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 .
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.
Claims 10, 12, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park (US 20240324498 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Park discloses a lawnmower (a riding mower, fig. 1) comprising:
a frame (10);
a rotatable blade (paragraph 0015) disposed below at least a portion of the frame;
a moveable deck (3) on which the rotatable blade is supported; and
an adjustable linkage assembly (see fig. 2) connecting the moveable deck to the frame, the adjustable linkage assembly comprising:
a front linkage arm (130) pivotably attached to the frame to support a front end of the moveable deck,
a rear linkage arm (230) defining a fixed rear-arm length from an upper rear mounting point to a lower rear mounting point to support a rear end of the moveable deck, and
a rear linkage mount (see fig. 3) supported on the frame and connected to the rear linkage arm at the upper rear mounting point, the rear linkage mount comprising a moveable interface (141) defining a vertical lift path on which the upper rear mount point is moveable relative to the frame between a high position and a low position disposed below the high position (paragraphs 0026-0030).
Regarding claim 12, Park discloses the lawnmower of claim 10, wherein a lift point (the center of 230) is defined on the rear linkage arm (230) between the upper rear mounting point and the lower rear mounting point.
Regarding claim 14, Park discloses the lawnmower of claim 10, wherein the rear linkage mount defines an attachment slot (141) extending along the vertical lift path and comprises an attachment pin (300) slidably disposed within the attachment slot.
Regarding claim 15, Park discloses the lawnmower of claim 14, wherein the rear linkage mount further comprises an adjustment rod (201) extending from the upper rear mounting point, and wherein the attachment pin (300) is supported on the adjustment rod to move therewith relative to the frame (paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 16, Park discloses the lawnmower of claim 15, wherein the adjustment rod (201) defines a threaded interface on which an adjustment nut (202) is roto-translatably supported (paragraphs 0030-31).
Regarding claim 17, Park discloses the lawnmower of claim 10, wherein the front linkage arm (130) defines a fixed front-arm length from an upper front mounting point to a lower front mounting point (see fig. 2).
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20240324498 A1) in view of Ebihara (US 20120111655 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Park discloses the lawnmower of claim 10.
Park does not disclose a blade motor supported on the moveable deck in mechanical communication with the rotatable blade.
In the same field of endeavor, Ebihara discloses a motor (15) in mechanical communication with a rotatable mower blade (BL).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Park with a motor supported on the moveable deck in mechanical communication with the rotatable blade, as disclosed by Ebihara, as a way of driving the blade to mow the lawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-9 allowed.
Claims 13, 18-19 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The remarks assert that claim 10 has been amended to include the subject matter of claim 11, however the amendment to claim 11 does not fully incorporate the subject matter indicated allowable in the 6/10/2026 rejection. Because applicant has not presented arguments that explain how Park (US 20240324498 A1) does not read on claim 10, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADELINE RUNCO whose telephone number is (469)295-9123. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 M-F.
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.
/MADELINE I RUNCO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights