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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 2, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ninomiya et al. (USP 8,166,737).
Regarding claim 1: Ninomiya discloses a power lawn mower (as seen in figures 1-19) comprising:
a mower chassis (as seen in figure 1, area of 11) supporting a cutting deck (as seen in figure 1, area of 11a) containing at least one rotary cutting blade (as seen in figure 1, at 14), the chassis defining a lower chassis plane and a travel axis (as seen in annotated figure 4 below);
two wheels (as seen in figure 7, at 13) operatively connected to the mower chassis and adapted to support a rear portion of the mower chassis in rolling engagement with a ground surface (as seen in figure 1), wherein the two wheels include a first wheel located on a first side of the mower chassis, and a second wheel located on an opposite, second side of the mower chassis (as seen in figure 7, at 13);
a height-of-cut (HOC) system (as seen in figure 3) adapted to adjust a height of the two wheels simultaneously relative to the mower chassis, thereby adjusting an elevation of the cutting blade relative to the ground surface between a maximum HOC position and a minimum HOC position (column 6, line 46 to column 7, line 50), wherein the HOC system comprises:
first and second bellcranks (as seen in figure 5, at 22R and 22L) associated with the first and second wheels, respectively, wherein each bellcrank is pivotally coupled to the mower chassis such that each pivots about a common pivot axis extending transverse to the travel axis (as seen in figures 5 and 6, as denoted by “Pr”), wherein each of the first and second bellcranks comprises:
a first end (as seen in figures 3-7, area of 42) spaced-apart from the common pivot axis and adapted to support a wheel axle (as seen in figures 3-7, at 42) of its associated first or second wheel (as seen in figures 6 and 7); and
a second end also spaced-apart from the common pivot axis (as seen in figures 4 and 6, area of 24); and
a connecting rod connecting the second ends of the first and second bellcranks (as seen in figure 5, at 24) such that pivotal motion of the first bellcrank about the common pivot axis produces corresponding pivotal motion of the second bellcrank about the common pivot axis, wherein the first and second bellcranks are pivotable between a first position corresponding to the maximum HOC position, and a second position corresponding to the minimum HOC position, and wherein an uppermost portion of the connecting rod is positioned at an elevation at or below the lower chassis plane when the first and second bellcranks are at the first position, the second position, and any position between the first and second positions (as seen in annotated figure 4 below and as seen in figure 5 via movement of 24 in plane and phantom views).
PNG
media_image1.png
226
379
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3: Ninomiya discloses the power lawn mower of claim 1. Further, Ninomiya discloses wherein the mower chassis comprises first and second adjustment plates, and wherein the first and second bellcranks are pivotally coupled to the first and second adjustment plates, respectively (as seen in figures 5 and 6, area of 11b and opposing side; also, column 7, lines 19-26).
Regarding claims 5-7: Ninomiya discloses the power lawn mower of claim 1. Further, Ninomiya discloses the mower comprising a prime mover carried by the mower chassis and adapted to rotate the at least one rotary cutting blade (as seen in figure 1, at 15) and to rotate one or both of the two wheels (column 6, lines 7-9 and column 8, lines 33-45).
Regarding claim 8: Ninomiya discloses the power lawn mower of claim 1. Further, Ninomiya discloses wherein comprising an upwardly and rearwardly extending operator handle assembly connected to the mower chassis (as seen in figures 1 and 2 at 16).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ninomiya et al. (USP 8,166,737).
Regarding claim 4: Ninomiya discloses the power lawn mower of claim 1 substantially as discussed above but fails to show the connecting rod having both a core shaft and a sleeve. However, the Examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known to use a sleeve (i.e., as seen in figure 6 around shaft 47 and figure 20 around “shafts” 32, 82, 31) around a shaft. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced sleeveless shaft of the connecting rod in Ninomiya with a sleeved shaft if so desired by the operator/manufacturer, absent any showing to the contrary.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 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.
Claims 9-13 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not show or reasonably suggest in combination with other claimed features/limitations, a power lawn mower comprising a connecting rod wherein the cutting blade defines a cutting plane, and wherein a lowermost portion of the connecting rod is at an elevation below an elevation of the cutting plane when the cutting blade is at the maximum HOC position, the minimum HOC position, and any position therebetween.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Strong et al. (USP 5,526,633) discloses a height adjustment system employing bellcranks and connecting rod means.
Kaland (USP 4,321,785) discloses a height adjustment system employing a mower chassis with adjustment plates attached thereto.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT ERIC PEZZUTO whose telephone number is (703)756-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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, 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.
/ROBERT E PEZZUTO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights