 182) (Abstract; Figs. 2-4, 6, 9-11; Paras. [0032], [0039], [0043]-[0044], [0046]-[0050], [0062]); and
a linkage adjustment mechanism (actuator 186) (Figs. 3-4, 6-7, 9-11; Paras. [0032], [0041]-[0042], [0048]-[0049], [0060]), mounted on the frame (frame 114 via support bracket 304) (Figs. 3-4, 6-7, 9-11; Para. [0042]), connected with the cutting deck baffle (baffle plate 178) (Abstract; Figs. 2-3, 7-11; Paras. [0032], [0035]) and the lawn discharging plate (discharge chute 182) (Abstract; Figs. 2-4, 6, 9-11; Paras. [0032], [0039], [0043]-[0044], [0046]-[0050], [0062]), and comprising a connecting rod mechanism (chute support 266 and/or projections 254) (Fig. 4; Paras. [0036]-[0037], [0039]-[0040], [0046], [0048]), the connecting rod mechanism connected between the cutting deck baffle and the lawn discharging plate (discharge chute 182) (Abstract; Figs. 2-4, 6, 9-11; Paras. [0032], [0039], [0043]-[0044], [0046]-[0050], [0062]), and the linkage adjustment mechanism (actuator 186) (Figs. 3-4, 6-7, 9-11; Paras. [0032], [0041]-[0042], [0048]-[0049], [0060]) configured to adjust positions of the lawn discharging plate (discharge chute 182) (Abstract; Figs. 2-4, 6, 9-11; Paras. [0032], [0039], [0043]-[0044], [0046]-[0050], [0062]) and the cutting deck baffle (baffle plate 178) (Abstract; Figs. 2-3, 7-11; Paras. [0032], [0035]) through the connecting rod mechanism (chute support 266 and/or projections 254) (Fig. 4; Paras. [0036]-[0037], [0039]-[0040], [0046], [0048]) to enable the mower to switch between the lawn crushing state and a lawn discharging state (Figs. 3, 9; Paras. [0047]-[0048], [0059]-[0060]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the mower disclosed in Fujii with the working assembly taught in Berglund with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow the operator to easily switch between the closed crushing/mulching state and the open discharging state. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the mower disclosed in Fujii with the working assembly taught in Berglund with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 14, Fujii in view of Berglund teaches the mower according to claim 13 (see above). However, neither Fujii nor Berglund discloses or teaches that, in the lawn crushing state, an angle between the cutting deck baffle and the lawn discharging plate is set between 150° and 185°. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to swap the locations of the dampers and the springs such that the compression spring assembly would be located between the first damper and the second damper, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 15, Fujii in view of Berglund teaches the mower according to claim 13 (see above). However, neither Fujii nor Berglund discloses or teaches that, when the mower switches from the lawn crushing state to the lawn discharging state, an upward flipping angle of the cutting deck baffle is set between 90° and 98°, and a downward flipping angle of the lawn discharging plate is set between 65° and 96°. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to swap the locations of the dampers and the springs such that the compression spring assembly would be located between the first damper and the second damper, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9, 11 and 16-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. German Pat. Pub. No. DE 10 2006 009 331 A1 to Richer relates to a standing platform. U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,984,031 to Velke et al.; 6,782,964 to Korthals et al.; 6,499,282 to Velke et al.; 6,490,849 to Scag et al.; 7,712,751 to Beal; 8,141,886 to Sugden et al.; 10,858,051 to Redinger et al.; and U.S. Pat. Pub. Nos. 2009/0302562 to Kallevig et al. relate to standing platforms for mowers. U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0341685 to Andre et al. relates to a turf maintenance vehicle and support platform isolator for same. U.S. Pat. No. 11,383,962 to Lohmann et al. relates to an industrial truck with a stand-on platform. Chinese Pat. Pub. No. CN 208941401 U to Gong relates to a seat suspension having plates with dampers and springs therebetween. European Pat. Pub. No. EP 2 336 009 A1 to Andersson relates to an industrial truck comprising a pivotal platform with progressive suspension.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAUDE J BROWN whose telephone number is (571)270-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8AM-5PM.
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 M. 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.
/CLAUDE J BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights