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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the figures have uneven lineweight, and have cross section without proper cross hatching. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacem ent drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 2, 6, 11, 12, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weihl US2022/0030765.
Regarding claim 1, Weihl teaches a lawn maintenance device 10 with blower assisted bagging (blowing away from the mower 10 is considered blower assisted bagging due to the cutting being blown towards a specific location that is capable of being bagged, since the bagging is not positively required in the claim), comprising:
a deck (Figure 5: area supporting 180-184) having a blade set 180-184 mounted thereon, said blade set 180-184 adapted to be operated at some blade speed (necessarily provided to rotate the blades) to trim vegetation to generate trimmings (the cuttings described in ¶0003), said deck further having a deck output (left side of 150 in Figure 7) adapted to eject therefrom a trimming mixture (the cuttings in the chute) formed of the trimmings suspended in air;
an elongated discharge chute 152 defining a chute input (inside 150 along the planar surface open to the ground, defined by the sidewalls of 150) and a chute output (outside 152), the chute output offset from the chute input by a chute elongation path (the length of chute 152), the chute input operatively engaged to the deck output to receive the trimming mixture, the discharge chute being adapted to convey at least part of the trimming mixture along the chute to the chute output; and
an electric blower 100 (wherein 200039 describes an electric motor power source 12, thus making the blower electric) having a blower intake 110 and a blower ejection 122, the blower adapted to operate at some blower speed (necessarily occurs to provide discharge) to output an energized fluid stream (arrow shown in Figure 7) into the discharge chute at a location on the chute elongation path (wherein 170 feeds air into 156) between the chute input and the chute output.
Regarding claim 2, Weihl teaches that the blower speed is adjustable by a user (necessarily occurs during turning the machine on and off ).
Regarding claim 6, Weihl teaches that the blower intake 110 is entirely outside of the discharge chute (as shown in Figure 2, where 110 is above 150, thus intake 110 is considered to be outside of the chute).
Regarding claim 11, Weihl teaches a method of using a lawn maintenance device 10 with blower assisted bagging, comprising:
providing a lawn maintenance device 10 with blower assisted bagging, the lawn maintenance device 10 with blower assisted bagging having, a deck (Figure 5: area supporting 180-184) having a blade set 180-184 mounted thereon, said blade set 180-184 adapted to be operated at some blade speed (necessarily provided to rotate the blades) to trim vegetation to generate trimmings (the cuttings described in ¶0003), said deck further having a deck output (left side of 150 in Figure 7) adapted to eject therefrom a trimming mixture formed of the trimmings suspended in air ,an elongated discharge chute 152 defining a chute input (inside 150) and a chute output (outside 152), the chute output offset from the chute input by a chute elongation path (the length of chute 152), the chute input operatively engaged to the deck output to receive the trimming mixture, the discharge chute being 2 040158 3081P2.US adapted to convey at least part of the trimming mixture along the chute to the chute output, and an electric blower 100 having a blower intake 110 and a blower ejection 122, the blower adapted to operate at some blower speed to output an energized fluid stream (arrow shown in Figure 7) into the discharge chute at a location on the chute elongation path (wherein 170 feeds air into 156) between the chute input and the chute output;
generating trimmings (the above described cuttings) by operating the blade set 180-184 at some first operational speed to trim vegetation;
ejecting from the deck output the trimmings (towards 152 inside 150) as a trimming mixture of trimmings mixed in air;
receiving the trimming mixture in the discharge chute (wherein the trimmings are moved within 150 and 152); and
operating the electric blower 100 to at some first blower speed to output an energized fluid stream (arrow shown in Figure 7) into the discharge chute.
Regarding claim 12, Weihl teaches that the blower speed is adjustable by a user (necessarily occurs during turning the machine on and off ).
Regarding claim 16, Weihl teaches that the blower intake 110 is entirely outside of the discharge chute (as shown in Figure 2, where 110 is above 150).
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) 1-5, 8-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tackett US4426830 in view of Illingworth, et al. US6565321.
Regarding claim 1, Tackett teaches a lawn maintenance device 10 with blower assisted bagging (wherein Figure 1 shows bagging area 30), comprising:
a deck 71 having a blade set mounted thereon, said blade set adapted to be operated at some blade speed to trim vegetation to generate trimmings, said deck 71 further having a deck output (top of 71) adapted to eject therefrom a trimming mixture (clippings described in Column 3: 20-21) formed of the trimmings suspended in air;
an elongated discharge chute 42 (or can alternatively include 59) defining a chute input (between 42 and 71) and a chute output 41 (or, if the chute includes 59, selected to be top of 59 as shown in Figure 3), the chute output 41 offset from the chute input (between 42 and 71) by a chute elongation path, the chute input operatively engaged to the deck output (top of 71) to receive the trimming mixture, the discharge chute 42 being adapted to convey at least part of the trimming mixture along the chute to the chute output 41; and
a blower 21 having a blower intake 58 (wherein 58 pulls in clippings from chute 42, thus is considered an intake) and a blower ejection (top of 58 adjacent 59), the blower adapted to operate at some blower speed (necessarily required to rotate blades 21) to output an energized fluid stream (Column 5:35-39 “clippings produced by lawn mower blades 61 of FIG. 3 are thrown and blown into adapter 42 and drawn through the conveyor duct assembly into the blower duct housing 20 by the blower impeller blades 21”) into the discharge chute 42 at a location on the chute elongation path between the chute input (between 42 and 71) and the chute output (when output is 41, the vacuum produced by the impeller is the energized fluid stream, and when the output is top of 59, the energized fluid stream is the air produced by rotating the impeller 21).
Tackett does not teach the blower being electric.
Illingworth, et al. teaches that it is well known in the art to provide an electric motor (column 4: 46-48 “driveshaft may be powered by any conceivable means, such as AC or DC electric motors, gas or fuel combustion motors”), as a known alternative for other motor power, for driving an impeller/blower 40b a self bagging mower Column 30: 31-33.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Tackett’s motor to use an electric motor as taught by Illingworth, et al., as a known alternative means for providing desired motive force for the blower for the mower, thus making this an electric blower.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Tackett teaches that the blower speed is adjustable by a user (by turning the machine off and on, wherein off is a speed of 0 RPMs, and on is a non-zero speed).
Regarding claims 3, 5, 9, 13, 15, and 19 Tackett teaches the claim, as described above, but does not teach that the blower speed is adjustable independently of the blade speed among a plurality of discrete blower speeds.
Illingworth, et al. teaches that it is known in the art to adjust the blower/impeller speed to change a rotational speed or velocity component 37 for the vortex , such that the blower speed is adjustable independently (Column 6: 5-8 “ For optimal suspension, a responsive control system is provided which senses any change which may affect the required impeller speed and accordingly adjust the speed”) of the blade speed among a plurality of discrete blower speeds (Column 6: 18-23 “ the pressure differential (and hence the attractive forces) may be varied for certain applications (i.e., maintain separate distances between the impeller end and the surface) by changing the speed of the impellers. The impeller speed can be changed by varying the power input or with a gear transmission system”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Tackett’s motor to be able to adjust the rotational speed/ velocity to a plurality of discreet blower speeds, in view of Illingworth, et al.’s adjustable velocity for the blower/impeller, to provide the predictable result of adjusting speed and thus the vortex for different applications).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Tackett teaches that the blower intake 58 is entirely contained within the discharge chute 42 (when chute extends to 59).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Tackett teaches that the blower intake 58 is partially outside of the discharge chute 42 and partially inside the discharge chute 42 (when the discharge chute is defined by 42 alone, wherein the portion interfacing 41 as shown in figure 1 is the intake that is partially inside the discharge chute, and wherein the portion that forms 58 is at least partially outside of the chute, since it is larger in diameter than the chute)
Regarding claim 10, Illingworth, et al. teaches that the blower speed is user selectable among a plurality of linear functions of blade speed (the above described velocities) wherein, in each of the plurality of linear functions of blade speed, the blower speed varies linearly between a non-zero zephyr speed and a pre-determined percentage of maximum operational blower speed (wherein the velocities/speeds described above are the non-zero zephyr speed and the predetermined speed that’s a percentage of a max operational speed, since any speeds/velocities that are not zero and not the max speed are considered to meet these two limitations).
Regarding claim 11, Tackett teaches a method of using a lawn maintenance device 10 with blower assisted bagging, comprising:
providing a lawn maintenance device 10 with blower assisted bagging, the lawn maintenance device 10 with blower assisted bagging having, a deck 71 having a blade set mounted thereon, said blade set adapted to be operated at some blade speed to trim vegetation to generate trimmings, said deck 71 further having a deck output (top of 71) adapted to eject therefrom a trimming mixture (clippings described in Column 3: 20-21) formed of the trimmings suspended in air ,an elongated discharge chute 42 defining a chute input (between 42 and 71) and a chute output 41, the chute output 41 offset from the chute input (between 42 and 71) by a chute elongation path, the chute input (between 42 and 71) operatively engaged to the deck output (top of 71) to receive the trimming mixture, the discharge chute 42 being 2 040158 3081P2.US adapted to convey at least part of the trimming mixture along the chute to the chute output 41, and a blower 21 having a blower intake 58 and a blower ejection (top of 58 adjacent 59), the blower adapted to operate at some blower speed (necessarily required to rotate blades 21) to output an energized fluid stream (Column 5:35-39) into the discharge chute 42 at a location on the chute elongation path between the chute input (between 42 and 71) and the chute output 41;
generating trimmings (clippings) by operating the blade set at some first operational speed to trim vegetation;
ejecting from the deck output (top of 71) the trimmings as a trimming mixture (clippings described in Column 3: 20-21) of trimmings mixed in air;
receiving the trimming mixture in the discharge chute 42; and
operating the blower to at some first blower speed (necessarily required to perform blowing functions) to output an energized fluid stream (Column 5:35-39) into the discharge chute 42.
Tackett does not teach the blower being electric.
Illingworth, et al. teaches that it is well known in the art to provide an electric motor (column 4: 46-48 “driveshaft may be powered by any conceivable means, such as AC or DC electric motors, gas or fuel combustion motors”), as a known alternative for other motor power, for driving an impeller/blower 40b a self bagging mower Column 30: 31-33.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Tackett’s motor to use an electric motor as taught by Illingworth, et al., as a known alternative means for providing desired motive force for the blower for the mower, thus making this an electric blower.
Regarding claim 20, Tackett teaches a lawn maintenance device 10 with blower assisted bagging, comprising: a deck 71 having a blade set mounted thereon, said blade set adapted to be operated at some blade speed to trim vegetation to generate trimmings, said deck 71 further having a deck output (top of 71) adapted to eject therefrom a trimming mixture (clippings described in Column 3: 20-21) formed of the trimmings suspended in air; an elongated discharge chute 42 defining a chute input (between 42 and 71) and a chute output 41, the chute output 41 offset from the chute input (between 42 and 71) by a chute elongation path, the chute input (between 42 and 71) operatively engaged to the deck output (top of 71) to receive the trimming mixture, the discharge chute 42 being adapted to convey at least part of the trimming mixture along the chute to the chute output 41;
a blower 21 having a blower intake 58 and a blower ejection (top of 58 adjacent 59), the blower adapted to operate at some blower speed (necessarily required to rotate blades 21) to output an energized fluid stream (Column 5:35-39) into the discharge chute 42 at a location on the chute elongation path between the chute input (between 42 and 71) and the chute output 41;
wherein the blower intake 58 is partially outside of the discharge chute 42 and partially inside the discharge chute 42; and wherein the energized fluid stream is along a direction is an angle of within 20 degrees (wherein the fluid stream is parallel to the chute path when the chute extends to 59, thus is within 20 degrees) to the chute elongation path
Tackett does not teach the blower being electric.
Illingworth, et al. teaches that it is well known in the art to provide an electric motor (column 4: 46-48 “driveshaft may be powered by any conceivable means, such as AC or DC electric motors, gas or fuel combustion motors”), as a known alternative for other motor power, for driving an impeller/blower 40b a self-bagging mower Column 30: 31-33.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Tackett’s motor to use an electric motor as taught by Illingworth, et al., as a known alternative means for providing desired motive force for the blower for the mower, thus making this an electric blower.
Tackett does not teach the blower is electric, and wherein the blower speed is user selectable among at least two linear functions of blade speed wherein, in each of the at least two linear functions of blade speed, the blower speed varies linearly between a non-zero zephyr speed and a pre-determined percentage of maximum operational blower speed wherein in one of the at least two linear functions the blower speed varies linearly between a non-zero zephyr speed and 100% of maximum operational blower speed;
Illingworth, et al. teaches that it is known in the art to adjust the blower/impeller speed to change a rotational speed or velocity component 37 for the vortex , such that the blower speed is adjustable independently (Column 6: 5-8 “ For optimal suspension, a responsive control system is provided which senses any change which may affect the required impeller speed and accordingly adjust the speed”) of the blade speed among a plurality of discrete blower speeds (Column 6: 18-23 “ the pressure differential (and hence the attractive forces) may be varied for certain applications (i.e., maintain separate distances between the impeller end and the surface) by changing the speed of the impellers. The impeller speed can be changed by varying the power input or with a gear transmission system”).
Illingworth teaches the blower speed is user selectable among at least two linear functions of blade speed wherein, in each of the at least two linear functions of blade speed, the blower speed varies linearly between a non-zero zephyr speed and a pre-determined percentage of maximum operational blower speed wherein in one of the at least two linear functions the blower speed varies linearly between a non-zero zephyr speed and 100% of maximum operational blower speed; and wherein the energized fluid stream (Column 5:35-39) is along a direction is an angle of within 20 degrees to the chute elongation path. Illingworth, et al. teaches that it is known in the art to adjust the blower/impeller speed to change a rotational speed or velocity component 37 for the vortex , such that the blower speed is adjustable independently (Column 6: 5-8 “ For optimal suspension, a responsive control system is provided which senses any change which may affect the required impeller speed and accordingly adjust the speed”) of the blade speed among a plurality of discrete blower speeds (Column 6: 18-23 “ the pressure differential (and hence the attractive forces) may be varied for certain applications (i.e., maintain separate distances between the impeller end and the surface) by changing the speed of the impellers. The impeller speed can be changed by varying the power input or with a gear transmission system”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Tackett’s motor to be able to adjust the rotational speed/ velocity to a plurality of discreet blower speeds as claimed, in view of Illingworth, et al.’s adjustable velocity for the blower/impeller, to provide the predictable result of adjusting speed and thus the vortex for different applications.
Claim(s) 3, 7, 13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weihl in view of Illingworth, et al.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Weihl teaches the claim, as described above, but does not teach that the blower speed is adjustable independently of the blade speed among a plurality of discrete blower speeds.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Weihl teaches the claim, as described above, but does not teach that the blower speed is adjustable independently of the blade speed among a plurality of discrete blower speeds.
Illingworth, et al. teaches that it is known in the art to adjust the blower/impeller speed to change a rotational speed or velocity component 37 for the vortex , such that the blower speed is adjustable independently (Column 6: 5-8 “ For optimal suspension, a responsive control system is provided which senses any change which may affect the required impeller speed and accordingly adjust the speed”) of the blade speed among a plurality of discrete blower speeds (Column 6: 18-23 “ the pressure differential (and hence the attractive forces) may be varied for certain applications (i.e., maintain separate distances between the impeller end and the surface) by changing the speed of the impellers. The impeller speed can be changed by varying the power input or with a gear transmission system”). These speeds are considered discrete blower speeds, as they are non-zero and are varied.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Weihl’s motor to be able to adjust the rotational speed/ velocity to a plurality of discreet blower speeds as claimed, in view of Illingworth, et al.’s adjustable velocity for the blower/impeller, to provide the predictable result of adjusting speed and thus the vortex for different applications.
Conclusion
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 8/6/2026
Prosecution Insights