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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 1A-15 and 24-32 are in gray-scale rather than composed of solid line drawings. See 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1) and 37 CFR 1.84 (l). 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 replacement 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
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, 2, 4-6, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Swan et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0055442).
In reference to claim 1, Swan discloses an apparatus 112, comprising:
an intake interface 113 that defines a first opening in the apparatus 112 and is configured to couple with a discharge port 114 of a mow deck 100 of a mowing machine (Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the intake interface 113 is configured to receive material from the mow deck at a first horizontal angle that is at least 55° away from a rear direction relative to the mow deck (Fig. 1, par. 0016, “inlet 113 may form segment of a circle or arc of at least about 45 degrees, up to about 90 degrees”);
an inner surface configured to redirect material received via the intake interface 113 to a second horizontal angle that is within 45° of the rear direction (Fig. 1); and
an output 115 configured to expel the material from the apparatus 112 (Fig. 1).
In reference to claim 2, Swan discloses that a front portion of the inner surface defines a circular arc segment 118 having a substantially constant distance from a tip of a mow blade 104 closest to the discharge port 114 within the mow deck 100, wherein the front portion is configured to redirect the material from the first horizontal angle to a third horizontal angle that is within 20° of the rear direction (Fig. 1).
In reference to claim 4, Swan discloses that the second horizontal angle is within 30° of the rear direction (Fig. 1).
In reference to claim 5, Swan discloses a bottom surface 116 configured to redirect the material upward into a range of trajectories having vertical angles equal to or greater than a first vertical angle defined by at least a portion of the bottom surface 116 (Fig. 4, par. 0017, “Bottom surface 116 may provide a shelf or ledge that slopes upwardly”).
In reference to claim 6, Swan discloses that the first vertical angle is at least 10° above horizontal (Fig. 4).
In reference to claim 8, Swan discloses that at least part of an upper portion of the inner surface is sloped outward away from the mow deck 100 at a vertical angle of 45° or more above horizontal (Fig. 4).
In reference to claim 10, Swan discloses that the output 115 is configured to expel the material into one of an active bagging system or a passive bagging system (par. 0015, “112 may be a one-piece plastic member connecting the mower deck to a hopper or bag”).
In reference to claim 11, Swan discloses a lawn maintenance apparatus, comprising:
a frame (par. 0013, “tractor, utility vehicle or zero turn mower”);
a mow deck 100 attached to the frame (par. 0013); and
a rearward discharge housing 112, comprising:
an intake interface 113 that defines a first opening in the housing 112 and is configured to couple with a discharge port 114 of the mow deck 100, wherein the intake interface 113 is configured to receive material from the mow deck at a first horizontal angle that is at least 55° away from a rear direction relative to the mow deck 10 (Figs. 1 and 2);
an inner surface configured to redirect material received via the intake interface 113 to a second horizontal angle that is within 45° of the rear direction (Fig. 2); and
an output 115 configured to expel the material from the housing 112 (Fig. 2).
In reference to claim 12, Swan discloses that a front portion of the inner surface defines a circular arc segment 118 at a substantially constant distance from a tip of a mow blade 104 of the mow deck 100, wherein the front portion is configured to redirect the material from the first horizontal angle to a third horizontal angle that is within 20° of the rear direction (Fig. 1).
In reference to claim 14, Swan discloses a bottom surface 116 configured to redirect the material upward into a range of trajectories having vertical angles equal to or greater than a first vertical angle defined by at least a portion of the bottom surface 116 (Fig. 4, par. 0017, “Bottom surface 116 may provide a shelf or ledge that slopes upwardly”).
In reference to claim 15, Swan discloses that the first vertical angle is at least 10° above horizontal (Fig. 4).
In reference to claim 17, Swan discloses that at least part of an upper portion of the inner surface is sloped outward away from the mow deck at a vertical angle of 45° or more above horizontal (Fig. 4).
In reference to claim 19, Swan discloses that the output 115 is configured to expel the material into one of an active bagging system or a passive bagging system (par. 0015, “112 may be a one-piece plastic member connecting the mower deck to a hopper or bag”).
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.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swan et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0055442) in view of Dacus et al. (US Patent No. 3,680,294).
In reference to claim 3, Swan discloses a substantially constant distance between circular arc segment 118 and a tip of a mow blade 104 (Fig. 3) but does not disclose the exact distance.
Dacus discloses a distance of .125 inch between a tip of a mower blade and the surrounding wall (col. 2, line 10). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to dispose the tip of the mower blade .125 in. from the exterior wall of the mower deck with a reasonable expectation of success as a .125 in. gap is known in the art to be effective for “upward drawing action or suction on the grass “ (col. 2, line12-13).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swan et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0055442) in view of Dacus et al. (US Patent No. 3,680,294) and McCunn et al. (US Patent No. 5,488,821).
In reference to claim 7, Swan discloses that a front portion of the inner surface defines a circular arc segment 118 having a substantially constant distance from a tip of a mow blade 104 of the mow deck 100 (Fig. 3) but does not disclose the exact distance.
Dacus discloses a distance of .125 inch between a tip of a mower blade and the surrounding wall (col. 2, line 10). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to dispose the tip of the mower blade .125 in. from the exterior wall of the mower deck with a reasonable expectation of success as a .125 in. gap is known in the art to be effective for “upward drawing action or suction on the grass “ (col. 2, line12-13).
Swan also fails to disclose that the bottom surface further comprises a recirculation surface configured to direct a portion of the material away from the intake interface to recirculate within an interior of the mow deck.
McCunn discloses a bottom surface 62 comprising a recirculation surface 26 configured to direct a portion of the material away from the intake interface to recirculate within an interior of the mow deck 16 (Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a recirculation surface with a reasonable expectation of success so that the material will be recirculated through the mower blades.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swan et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0055442) in view of McCunn et al. (US Patent No. 5,488,821).
In reference to claims 9 and 18, Swan discloses that the upper portion of the inner surface defines a discharge surface (Fig. 4) and the discharge surface has the vertical angle of 45° or more above horizontal (Fig. 4).
Swan fails to disclose a recirculation surface separated from the discharge surface by a surface edge, wherein the recirculation surface is approximately vertical.
McCunn discloses a recirculation surface 26 separated from the discharge surface by a surface edge 62, wherein the recirculation surface 26 is approximately vertical (Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a recirculation surface with a reasonable expectation of success so that the material will be recirculated through the mower blades.
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swan et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0055442) in view of Zeiler et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0180657).
In reference to claim 20, Swan fails to disclose a center baffle arranged between a first mow spindle adjacent to the discharge port and a second mow spindle farther from the discharge port than the first mow spindle, wherein the center baffle is configured to block a direct path of material from the second mow spindle to the discharge port.
Zeiler discloses a center baffle 815 arranged between a first mow spindle 810 adjacent to the discharge port 832 and a second mow spindle 810 farther from the discharge port 832 than the first mow spindle 810, wherein the center baffle 815 is configured to block a direct path of material from the second mow spindle 810 to the discharge port 832 (Fig. 23, par. 0117). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a center baffle with a reasonable expectation of success to block a direct path of material from the second mow spindle to the discharge port.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Berglund et al. (US Patent No. 10,694,673) discloses a mower with a rearward discharge housing 48 (Fig. 5); DeHart (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0237800) discloses a mower wit ha rearward discharge housing 33 (Fig. 1); and Moery (US Patent No. 3,934392) discloses a mower with a rearward discharge housing 19 (Fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAD HARCOURT whose telephone number is (571)272-7303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9am to 6pm.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571)272-4137. 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.
/BRAD HARCOURT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
9/14/26
Prosecution Insights