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 1-20 are currently pending in this application and are subject to examination herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/08/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is 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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Korean Pat. Pub. No. KR 200355986 Y1 to Kim.
Regarding claim 16, Kim discloses a pivot assembly to pivotally couple a first portion of a working vehicle to a second portion of the working vehicle (Abstract; Figs. 2-3), the pivot assembly comprising:
first and second tapered bushings (bushings 50) (Figs. 2-3; P. 1, lines 12-17; p. 3, lines 3-20; p. 3, lines 27-47) defining respective first and second at least partially frustoconical apertures (see Figs. 2-3) having respective first and second tapered bushing taper angles (see Figs. 2-3), the first and second tapered bushings (bushings 50) (Figs. 2-3; P. 1, lines 12-17; p. 3, lines 3-20; p. 3, lines 27-47) associated with the first portion of the working vehicle;
a pivot connected to the first portion of the working vehicle, the pivot defining a pivot axis and comprising a sleeve (bushing 20 and/or arm 200) (Figs. 2-3; P. 2, lines 15-29; p. 3, lines 3-47) positioned between the first and second tapered bushings (bushings 50) (Figs. 2-3; P. 1, lines 12-17; p. 3, lines 3-20; p. 3, lines 27-47), the sleeve (bushing 20 and/or arm 200) (Figs. 2-3; P. 2, lines 15-29; p. 3, lines 3-47) associated with the second portion of the working vehicle (Abstract; Figs. 2-3);
a pin (pin 10) (Figs. 2-3; P. 3, lines 11-47) passing through the first and second tapered bushings (bushings 50) (Figs. 2-3; P. 1, lines 12-17; p. 3, lines 3-20; p. 3, lines 27-47) and the sleeve (bushing 20 and/or arm 200) (Figs. 2-3; P. 2, lines 15-29; p. 3, lines 3-47), the pin (pin 10) (Figs. 2-3; P. 3, lines 11-47) comprising:
a threaded first end portion (threaded end portion of pin 10 near tapered nut 60, as depicted in Figs. 2-3);
a second end portion (end portion of pin 10 near tapered part 16, as depicted in Figs. 2-3) defining a frustoconical shape (see Figs. 2-3) having a pin taper angle corresponding to the second tapered bushing taper angle (see Figs. 2-3); and
a center portion (central portion of pin 10, as depicted in Figs. 2-3) having a cylindrical outer diameter (see Figs. 2-3) configured to be rotatably positioned within the sleeve (bushing 20 and/or arm 200) (Figs. 2-3; P. 2, lines 15-29; p. 3, lines 3-47); and
a nut (tapered nut 60) (Abstract; Figs. 2-3; P. 3, lines 12-47) configured to threadably engage the threaded first end portion (threaded end portion of pin 10 near tapered nut 60, as depicted in Figs. 2-3), the nut (tapered nut 60) (Abstract; Figs. 2-3; P. 3, lines 12-47) defining an at least partially frustoconical exterior surface having a nut taper angle corresponding to the first tapered bushing taper angle (see Figs. 2-3).
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 11,382,263 to Tate et al. (hereinafter Tate) (cited by Applicant in IDS filed on 12/08/2025) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 6,135,469 to Hulstein et al. (hereinafter Hulstein).
Regarding claim 1, Tate discloses an articulating mower deck comprising:
a first deck section (center deck section 202) (Fig. 3; Col. 6, lines 47-67);
a second deck section (wing deck section 204a) (Fig. 13A; Col. 6, lines 47-67); and
a pivot assembly (fold mechanism 250) (Fig. 6; Col. 7, lines 23-45) connecting the first deck section (center deck section 202) (Fig. 3; Col. 6, lines 47-67) to the second deck section (wing deck section 204a) (Fig. 13A; Col. 6, lines 47-67).
However, Tate does not disclose the pivot assembly comprising:
first and second tapered bushings defining respective first and second at least partially frustoconical apertures having respective first and second tapered bushing taper angles, the first and second tapered bushings associated with the first deck section;
a sleeve associated with the second deck section and positioned between the first and second tapered bushings; and
a pin disposed within the first and second tapered bushings and the sleeve, the pin configured to compressively engage the first and second tapered bushings and comprising:
a first end portion defining a first frustoconical shape having a first pin taper angle corresponding to the first tapered bushing taper angle;
a second end portion defining a second frustoconical shape having a second pin taper angle corresponding to the second tapered bushing taper angle; and
a center portion between the first and second end portions configured to be rotatably positioned within the sleeve.
Nevertheless, Hulstein teaches a pivot assembly comprising:
first and second tapered bushings (locking wedges 96 and 98) (Fig. 3; Col. 4, lines 8-28) defining respective first and second at least partially frustoconical apertures having respective first and second tapered bushing taper angles (see Fig. 3), the first and second tapered bushings (locking wedges 96 and 98) (Fig. 3; Col. 4, lines 8-28) associated with the first deck section (i.e., first structure);
a sleeve (rubber bushing 60 and/or sleeve 62) (Fig. 3; Col. 3, lines 49-51) associated with the second deck section (i.e., second structure) and positioned between the first and second tapered bushings (locking wedges 96 and 98) (Fig. 3; Col. 4, lines 8-28); and
a pin (pin 64) (Fig. 3; Col. 3, line 52 to col. 4, line 14) disposed within the first and second tapered bushings (locking wedges 96 and 98) (Fig. 3; Col. 4, lines 8-28) and the sleeve (rubber bushing 60 and/or sleeve 62) (Fig. 3; Col. 3, lines 49-51), the pin (pin 64) (Fig. 3; Col. 3, line 52 to col. 4, line 14) configured to compressively engage the first and second tapered bushings (locking wedges 96 and 98) (Fig. 3; Col. 4, lines 8-28) and comprising:
a first end portion (see Annotated Fig. 3 of Hulstein infra) defining a first frustoconical shape having a first pin taper angle corresponding to the first tapered bushing taper angle;
a second end portion (see Annotated Fig. 3 of Hulstein infra) defining a second frustoconical shape having a second pin taper angle corresponding to the second tapered bushing taper angle; and
a center portion (see Annotated Fig. 3 of Hulstein infra) between the first and second end portions (see Annotated Fig. 3 of Hulstein infra) configured to be rotatably positioned within the sleeve (rubber bushing 60 and/or sleeve 62) (Fig. 3; Col. 3, lines 49-51).
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Center Portion)][AltContent: textbox (First End Portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second End Portion)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
458
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Hulstein.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the pivot assembly taught in Hulstein in place of the pivot assembly disclosed in Tate with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a pivot assembly that enhances safety, accommodates frame width and thickness variations, make the and controls lateral movement of the connected components with respect to each other, is quickly and easily bolted onto the frame members, and permits compliance if frame twist occurs as taught in Hulstein (Col. 1, lines 43-61). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the pivot assembly taught in Hulstein in place of the pivot assembly disclosed in Tate 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).
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 11,382,263 to Tate et al. (hereinafter Tate) (cited by Applicant in IDS filed on 12/08/2025) in view of Korean Pat. Pub. No. KR 200355986 Y1 to Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Tate discloses an articulating mower deck comprising:
a first deck section (center deck section 202) (Fig. 3; Col. 6, lines 47-67);
a second deck section (wing deck section 204a) (Fig. 13A; Col. 6, lines 47-67); and
a pivot assembly (fold mechanism 250) (Fig. 6; Col. 7, lines 23-45) connecting the first deck section (center deck section 202) (Fig. 3; Col. 6, lines 47-67) to the second deck section (wing deck section 204a) (Fig. 13A; Col. 6, lines 47-67).
However, Tate does not disclose the pivot assembly comprising:
first and second tapered bushings defining respective first and second at least partially frustoconical apertures having respective first and second tapered bushing taper angles, the first and second tapered bushings associated with the first deck section;
a sleeve associated with the second deck section and positioned between the first and second tapered bushings; and
a pin disposed within the first and second tapered bushings and the sleeve, the pin configured to compressively engage the first and second tapered bushings and comprising:
a first end portion defining a first frustoconical shape having a first pin taper angle corresponding to the first tapered bushing taper angle;
a second end portion defining a second frustoconical shape having a second pin taper angle corresponding to the second tapered bushing taper angle; and
a center portion between the first and second end portions configured to be rotatably positioned within the sleeve.
Nevertheless, Kim teaches a pivot assembly comprising:
first and second tapered bushings (bushings 50) (Figs. 2-3; P. 1, lines 12-17; p. 3, lines 3-20; p. 3, lines 27-47) defining respective first and second at least partially frustoconical apertures (see Figs. 2-3) having respective first and second tapered bushing taper angles (see Figs. 2-3), the first and second tapered bushings (bushings 50) (Figs. 2-3; P. 1, lines 12-17; p. 3, lines 3-20; p. 3, lines 27-47) associated with the first deck section (i.e., first structure);
a sleeve (bushing 20 and/or arm 200) (Figs. 2-3; P. 2, lines 15-29; p. 3, lines 3-47) associated with the second deck section (i.e., second structure) and positioned between the first and second tapered bushings (bushings 50) (Figs. 2-3; P. 1, lines 12-17; p. 3, lines 3-20; p. 3, lines 27-47); and
a pin (pin 10) (Figs. 2-3; P. 3, lines 11-47) disposed within the first and second tapered bushings (bushings 50) (Figs. 2-3; P. 1, lines 12-17; p. 3, lines 3-20; p. 3, lines 27-47) and the sleeve (bushing 20 and/or arm 200) (Figs. 2-3; P. 2, lines 15-29; p. 3, lines 3-47), the pin (pin 10) (Figs. 2-3; P. 3, lines 11-47) configured to compressively engage the first and second tapered bushings (bushings 50) (Figs. 2-3; P. 1, lines 12-17; p. 3, lines 3-20; p. 3, lines 27-47) and comprising:
a first end portion (end portion of pin 10 near tapered nut 60, as depicted in Figs. 2-3) defining a first frustoconical shape (see Figs. 2-3) having a first pin taper angle (see Figs. 2-3) corresponding to the first tapered bushing taper angle (see Figs. 2-3);
a second end portion (end portion of pin 10 near tapered part 16, as depicted in Figs. 2-3) defining a second frustoconical shape (see Figs. 2-3) having a second pin taper angle (see Figs. 2-3) corresponding to the second tapered bushing taper angle (see Figs. 2-3); and
a center portion (central portion of pin 10, as depicted in Figs. 2-3) between the first (end portion of pin 10 near tapered nut 60, as depicted in Figs. 2-3) and second end portions (end portion of pin 10 near tapered part 16, as depicted in Figs. 2-3) configured to be rotatably positioned within the sleeve (bushing 20 and/or arm 200) (Figs. 2-3; P. 2, lines 15-29; p. 3, lines 3-47).
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Center Portion)]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the pivot assembly taught in Kim in place of the pivot assembly disclosed in Tate 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 2, Tate in view of Kim teaches the articulating mower deck of claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Kim teaches that the first end portion (end portion of pin 10 near tapered nut 60, as depicted in Figs. 2-3) of the pin (pin 10) (Figs. 2-3; P. 3, lines 11-47) comprises a nut (tapered nut 60) (Abstract; Figs. 2-3; P. 3, lines 12-47) threadably engageable with a threaded end portion of the pin, wherein the first frustoconical shape having the first pin taper angle is defined by a nut taper angle (see Figs. 2-3) of the nut (tapered nut 60) (Abstract; Figs. 2-3; P. 3, lines 12-47).
Regarding claim 3, Tate in view of Kim teaches the articulating mower deck of claim 2 (see above). However, Kim does not expressly teach that the nut taper angle is between 10 and 60 degrees. Nevertheless, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 5, Tate in view of Kim teaches the articulating mower deck of claim 1 (see above). However, Kim does not expressly teach that the second pin taper angle is between 2 and 10 degrees. Nevertheless, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Claim(s) 10 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tate in view of Kim and further in view of Hulstein.
Regarding claim 10, Tate discloses a kit to pivotally couple (via fold mechanism 250) (Fig. 6; Col. 7, lines 23-45) a wing deck section (wing deck section 204a) (Fig. 13A; Col. 6, lines 47-67) to a center deck section (center deck section 202) (Fig. 3; Col. 6, lines 47-67) of an articulating mower deck. However, Tate does not disclose the kit comprising:
a first tapered bushing configured to be secured at an exterior face of a first lug of the wing deck section, the first tapered bushing defining an at least partially frustoconical aperture having a first tapered bushing taper angle;
a second tapered bushing configured to be secured at an exterior face of a second lug of the wing deck section, the second tapered bushing defining an at least partially frustoconical aperture having a second tapered bushing taper angle;
a resilient bushing configured to be securely received within a sleeve of a fold link pivotally connecting the wing deck section to the center deck section;
a pin configured to pass through the first and second tapered bushings, the first and second lugs, and the resilient bushing, the pin comprising:
a threaded first end portion;
a second end portion defining a frustoconical shape having a pin taper angle corresponding to the second tapered bushing taper angle; and
a center portion having a cylindrical outer diameter configured to be rotatably positioned within the resilient bushing; and
a nut configured to threadably engage the threaded first end portion, the nut comprising an at least partially frustoconical exterior surface having a nut taper angle corresponding to the first tapered bushing taper angle.
Nevertheless, Kim teaches a kit comprising:
a first tapered bushing (bushing 50) (Figs. 2-3; P. 1, lines 12-17; p. 3, lines 3-20; p. 3, lines 27-47) configured to be secured at an exterior face of a first lug (lug of arm 100) (Abstract; Fig. 2) of the wing deck section (i.e., second structure), the first tapered bushing (bushing 50) (Figs. 2-3; P. 1, lines 12-17; p. 3, lines 3-20; p. 3, lines 27-47) defining an at least partially frustoconical aperture having a first tapered bushing taper angle (see Figs. 2-3);
a second tapered bushing (bushing 50) (Figs. 2-3; P. 1, lines 12-17; p. 3, lines 3-20; p. 3, lines 27-47) configured to be secured at an exterior face of a second lug (lug of arm 100) (Abstract; Fig. 2) of the wing deck section (i.e., second structure), the second tapered bushing (bushing 50) (Figs. 2-3; P. 1, lines 12-17; p. 3, lines 3-20; p. 3, lines 27-47) defining an at least partially frustoconical aperture having a second tapered bushing taper angle (see Figs. 2-3);
a sleeve (bushing 20 and/or arm 200) (Figs. 2-3; P. 2, lines 15-29; p. 3, lines 3-47) of a fold link pivotally connecting the wing deck section (i.e., second structure) to the center deck section (i.e., first structure);
a pin (pin 10) (Figs. 2-3; P. 3, lines 11-47) configured to pass through the first and second tapered bushings (bushings 50) (Figs. 2-3; P. 1, lines 12-17; p. 3, lines 3-20; p. 3, lines 27-47), the first and second lugs, the pin (pin 10) (Figs. 2-3; P. 3, lines 11-47) comprising:
a threaded first end portion (threaded end portion of pin 10 near tapered nut 60, as depicted in Figs. 2-3);
a second end portion (end portion of pin 10 near tapered part 16, as depicted in Figs. 2-3) defining a frustoconical shape having a pin taper angle corresponding to the second tapered bushing taper angle (see Figs. 2-3); and
a center portion (central portion of pin 10, as depicted in Figs. 2-3) having a cylindrical outer diameter; and
a nut (tapered nut 60) (Abstract; Figs. 2-3; P. 3, lines 12-47) configured to threadably engage the threaded first end portion (threaded end portion of pin 10 near tapered nut 60, as depicted in Figs. 2-3), the nut (tapered nut 60) (Abstract; Figs. 2-3; P. 3, lines 12-47) comprising an at least partially frustoconical exterior surface having a nut taper angle corresponding to the first tapered bushing taper angle (see Figs. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the pivot assembly taught in Kim in place of the pivot assembly disclosed in Tate 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).
However, neither Tate nor Kim discloses or teaches a resilient bushing configured to be securely received within a sleeve, the pin configured to past through the resilient bushing or the center portion having a cylindrical configured to be rotatably positioned with in the resilient bushing.
Nevertheless, Hulstein teaches a resilient bushing configured to be securely received within a sleeve, the pin configured to past through the resilient bushing or the center portion having a cylindrical configured to be rotatably positioned with in the resilient bushing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the pivot assembly taught in Hulstein in place of the pivot assembly disclosed in Tate in view of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a pivot assembly that enhances safety, accommodates frame width and thickness variations, make the and controls lateral movement of the connected components with respect to each other, is quickly and easily bolted onto the frame members, and permits compliance if frame twist occurs as taught in Hulstein (Col. 1, lines 43-61). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the pivot assembly taught in Hulstein in place of the pivot assembly disclosed in Tate in view of Kim 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 13, Tate in view of Kim and further in view of Hulstein teaches the kit of claim 10 (see above). However, neither Tate, Kim nor Hulstein expressly discloses or teaches that the pin taper angle is between 2 and 10 degrees. Nevertheless, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 14, Tate in view of Kim and further in view of Hulstein teaches the kit of claim 10 (see above). However, neither Tate, Kim nor Hulstein expressly discloses or teaches that the nut taper angle is between 10 and 60 degrees. Nevertheless, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 15, Tate in view of Kim and further in view of Hulstein teaches the kit of claim 10 (see above). However, neither Tate, Kim nor Hulstein expressly discloses or teaches that the resilient bushing comprises plastic. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tate in view of Kim and further in view of Hulstein to have the resilient bushing be made out of plastic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tate in view of Kim and further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0017532 to Yue.
Regarding claim 4, Tate in view of Kim teaches the articulating mower deck of claim 2 (see above). However, Kim does not expressly teach a threadlocking compound between the nut and the threaded end portion of the pin, a threadlocking device between the nut and the threaded end portion of the pin, or a combination thereof. Nevertheless, thread-locking compounds an devices are quite well known in the art. Yue teaches that it is known in the prior art to use various locking mechanisms, such as lock washers, jam nuts and/or thread-locking fluid to secure and minimize loosening of nuts due to vibration and in conditions where a nut-bolt combination may endure shocks (Para. [0003]). 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 articulated mower deck taught by Tate in view of Kim with the addition of a thread-locking compound and/or thread-locking devices to secure and minimize loosening of nuts due to vibration and in conditions where a nut-bolt combination may endure shocks, as taught by Yue (Para. [0003]).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Hulstein.
Regarding claim 17, Kim discloses the pivot assembly of claim 16 (see above). However, Kim does not disclose the pivot assemblyHowh further comprising a resilient bushing securely received within the sleeve and disposed within an annular space between the sleeve and the center portion of the pin. Nevertheless, Hulstein teaches a pivot assembly further comprising a resilient bushing (rubber bushing 60) (Fig. 3; Col. 3, lines 49-51) and a sleeve (sleeve 62) (Fig. 3; Col. 3, lines 49-51). However, Hulstein teaches the sleeve being securely received inside the resilient bushing rather than the resilient bushing being securely received within the sleeve and disposed within an annular space between the sleeve and the center portion of the pin. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kim with Hulstein 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). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim and Hulstein with a reasonable expectation of success to reverse the relative locations of the sleeve and resilient bushing, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 18, Kim in view of Hulstein teaches the pivot assembly of claim 17 (see above). However, neither Kim nor Hulstein expressly discloses or teaches that the resilient bushing comprises plastic. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim in view of Hulstein to have the resilient bushing be made out of plastic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9, 11-12 and 19-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Pat. No. 3,742,584 to Marcoux et al. relates to a method of installing tapered fasteners having a high percent of contact surface. U.S. Pat. No. 4,760,806 to Bigbee et al. relates to a pivoting arm assembly having a tapered pin with tapered bushings (Fig. 7). Russian Pat. Pub. Nos. RU 2755107 C1 to Melnikov and RU 2743635 C1 to Melnikov relate to a threaded connection with a tapered nut. Chinese Pat. Pub. No. CN 2698033 Y to Liu et al. relates to a bi-conical tapered fastening pin connection.
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