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 .
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species
Species I, Figs. 1-8, drawn to a power equipment unit including lower handles tubes and an upper handlebar.
Species II, Figs. 9-10, drawn to a power equipment unit including upper handles tubes and a lower handlebar.
The species are independent or distinct because each species has mutually exclusive characteristics such as:
the handle tubes are located below the handlebar, the force sensor is located on an upper surface of the handle tubes, and the handlebar pivot is located above the force sensor and the actuator
the handle tubes are located above the handlebar, the force sensor is located on a lower surface of the handle tubes, and the handlebar pivot is located below the force sensor and the actuator
In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claims 1-2, 5, 7-15, and 18 generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: the species require a different field of search (e.g., a unique text search, searching different electronic arrangements, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Matthew W. Adams on 07-16-2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Species I, claims 1-3, 5-16 and 18. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 4 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 line 3 “wherein the handlebar comprises first and second actuators” should be amended to recite -- wherein the handlebar comprises the actuator, and wherein the actuator comprises first and second actuators—to make clear that the actuators mentioned refer to the same actuator introduced in claim 1 line 15.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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 1-3, 6, 8, 11-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kumar et al. (US 20250143210 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kumar discloses a power equipment unit (10) comprising:
a housing (12) carrying a working implement (32);
ground-engaging members (16) configured to support the housing upon a ground surface;
an electric motor (142) operatively connected to, and adapted to selectively power, one or more of the ground-engaging members to propel the housing over the ground surface at a variable ground speed (para. [0041-0043]);
a handle (18) comprising:
a handle tube (34, 36) having a proximal end attached to the housing and extending away from the housing to terminate at a distal end (Fig. 1); and
a handlebar (24) pivotally mounted to the handle tube at a handlebar pivot (54), wherein the handlebar comprises:
a grip (52) configured to be grasped by an operator during operation of the power equipment unit whereby the handlebar pivots about the handlebar pivot relative to the handle tube in response to a force F applied to the grip (para. [0048]); and
an actuator (100 + 104) that is offset from the handlebar pivot (Fig. 4);
a force sensor (106) operatively connected to the handle tube and configured to contact the actuator such that the actuator, in response to pivotal motion of the handlebar about the handlebar pivot, imparts a force Fs to the force sensor (para. [0033] mating flat surface or splines of the actuator 104 contact input member 112 of the sensor 106 to cause corresponding rotation about axis A2), the force sensor configured to produce an electrical sensor signal corresponding to the force F (para. [0049-0050] potentiometer outputs a speed value representative of the force applied to handlebar 24)); and
a controller (144, para. [0055] “propulsion motor driver 144…can be referred to as a controller”) that receives the sensor signal and generates an electrical drive command signal to the electric motor to vary a speed or torque output of the electric motor in correspondence to a magnitude of the force F (para. [0051] “propulsion motor driver 144…configured to output a motor speed signal that causes the propulsion motor 142 to operate at an output speed that corresponds to the motor speed signal…as the speed lever 24 moves”).
Regarding claim 2, Kumar discloses the power equipment unit of claim 1, wherein the handlebar pivot (54) is located at or near the distal end of the handle tube (Fig. 2, pivot 54 is located at the distal end of handle tube 34).
Regarding claim 3, Kumar discloses the power equipment unit of claim 1, wherein the handlebar pivot (54) is operatively positioned between the grip (52) and the actuator (100 + 104) of the handlebar (Fig. 2,4).
Regarding claim 6, Kumar discloses the power equipment unit of claim 1, wherein the force sensor (106) is located along an upper surface of the handle tube (34) (para. [0064] teaches that sensor housing 56 can alternatively be mounted on a top surface of handle tube 34).
Regarding claim 8, Kumar discloses the power equipment unit of claim 1, further comprising a spring (para. [0059] teaches cable includes a cable/spring combination) configured to bias the handlebar (24), about the handlebar pivot (54), toward a neutral position (solid line position in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Kumar discloses the power equipment unit of claim 1, wherein relative positions of the grip (52), handlebar pivot (54), and handlebar actuator (100 + 104) are configured to provide a ratio of forces Fs:F of 1:1 or greater (from geometry shown in Figs. 2 and 4 annotated below, it can be seen that pushing grip 52 which is disposed at the top end of handlebar 24 forward with a force F, i.e. to the dotted line position shown in Fig. 4, pulls fixed lever 102 and thus actuators 100 + 104 disposed at the bottom end of the handlebar rearward with an equal and opposite reaction force Fs).
PNG
media_image1.png
567
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Image of Fig. 2 of Kumar
PNG
media_image2.png
498
786
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Image of Fig. 4 of Kumar
Regarding independent claim 12, the limitations of claim 12 have been analyzed in view of claim 1, wherein Kumar further teaches:
wherein the ground-engaging members (16) comprise wheels (Fig. 5), and
wherein the force sensor (106) is connected proximate the actuator (100 + 104) (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Kumar teaches the power equipment unit of claim 12, wherein the force F applied at the grip (52) produces a moment (Ar4) of the handlebar (24) about the handlebar pivot (54) (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Kumar teaches the power equipment unit of claim 12, wherein the handle tube (34, 36) comprises first (34) and second (36) handle tubes joined together by a cross member (38) at their respective distal ends (Fig. 2), and wherein the handlebar (24) comprises a U-shaped structure pivotally mounted (at junctions 42, 44) to both of the first and second handle tubes (Fig. 2, para. [0021] a pair of pivot brackets 40 are respectively located at each junction).
Regarding claim 15, Kumar teaches the power equipment unit of claim 12, wherein the grip (52) is at an elevation relative to the ground surface that is greater than an elevation of the handlebar pivot (54) (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Kumar teaches the power equipment unit of claim 12, wherein the handlebar pivot (54) is at an elevation relative to the ground surface that is greater than an elevation of the force sensor (106) (Fig. 2, sensor 106 disposed inside housing 56).
Regarding claim 18, Kumar teaches the power equipment unit of claim 12, further comprising a sensor (152) attached to the grip (52) (note all components of the lawn mower are considered to be “attached” to each other whether directly or indirectly).
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.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arendt et al. (US 20200375102 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kumar discloses the power equipment unit of claim 1, wherein the force sensor (106) comprises a potentiometer instead of a load cell.
In the same area, Arendt discloses a similar mower system (2) comprising a force sensor (48) configured to measure the amount of movement of a handle grip (38) relative to a handle base (32) to control the ground speed of mower (para. [0019,0023]), wherein the force sensor is a load cell (50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a load cell as the force sensor of Kumar, as taught by Arendt, as a mere simple substitution of one known force sensor for detecting a degree of handle movement for another to control a mower speed and yield predictable results.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wilks (US 20210185912 A1).
Regarding claims 9-10, Kumar discloses the power equipment unit of claim 1, wherein the handle tube (34, 36) comprises first (34) and second (36) handle tubes joined together by a cross member (38) at their respective distal ends (Fig. 2), wherein the handlebar comprises the actuator comprising a first actuator (100 + 104) proximate the first handle tube, as per claim 9, and wherein the force sensor comprises a first force sensor (106) operatively connected to the first handle tube, as per claim 10.
Kumar fails to teach wherein the actuator further comprises a second actuator proximate the second handle tube, as per claim 9, and wherein the force sensor further comprises a second force sensor operatively connected to the second handle tube, as per claim 10.
In the same area, Wilks discloses a speed control system for a similar walk-behind mower comprising a sensing unit (18a) designed to sense an operator's wish for assistance in propelling the base unit (12a), wherein the sensing unit includes a first force sensor (22a) and first actuator (70a) disposed on a first handle tube (26a), and a second force sensor (22a’) and second actuator (70a’) disposed on a second handle tube (26a’) (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a second sensor and actuator arrangement disposed on the second handle tube of Kumar, as Wilks teaches that the use of two sensors enables full sensing of a force acting upon the handle grip, such that reliable sensing can be ensured even if an operator is operating the handle grip off-center and/or force is applied in partly differing directions by the operator (See Wilks at para. [0053]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ojeda et al. (US 20230380341 A1) discloses an electric lawn mower with a pivoting for driving the wheels at a variable speed. Aldridge et al. (US 20230284558 A1) discloses a transmission control for a mower. Gassner et al. (US 20210400869 A1) discloses a speed control device for a garden tool. Prinzo (US 9545054 B2) discloses a pivoting clutch lever and cam mechanism. Kobayashi et al. (US 20070169743 A1) discloses a work machine speed control. Osborne (US 20070130899 A1) discloses a method of speed control for a self-propelled machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Christopher Sebesta, can be reached on (571) 272-0547. 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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
