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 Objections
Claims 6 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 6, the claim is grammatically awkward since the last two lines appear to be missing a comma.
Claim 17 line 10 recites “the mover deck” which should be “the mower deck”.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishimori, et al. US6038840.
Regarding claim 1, Ishimori, et al. teaches a rear-discharge mower (Figure 1) comprising:
a vehicle body 3;
a front wheel 29 coupled to the vehicle body 3 rotatably about a front-wheel rotational axis (axis that 29 rotates about);
a rear wheel 2 coupled to the vehicle body 3 rotatably about a rear-wheel rotational axis 18;
a mower deck 50 comprising:
a deck frame 55 coupled to the vehicle body 3; and
a first cutting blade 58 coupled to the deck frame 55 rotatably about a first rotational axis 53;
a first rear distance (see Figure A below, annotated from Figure 2) defined between the first rotational axis 53 and the rear wheel 2 (rearmost part of wheel 2) in a front-rear direction of the rear-discharge mower (Figure 1) when viewed in an axial direction (top to bottom of Figure 2) defined along the first rotational axis 53, the front-rear direction being defined perpendicularly to the rear-wheel rotational axis 18 (left to right) when viewed in the axial direction;
PNG
media_image1.png
689
813
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: annotated Figure 2
the first cutting blade 58 defining a first cutting diameter (width of 58) having the first rotational axis 53 as a rotational center; and
the first rear distance being greater than or equal to the first cutting diameter (wherein the rear wheel is positioned at least the first cutting diameter distance).
Regarding claim 2, Ishimori, et al. teaches that the mower deck 50 comprises:
a second cutting blade 59 coupled to the deck frame 55 rotatably about a second rotational axis 56; and
a third cutting blade 60 coupled to the deck frame 55 rotatably about a third rotational axis 57, and the first rotational axis 53 is provided between (as shown in figure 2) the second rotational axis 56 and the third rotational axis 57 in a left-right direction of the rear-discharge mower (Figure 1), the left-right direction (left-right in Figure 2) being defined along the rear-wheel rotational axis 18.
Regarding claim 3, Ishimori, et al. teaches that a second distance (see Figure A above) is defined between the second rotational axis 56 and the rear-wheel rotational axis 18 in the front-rear (Figure 2 top to bottom) direction when viewed in the axial direction, a second additional distance (see Figure A) is defined between the second rotational axis 56 and the front-wheel rotational axis (axis of 29) in the front-rear direction when viewed in the axial direction in a reference state (Figure A) where the front-wheel rotational axis is parallel (since both are oriented left-right in Figure 2) to the rear-wheel rotational axis 18, and the second distance (which accommodates both rear wheel 2 and wheel 28 outside of the radius of cutters 60 and 59, thus is greater than the second additional distance) is greater than the second additional distance.
Regarding claim 4, Ishimori, et al. teaches that the deck frame 55 includes a rear deck end (bottom of 55 in Figure 2), an additional rear distance (see Figure A above) is defined between the rear deck end and the rear wheel 2 (at the front/top part of the wheel) in the front-rear direction when viewed in the axial direction, and the additional rear distance is less than a half of the first cutting diameter (width of 58).
Regarding claim 7, Ishimori, et al. teaches that a first front distance (see Figure A above) is defined between the first rotational axis 53 and the front-wheel rotational axis in the front-rear direction when viewed in the axial direction in a reference state (the state shown in figure 2) where the front-wheel rotational axis is parallel (in the left -right direction in Figure 2) to the rear-wheel rotational axis 18, and the first front distance is less than or equal to the first cutting diameter (since 29’s axis overlaps with the diameter path of blade 58 as shown in dashed lines in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, Ishimori, et al. teaches that the front wheel 29 has a front-wheel radius (the radius of the wheel 29) defined from the front-wheel rotational axis, the deck frame 55 includes a front deck end (top of 55 in Figure 2), a first minimum distance (the distance between one segment of the sloped portion of 55 in figure 2) is defined between the front-wheel rotational axis and the front deck end (in which the front deck end extends above/forward of wheel 29) in the front-rear direction when viewed in the axial direction in a reference state (Figure 2) where the front-wheel rotational axis is parallel (as recited above) to the rear-wheel rotational axis 18, and the first minimum distance is less than the front-wheel radius (when selecting the first minimum distance to be on the sloped portion of 55 that is at a point within the radius of wheel 29).
Regarding claim 15, Ishimori, et al. teaches that the deck frame 55 comprises:
a cutting chamber (inside 55b) (inside 63) in which the first rotational axis 53 is provided when viewed in the axial direction;
a discharge opening 66 connected to the cutting chamber (inside 55b) (inside 63);
a top wall 55a to which the first cutting blade 58 is rotatably coupled;
a peripheral baffle 63 protruding from the top wall 55a in the axial direction (shown in Figure 4), the top wall 55a and the peripheral baffle 63 defining the cutting chamber (inside 55b) and the discharge opening 66; and
a first guide baffle 63a protruding from the top wall 55a in the axial direction, the first guide baffle 63a being provided in the cutting chamber (inside 55b) and extending linearly from the peripheral baffle 63 toward the discharge opening 66 to guide grass clippings from the first cutting blade 58 toward the discharge opening 66.
Regarding claim 16, Ishimori, et al. teaches that the mower deck 50 comprises a first guard baffle 63b protruding from the top wall 55a in the axial direction, the first guard baffle 63b being provided in the cutting chamber (inside 55b) and extending from the first guide baffle 63a (radially inward) toward the first rotational axis 53.
Regarding claim 17, Ishimori, et al. teaches that the mower deck 50 comprises:
a second cutting blade 59 coupled to the deck frame 55 rotatably about a second rotational axis 56; and
a third cutting blade 60 coupled to the deck frame 55 rotatably about a third rotational axis 57, the first rotational axis 53 is provided between the second rotational axis 56 and the third rotational axis 57 in a left-right direction (as shown in Figure 2) of the rear-discharge mower (Figure 1), the left-right direction being defined along the rear-wheel rotational axis 18, and the mover deck comprises a second guide baffle 64a protruding from the top wall 55a in the axial direction, the second guide baffle 64a being provided in the cutting chamber (inside 55b) and extending linearly from the peripheral baffle 63 toward the discharge opening 66 to guide grass clippings from the second cutting blade 59 toward the discharge opening 66.
Regarding claim 18, Ishimori, et al. teaches that the mower deck 50 comprises:
a first guard baffle 63b protruding from the top wall 55a in the axial direction, the first guard baffle 63b being provided in the cutting chamber (inside 55b) and extending from the first guide baffle 63a toward (downward from the portion of 63a that is generally left-right in Figure 5, toward the horizontal level that 553 is disposed in Figure 5) the first rotational axis 53; and
a second guard baffle 65b protruding from the top wall 55a in the axial direction, the second guard baffle 65b being provided in the cutting chamber (inside 55b) and extending (in the direction) from the second guide baffle 64a toward the third rotational axis 57.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weems, et al. US2015/0359169.
Regarding claim 19, Weems, et al. teaches a rear-discharge mower (lawn mower ¶0001, wherein the term “rear discharge” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation to include a mower that discharges cuttings away from the front) comprising:
a vehicle body (necessarily occurring to provide the mower);
a front wheel 408 coupled to the vehicle body rotatably about a front-wheel rotational axis (axis for 408); and
a mower deck (Figure 5) comprising:
a deck frame 432 coupled to the vehicle body; and
a cutting blade 401 (best shown in Figure 7) coupled to the deck frame 432 rotatably about a rotational axis (center of 401);
the deck frame 432 comprising:
a top wall 404 to which the cutting blade 401 is rotatably coupled;
a left-side wall (410, as shown in Figure 7) protruding from the top wall 404 in an axial direction (top to bottom in Figure 7) defined along the rotational axis;
a right-side wall 430 protruding from the top wall 404 in the axial direction, the right-side wall 430 being spaced apart from the left-side wall (410), the cutting blade 401 being provided between the left-side wall (410) and the right-side wall 430 in a left-right direction of the rear-discharge mower when viewed in the axial direction; and
a front-side wall 406 protruding from the top wall 404 in the axial direction, the front-side wall 406 coupling the left-side wall (410) and the right-side wall 430 and extending between the left-side wall (410) and the right-side wall 430, the front-side wall 406 comprising:
a first front deck end provided between the left-side wall (410) and the right-side wall 430 in the left-right direction;
a first front coupling portion (see Figure B, annotated from Figure 7) provided between the first front deck end and the left-side wall (410) in the left-right direction and coupling the first front deck end and the left-side wall (410); and
a second front coupling portion (see Figure B) provided between the second front deck end and the right-side wall 430 in the left-right direction and coupling the first front deck end and the right-side wall 430, and at least one of the first front coupling portion and the second front coupling portion including a recess configured to ensure a space between the front wheel 408 and the deck frame 432.
PNG
media_image2.png
431
715
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B: annotated figure 7
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(s) 5, 6, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishimori, et al. in view of Sugden US7197863 .
Regarding claim 5, Ishimori, et al. teaches the claim, as described above, but does not teach that the mower deck 50 is movably coupled to the vehicle body 3 between a lower position and an upper position, and the first rear distance is greater than the first cutting diameter (width of 58) in a lower-position state where the mower deck 50 is in the lower position.
Ishimori, et al., however, does teach the first rear distance is greater than the first cutting diameter (as described above).
Sugden teaches it is known in the art to raise and lower the deck to have a lower-position state in the lower position (Figure 2, solid lines versus dashed lines for cutter deck 40) to adjust the cutting height Column 1: 17-18 (“The cutting height also can be adjusted by raising or lowering the cutter deck through a more limited stroke and latching the cutter deck in position.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Ishimori, et al.’s mower deck to be able to be raised and lowered as in Sugden, such that the cutting height can be changed. Such a modification would provide the mower deck with a lower-position state in the lower position. Such a modification would also provide the first rear distance greater than the first cutting diameter, since the deck is merely raised and lowered.
Regarding claim 6, Ishimori, et al. of the combination teaches that the first rear distance is greater than the first cutting diameter (width of 58) in each of the lower-position state and an upper-position state (since the modification merely raises and lowers the deck) where the mower deck 50 is in the upper position (wherein Ishimori teaches this limitation regardless of which position the deck would be in).
Regarding claim 8, Ishimori, et al. teaches the claim, as described above, but does not teach that the mower deck 50 is movably coupled to the vehicle body 3 between a lower position and an upper position, and the first front distance is less than or equal to the first cutting diameter (width of 58) in a lower-position state where the mower deck 50 is in the lower position.
Ishimori, et al. teaches the first front distance is less than or equal to the first cutting diameter (as recited above).
Sugden teaches it is known in the art to raise and lower the deck to have a lower-position state in the lower position (as recited above).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Ishimori, et al.’s mower deck to be able to be raised and lowered as in Sugden, such that the cutting height can be changed. Such a modification would provide the mower deck with a lower-position state in the lower position. Such a modification would also provide the first front distance less than or equal to the first cutting diameter, since the deck is merely raised and lowered.
Regarding claim 10, Ishimori, et al. teaches the claim, as described above, but does not teach that the mower deck 50 is movably coupled to the vehicle body 3 between a lower position and an upper position, and the first minimum distance is less than the front-wheel radius in a lower-position state where the mower deck 50 is in the lower position.
Ishimori, et al. teaches the first minimum distance is less than the front-wheel radius.
Sugden teaches it is known in the art to raise and lower the deck to have a lower-position state in the lower position (as recited above).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Ishimori, et al.’s mower deck to be able to be raised and lowered as in Sugden, such that the cutting height can be changed. Such a modification would provide the mower deck with a lower-position state in the lower position. Such a modification would also provide the first minimum distance is less than the front-wheel radius, since the deck is merely raised and lowered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 11, Ishimori, et al. teaches that the front deck end includes a first front deck end (middle of front of 3), a second front deck end (left), and a third front deck end (right), the first front deck end is provided between the second front deck end and the third front deck end in a left-right direction of the rear-discharge mower (Figure 2), the left-right direction being defined along the rear-wheel rotational axis 18, the first minimum distance is defined between the front-wheel rotational axis and the first front deck end in the front-rear direction when viewed in the axial direction in the reference state (as described above)
Ishimori, et al. does not teach, in combination, a second minimum distance is defined between the front-wheel rotational axis and the second front deck end in the front-rear direction when viewed in the axial direction in the reference state, a third minimum distance is defined between the front-wheel rotational axis and the third front deck end in the front-rear direction when viewed in the axial direction in the reference state, and the first minimum distance is less than the second minimum distance and the third minimum distance.
Modification would not have been obvious, as the spacing between the front wheel is required to provide desired ground support for the mowing deck, and the front of the mowing deck is provided protruding from these wheels. Further, a change of shape would make the nose less able to part crop or grass during travel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Matsubara, et al. US2025/0287870 teaches a rear-discharge mower with cutters 122, 121, and 123, and front 38 with a gap (on either side of 38).
Zeiler US2023/0180657 teaches a rear discharge mower 100 with a mowing deck 300 having multiple baffles 327, 337, and 316.
Takaoka US2016/0192585 teaches a grass mower 5 with a mowing deck 6 that can be raised and lowered (Figure 2 versus Figure 3), front wheels 11 and rear wheels 12.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cathleen Hutchins whose telephone number is (571)270-3651. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11am-9:30PM 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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/CATHLEEN R HUTCHINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672 7/21/2026
Prosecution Insights