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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12108701. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 21, the claimed subject matter of claim 21 has been anticipated by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12108701.
Regarding claim 22-29, the claimed subject matter of claims 21-29 has been anticipated by claims 2-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12108701.
Regarding claim 30, the claimed subject matter of claim 30 has been anticipated by claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12108701.
Regarding claims 31-34, the claimed subject matter of claims 31-34 has been anticipated by claims 11-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12108701.
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.
Claim(s) 21-31 and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartel (US 200/0035394) in view of Bejcek (US 2016/0101693).
Regarding claims 21,25 and 28, Bartel discloses a power equipment unit comprising:
a housing (12,18) configured to traverse a surface in both a forward direction and an opposite, reverse direction (see figure 2);
a prime mover (20) carried by the housing, the prime mover operatively connected to a tool (cutting blade, see Par 0025, as mentioned in claim 25) associated with the housing;
a bidirectional variable speed traction drive system (24,25, see figure 2) carried by the housing; and
a control system (60,50) comprising:
a handle grip (56) operatively connected to the traction drive system and movable relative to a handle member (50) attached to the housing, wherein the handle grip is configured to activate the traction drive system to move the housing: in the forward direction when the handle grip is moved in a first direction (see F in figure 2); and in the reverse direction when the handle grip is moved in a second direction (see R in figure 2) opposite the first direction.
Bartel does not mention a sensor that produces an electrical signal to drive the traction drive system. However, Bejcek discloses an speed control for a walk behind machine comprising: a sensor (see Par. 0026) that communicates with a controller (200) to control a drive system (160). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bartel by adding a sensor that can send electrical signals to a controller, wherein the controller would be able to generate a command signal to drive the traction system via actuating the bidirectional valve.
Regarding claim 22, Bartel further discloses, wherein the traction drive system receives power from the prime mover {{as the prime mover is able to run the variable displacement valve (see Par. 0007) which in turn runs the bidirectional variable speed traction drive system 24,25}}.
Regarding claim 23, Bartel does not mention an electric motor on the traction drive system, however, Bejcek further discloses an electric motor (162) to drive the drive system (160, see Par. 00332). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bartel by having the power equipment unit be electrically driven, in order to produce an electrically driven power equipment with less moving parts, additionally the combination of Bartel and Bejcek can be seen as applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 24, Bartel does not mention an electric prime mover. However one of ordinary skill in the art would have the knowledge to exchange the prime mover of Bartel with an electric mover, in order to produce a completely electric power equipment unit with an electric prime mover and an electric traction drive system.
Regarding claim 26, Bartel further discloses, wherein application of the force to the handle grip (56) relative to the handle member (50) comprises translation of the handle grip along the handle member (as the handle grip is rotated relative to the handle member).
Regarding claim 27, Bartel further discloses, wherein the traction drive system comprises first and second rear wheels (14,15) each configured as drive wheels.
Regarding claim 29, Bartel further discloses a command signal generated by the handle grip (56) wherein the command signal is directly related to the rotation force of the handle grip relative to the handle (50) by the user (see Par. 0013).
Regarding claims 30,31 and 33, Bartel discloses a power equipment unit comprising:
a housing (12,18) configured to traverse a surface in both a forward direction and an opposite, reverse direction (see figure 2);
a prime mover (20) carried by the housing, the prime mover operatively connected to a tool (cutting blade, see Par 0025, as mentioned in claim 33) associated with the housing;
a bidirectional variable speed traction drive system (24,25, see figure 2) carried by the housing; and
a control system (60,50) comprising:
a handle grip (56) operatively connected to the traction drive system and movable relative to a handle member (50) attached to the housing, wherein the handle grip is configured to activate the traction drive system to move the housing: in the forward direction when the handle grip is moved in a first direction (see F in figure 2); and in the reverse direction when the handle grip is moved in a second direction (see R in figure 2) opposite the first direction.
Bartel does not mention a sensor that produces an electrical signal to drive the traction drive system. However, Bejcek discloses an speed control for a walk behind machine comprising: a sensor (see Par. 0026) that communicates with a controller (200) to control a drive system (160). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bartel by adding a sensor that can send electrical signals to a controller, wherein the controller would be able to generate a command signal to drive the traction system via actuating the bidirectional valve.
Bartel does not mention an electric motor associated with the housing, however, Bejcek further discloses an electric motor (162) to drive the drive system (160, see Par. 00332). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bartel by having the power equipment unit be electrically driven, in order to produce an electrically driven power equipment with less moving parts, additionally the combination of Bartel and Bejcek can be seen as applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 34, Bartel further discloses a command signal generated by the handle grip (56) wherein the command signal is directly related to the rotation force of the handle grip relative to the handle (50) by the user (see Par. 0013).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 32 is 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.
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Bartel and Bejcek did not include more electric motors for the traction drive system as the motor in Bejcek was used as the prime mover.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marlon A Arce whose telephone number is (571)272-1341. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 4:30PM.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at 571-272-6265. 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.
/MARLON A ARCE/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/KEVIN HURLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights