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 1-5 are currently pending in this application and are subject to examination herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The two (2) information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 12/13/2024 and 08/15/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are 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.
(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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Pat. Pub. No. 2005287518 A to Imamura et al. (hereinafter Imamura) (cited by Applicant in IDS filed on 08/15/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Imamura discloses a work vehicle (self-propelled mower B) (Abstract; Figs. 1-3; Paras. [0051]-[0052], [0062]-[0064]) comprising:
a traveling machine body (frame 1) (Figs. 1-3; Paras. [0052]-[0055]); and
a grass mowing device (cutter 2) (Figs. 1-3; Paras. [0052], [0054]-[0056], [0061]-[0068]) connected to the traveling machine body (frame 1) (Figs. 1-3; Paras. [0052]-[0055]), wherein the grass mowing device (cutter 2) (Figs. 1-3; Paras. [0052], [0054]-[0056], [0061]-[0068]) has a rotary mowing blade (blade of cutter 2) (Figs. 1-3; Paras. [0052], [0054]-[0056], [0061]-[0068]), and a rotation direction of the rotary mowing blade (blade of cutter 2) (Figs. 1-3; Paras. [0052], [0054]-[0056], [0061]-[0068]) is automatically switched (Paras. [0027], [0062]-[0064]), when an advancing direction of the traveling machine body (frame 1) (Figs. 1-3; Paras. [0052]-[0055]) is changed (Paras. [0027], [0062]-[0064]).
Regarding claim 2, Imamura discloses the work vehicle according to claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Imamura discloses a work vehicle (self-propelled mower B) (Abstract; Figs. 1-3; Paras. [0051]-[0052], [0062]-[0064]) wherein the rotation direction of the rotary mowing blade (blade of cutter 2) (Figs. 1-3; Paras. [0052], [0054]-[0056], [0061]-[0068]) is reversed (Paras. [0027], [0062]-[0064]), when the advancing direction of the traveling machine body (frame 1) (Figs. 1-3; Paras. [0052]-[0055]) is changed from one side to the other side (Paras. [0027], [0062]-[0064]) in a front-rear direction (Paras. [0027], [0062]-[0064]) of the traveling machine body (frame 1) (Figs. 1-3; Paras. [0052]-[0055]).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imamura.
Regarding claim 3, Imamura discloses the work vehicle according to claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Imamura discloses a work vehicle (self-propelled mower B) (Abstract; Figs. 1-3; Paras. [0051]-[0052], [0062]-[0064]) wherein at a time when the rotation direction of the rotary mowing blade is switched (Paras. [0027], [0062]-[0064]), a rotation speed of the rotary mowing blade (blade of cutter 2) (Figs. 1-3; Paras. [0052], [0054]-[0056], [0061]-[0068]) is gradually lowered and the rotary mowing blade is stopped, and after the rotary mowing blade (blade of cutter 2) (Figs. 1-3; Paras. [0052], [0054]-[0056], [0061]-[0068]) is stopped, the rotation speed of the rotary mowing blade (blade of cutter 2) (Figs. 1-3; Paras. [0052], [0054]-[0056], [0061]-[0068]) is gradually increased to a target rotation speed. Real systems do not stop instantly from a speed and do not adjust to a target speed instantly from a stopped condition, so the Examiner submits this limitation is met by Imamura. Nevertheless, to the extent that the gradual lowering, stopping and gradually increasing of the cutter blade is not expressly disclosed in Imamura, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Imamura to gradually lower, stop and then gradually increase with a reasonable expectation of success in order to avoid changing the angular momentum of the rotary mowing blade too quickly and avoid damaging the blade or mower and to avoid causing unnecessary vibration that could damage or loosen parts of the blade or mower.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imamura in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0276593 to Bucur et al. (hereinafter Bucur).
Regarding claim 4, Imamura discloses the work vehicle according to claim 1 (see above). However, Imamura does not disclose that the rotary mowing blade includes a rotating shaft portion that rotates around a shaft extending along a right-left direction. Nevertheless, Bucur teaches a rotary mowing blade (cutting element 125) (Fig. 4; Paras. [0026]-[0027]) that includes a rotating shaft portion that rotates around a shaft extending along a right-left direction (see Fig. 4). 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 work vehicle disclosed in Imamura with the rotary mowing blade that includes a rotating shaft portion taught in Bucur with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 5, Imamura discloses the work vehicle according to claim 1 (see above). However, Imamura does not disclose the work vehicle comprising a remote control device capable of changing an advancing direction of the traveling machine body. Nevertheless, Bucur teaches that the work vehicle comprises a remote control device (computer system 1100) (Fig. 11; Para. [0036]) capable of changing an advancing direction of the traveling machine body (Para. [0036]). 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 work vehicle disclosed in Imamura with the remote control device taught in Bucur with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow remote control of the work vehicle without having to manually control the work vehicle. 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 work vehicle disclosed in Imamura with the remote control device taught in Bucur 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Pat. Pub. Nos. 2020/00128730 to Nakano et al.; 2022/0007571 to Foster et al.; 2022/0007570 to Foster et al.; and 2017/0367257 to Cmich et al. relate to a mower with a blades that are rotatable in both forward and reverse directions. Int’l. Pat. Pub. No. WO 2021/209881 A1 to Revelli relates to a robotic mower that can stop the blades and reverse them to move the blades away from a presumed undesirable object. Japanese Pat. Pub. No. JP 2021027806A to Fujiwara et al. relates to a lawnmower with a wireless remote control.
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