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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Stand-On Mower With Ratio of Output Torque to Unladen Weight.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 9 and 10, both in line 2 recite “center of gravity M of”, should read – center of gravity of –.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 in line 1 sets forth “wherein output torque”. However, it is unclear how this output torque is related to the output torque set forth in claim 1, line 12. Specifically, it is unclear if the output torque of claim 13 is the maximum as set forth in claim 1 or a different output torque. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aghil (US 12342751 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Aghil discloses a stand-on mower [102], comprising:
a body portion [110] comprising a frame (see Col. 4, lines 49-59);
a foot pedal [118] used for a user to stand on and disposed at a rear end of the body portion (see Fig. 2B);
a walking assembly [116], supporting the body portion and configured to drive the stand-on mower to walk, comprising at least two drive wheels ([116(1) and 116(2)], see Col. 5, lines 31-38) and at least two walking electric motors each driving a respective one of the at least two drive wheels (comprise one or more electric motors to drive the drive wheels, see Col. 17, lines 47-50);
a cutting assembly [114] comprising a mowing element (see Col. 5, lines 7-10) for mowing grass and mounted to the frame (see Fig. 1); and
a power supply ([706]; provides power to both the walking and cutting assemblies, see Col. 17, lines 25-33) configured to power the walking assembly (provides power to the drive unit [308] for powering the drive wheels, see Col. 15, lines 19-25 and Col. 17, lines 25-33) to enable the at least two drive wheels to output torque to drive the stand-on mower to walk (see Col. 5, lines 30-34) and further configured to power the cutting assembly to enable the mowing element to cut vegetation (through powering motor [114(1)], see Col. 5, lines 16-17 and Col. 17, lines 25-33);
wherein a ratio of an output torque of a single drive wheel of the at least two drive wheels (see Col. 11, lines 28-40) can be adjusted based on the unladen weight (weight of the mower without an operator, see Col. 11, lines 60-62) of the stand-on mower (weight is used for determining amount of torque needed through control signal [312], see Col. 9, lines 15-20, Col. 11, lines 55-67 and Col. 12, lines 1-11; therefore, the weight of the mower directly effects the amount of torque outputted).
But Aghil fails to explicitly disclose the ratio of maximum output torque of a single drive wheel to the unladen weight of the stand-on mower is greater than or equal to 1.2 N-m/kg.
However, Aghil discloses that the weight of the mower directly effects the amount of torque outputted (see Col. 9, lines 15-20, Col. 11, lines 55-67 and Col. 12, lines 1-11) for a signal drive wheel of the at least two drive wheels (see Col. 11, lines 28-40); therefore, the ratio of the maximum output torque of the single drive wheel to the unladen weight of the stand-on mower is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the ratio be greater than or equal to 1.2 N-m/kg in order to provide the mower with the appropriate amount of torque for safely and efficiently driving the stand-on mower. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Examiner’s Note: while Aghil’s specification in Col. 5, lines 38-39 recites that the caster/undriven wheels are 116(2) and 116(3) this is seen as an error due to the drawings detailing the caster/undriven wheels as 116(3) and 116(4), and further as the specification previously defining wheel 116(2) as a drive wheel in Col. 5, lines 31-38. It can be seen then that the drive wheels are [116(1) and (2)] and the caster/undriven wheels are [116(3) and (4]].
Regarding claim 4, Aghil discloses wherein a ratio of rated output power (power supply [706] powers the drive unit [308], amount of torque needed changes amount of power supplied, see Col. 17, lines 25-41 and Col. 11, lines 28-40) of the walking assembly [116] can be adjusted based on the unladen weight (weight of the mower without an operator, see Col. 11, lines 60-62) of the stand-on mower [102], but fails to explicitly disclose the ratio of the rated output power to the unladen wight being greater than or equal to 7 W/kg.
However, Aghil discloses the power supply [706] powers the stand-on mower (see Col. 17, lines 25-41) and therefore the drive unit [308], wherein the amount of power supplied changes based on the amount of torque needed (power is needed to output torque; therefore, the amount of power directly effects the amount of torque). The weight of the mower directly effects the amount of torque outputted (see Col. 9, lines 15-20, Col. 11, lines 55-67 and Col. 12, lines 1-11); therefore, the ratio of rated output power to the unladen weight of the stand-on mower is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the rated output ratio be greater than or equal to 7 W/kg in order to provide the mower with the appropriate amount of torque for safely and efficiently driving the stand-on mower. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Aghil discloses wherein an output power (power supply [706] powers the drive unit [308], amount of torque needed changes amount of power supplied, see Col. 17, lines 25-41 and Col. 11, lines 28-40) of the single drive wheel (see Col. 11, lines 28-40) can be adjusted based on the unladen weight (weight of the mower without an operator, see Col. 11, lines 60-62) of the stand-on mower [102], but fails to explicitly disclose a ratio of the rated output power to the unladen wight being greater than or equal to 8.7 W/kg.
However, Aghil discloses the power supply [706] powers the stand-on mower (see Col. 17, lines 25-41) and therefore the drive unit [308], wherein the amount of power supplied changes based on the amount of torque needed (power is needed to output torque; therefore, the amount of power directly effects the amount of torque). The weight of the mower directly effects the amount of torque outputted (see Col. 9, lines 15-20, Col. 11, lines 55-67 and Col. 12, lines 1-11); therefore, the ratio of rated output power to the unladen weight of the stand-on mower is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the maximum output ratio be greater than or equal to 8.7 W/kg in order to provide the mower with the appropriate amount of torque for safely and efficiently driving the stand-on mower. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, Aghil discloses wherein the walking assembly [116] comprises rear walking wheels [116(1) and 116(2)] and front walking wheels [116(3) and 116(4)], the rear walking wheels comprise the at least two drive wheels ([116(1) and 116(2)], see Col. 5, lines 31-38), the at least two drive wheels rotate around a rear axis (see below), the front walking wheels rotate around a front axis (see below), and a distance between the front axis and the rear axis is a wheelbase (see below) of the stand-on mower [102].
PNG
media_image1.png
525
720
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Aghil discloses the stand-on mower [102] being unloaded (weight of the mower without an operator, see Col. 11, lines 60-62), and a ratio (ratio between center of gravity and the rear axis) of a distance (see below) between an overall center of gravity M (see below; not explicitly shown but inherently present) of the stand-on mower and the rear axis (see below) to the wheelbase (see below) of the stand-on mower.
PNG
media_image2.png
525
720
media_image2.png
Greyscale
But Aghil fails to explicitly disclose the ratio is greater than or equal to 0.25 and less than or equal to 0.35.
However, Aghil discloses that the weight of a wheel is incorporated into the unladen weight of the mower (see Col. 11, lines 60-67 and Col. 12, lines 1-11), and that a variety of wheels can be utilized as long as they support and drive the mower (see Col. 5, lines 30-44); therefore, the center of gravity of the stand-on mower in the unloaded state is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the ratio be greater than or equal to 0.25 and less than or equal to 0.35 in order to utilize wheels that move the center of gravity into an ideal ratio for efficiently running the mower. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 10, Aghil discloses wherein, when the stand-on mower [102] is in a manned state (user is on mower, see Col. 11, lines 60-62), a ratio (ratio between center of gravity and the rear axis) of a distance (see below) between an overall center of gravity M (see below; not explicitly shown but inherently present) of the stand-on mower and the rear axis (see below) to the wheelbase (see below) of the stand-on mower.
PNG
media_image2.png
525
720
media_image2.png
Greyscale
But Aghil fails to explicitly disclose the ratio is greater than or equal to 0.2 and less than or equal to 0.3.
However, Aghil discloses that the weight of a user determines the overall weight of the stand-on mower in the manned state (see Col. 11, lines 60-67 and Col. 12, lines 1-11); therefore, the center of gravity of the stand-on mower in the manned state is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the ratio be greater than or equal to 0.2 and less than or equal to 0.3 in order for the mower to move efficiently under the added weight of the user. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 11, Aghil discloses wherein, when the stand-on mower [102] is in a manned state (user is on mower, see Col. 11, lines 60-62), a weight distribution (weight of the front wheels, see Col. 12, lines 3-11) of the front walking wheels [116(3) and 116(4)] accounts for an overall weight of the stand-on mower (front walking wheels are a part of the stand-on mower and therefore account as part of the overall weight, see Col. 11, lines 60-62), but fails to explicitly disclose the weight distribution of the front walking wheels accounts for 24% to 27% of the overall weight of the stand-on mower.
However, Aghil discloses being capable of determining the weight of the front wheels as well as the overall weight of the mower (see Col. 12, lines 3-11), and further discloses that any front walking wheels can be utilized as long as they are caster/undriven wheels (see Col. 5, lines 38-39 and Fig. 1); therefore, the weight of the front walking wheels is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the weight distribution of the front walking wheels account for 24% to 27% of the overall weight of the stand-on mower in order to counter the added weight of the user to prevent the mower from tipping backwards while in use. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 12, Aghil discloses wherein, when the stand-on mower [102] is in a manned state (user is on mower, see Col. 11, lines 60-62), a weight distribution (weight of the front wheels, see Col. 12, lines 3-11) of the front walking wheels [116(3) and 116(4)] accounts for an overall weight of the stand-on mower (front walking wheels are a part of the stand-on mower and therefore account as part of the overall weight, see Col. 11, lines 60-62), but fails to explicitly disclose the weight distribution of the front walking wheels accounts for 20% to 30% of the overall weight of the stand-on mower.
However, Aghil discloses being capable of determining the weight of the front wheels as well as the overall weight of the mower (see Col. 12, lines 3-11), and further discloses that any front walking wheels can be utilized as long as they are caster/undriven wheels (see Col. 5, lines 38-39 and Fig. 1); therefore, the weight of the front walking wheels is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the weight distribution of the front walking wheels account for 20% to 30% of the overall weight of the stand-on mower in order to counter the added weight of the user to prevent the mower from tipping backwards while in use. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 13, Aghil discloses the output torque of the single drive wheel (see Col. 11, lines 28-40), but fails to explicitly disclose the output torque of the single drive wheel is greater than 366 N-m.
However, Aghil discloses the output torque applied to the single drive wheel is based on a variety of dynamic parameters (see Col. 5, lines 30-38 and Col. 9, lines 12-25); therefore, the output torque of the single drive wheel is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the output torque of the single drive wheel be greater than 366 N-m in order to provide the mower with the appropriate amount of torque for safely and efficiently driving the stand-on mower. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 14, Aghil discloses specifications (see size of tires in Fig. 2B) of the at least two drive wheels [116(1) and 116(2)], but fails to disclose the drive wheels specification comprise 23x10.5-12.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the specification of the at least two drive wheels be 23x10.5-12, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, changing the specification of the at least two drive wheels of Aghil would not prevent the drive wheels from outputting a selected torque or supporting and driving the mower (see Col. 5, lines 30-44).
Regarding claims 15 and 19, Aghil discloses the stand-on mower [102] on a slope inclined at an angle (see Col. 11, lines 63-67 and Col. 19, lines 4-7), a straight travel capability (torque maintained for moving the mower in a straight travel capability, see Col. 19, lines 4-11) of the stand-on mower in a slope width direction (see Col. 19, lines 12-25) is maintained within a permitted level of deviation (maintains the trajectory or path , see Col. 19, lines 8-10 and Col. 22, lines 3-5) through use of sensors (see Col. 22, lines 19-67).
But Aghil fails to explicitly disclose the slope is inclined at an angle of 20° or less, and the straight travel capability reaches a deviation of 3 meters or less within 50 meters.
However, Aghil discloses the slope is inclined at an angle such as traveling up/down or across a hill (see Col. 19, lines 4-7), and determines the straight travel capability by determining a difference between the current state, the target state, and a threshold between the two states of the mower, adjusting the current state to match the target state (see Col. 22, lines 19-67); therefore, both the slope angle and the deviation of the straight travel capability is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the slope be inclined at an angle of 20° or less and the straight travel capability reach a deviation of 3 meters or less within 50 meters in order for the mower to be capable of mowing at an incline while automatically adjusting to maintain within a certain level of deviation for comfort and usability for the operator. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 16, Aghil discloses a stand-on mower [102], comprising:
a body portion [110] comprising a frame (see Col. 4, lines 49-59);
a foot pedal [118] used for a user to stand on and disposed at a rear end of the body portion (see Fig. 2B);
a walking assembly [116], supporting the body portion and configured to drive the stand-on mower to walk, comprising at least two drive wheels ([116(1) and 116(2)], see Col. 5, lines 31-38) and at least two walking electric motors each driving a respective one of the at least two drive wheels (comprise one or more electric motors to drive the drive wheels, see Col. 17, lines 47-50);
a cutting assembly [114] comprising a mowing element (see Col. 5, lines 7-10) for mowing grass and mounted to the frame (see Fig. 1); and
a power supply ([706]; provide power to both the walking and cutting assemblies, see Col. 17, lines 25-33) configured to power the walking assembly (provides power to the drive unit [308] for powering the drive wheels, see Col. 15, lines 19-25 and Col. 17, lines 25-33) to enable the at least two drive wheels to output torque to drive the stand-on mower to walk (see Col. 5, lines 30-34) and further configured to power the cutting assembly to enable the mowing element to cut vegetation (through powering motor [114(1)], see Col. 5, lines 16-17 and Col. 17, lines 25-33);
when the stand-on mower [102] on a slope inclined at an angle (see Col. 11, lines 63-67 and Col. 19, lines 4-7), a straight travel capability (torque maintained for moving the mower in a straight travel capability, see Col. 19, lines 4-11) of the stand-on mower in a slope width direction (see Col. 19, lines 12-25) is maintained within a permitted level of deviation (maintains the trajectory or path , see Col. 19, lines 8-10 and Col. 22, lines 3-5) through use of sensors (see Col. 22, lines 19-67).
But Aghil fails to explicitly disclose the slope is inclined at an angle of 20° or less, and the straight travel capability reaches a deviation of 3 meters or less within 50 meters.
However, Aghil discloses the slope is inclined at an angle such as traveling up/down or across a hill (see Col. 19, lines 4-7), and determines the straight travel capability by determining a difference between the current state, the target state, and a threshold between the two states of the mower, adjusting the current state to match the target state (see Col. 22, lines 19-67); therefore, both the slope angle and the deviation of the straight travel capability is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the slope be inclined at an angle of 20° or less and the straight travel capability reach a deviation of 3 meters or less within 50 meters in order for the mower to be capable of mowing at an incline while automatically adjusting to maintain within a certain level of deviation for comfort and usability for the operator. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Examiner’s Note: while Aghil’s specification in Col. 5, lines 38-39 recites that the caster/undriven wheels are 116(2) and 116(3) this is seen as an error due to the drawings detailing the caster/undriven wheels as 116(3) and 116(4), and further as the specification previously defining wheel 116(2) as a drive wheel in Col. 5, lines 31-38. It can be seen then that the drive wheels are [116(1) and (2)] and the caster/undriven wheels are [116(3) and (4]].
Regarding claim 17, Aghil discloses a stand-on mower [102], comprising:
a body portion [110] comprising a frame (see Col. 4, lines 49-59);
a foot pedal [118] used for a user to stand on and disposed at a rear end of the body portion (see Fig. 2B);
a walking assembly [116], supporting the body portion and configured to drive the stand-on mower to walk, comprising at least two drive wheels ([116(1) and 116(2)], see Col. 5, lines 31-38) and at least two walking electric motors each driving a respective one of the at least two drive wheels (comprise one or more electric motors to drive the drive wheels, see Col. 17, lines 47-50);
a cutting assembly [114] comprising a mowing element (see Col. 5, lines 7-10) for mowing grass and mounted to the frame (see Fig. 1); and
a power supply ([706]; provide power to both the walking and cutting assemblies, see Col. 17, lines 25-33) configured to power the walking assembly (provides power to the drive unit [308] for powering the drive wheels, see Col. 15, lines 19-25 and Col. 17, lines 25-33) and the cutting assembly (through powering motor [114(1)], see Col. 5, lines 16-17 and Col. 17, lines 25-33);
wherein a rated output power (power supply [706] powers the drive unit [308], amount of torque needed changes amount of power supplied, see Col. 17, lines 25-41 and Col. 11, lines 28-40) of the walking assembly [116] can be adjusted based on the unladen weight (weight of the mower without an operator, see Col. 11, lines 60-62) of the stand-on mower [102], but fails to explicitly disclose a ratio of the rated output power to the unladen wight being greater than or equal to 7 W/kg.
However, Aghil discloses the power supply [706] supplying power to the stand-on mower (see Col. 17, lines 25-41) and therefore to the drive unit [308], wherein the amount of power supplied changes based on the amount of torque needed (power is needed to output torque; therefore, the amount of power directly effects the amount of torque). The weight of the mower directly effects the amount of torque outputted (see Col. 9, lines 15-20, Col. 11, lines 55-67 and Col. 12, lines 1-11); therefore, the ratio of rated output power to the unladen weight of the stand-on mower is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the rated output ratio be greater than or equal to 7 W/kg in order to provide the mower with the appropriate amount of torque for safely and efficiently driving the stand-on mower. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Examiner’s Note: while Aghil’s specification in Col. 5, lines 38-39 recites that the caster/undriven wheels are 116(2) and 116(3) this is seen as an error due to the drawings detailing the caster/undriven wheels as 116(3) and 116(4), and further as the specification previously defining wheel 116(2) as a drive wheel in Col. 5, lines 31-38. It can be seen then that the drive wheels are [116(1) and (2)] and the caster/undriven wheels are [116(3) and (4]].
Regarding claim 18, Aghil discloses further comprising a transmission assembly ([308], transmits the torque to the drive wheels and therefore is a transmission assembly; see Col. 9, lines 12-25) configured to convert or transmit torque of the at least two walking electric motors (see Col. 17, lines 47-50) to the at least two drive wheels [116(1) and 116(2)].
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aghil (US 12342751 B1) as applied to claims 1, 4-5, and 8-20 above, and further in view of Velke et al. (US 5809755 A).
Regarding claim 2, Aghil discloses the stand-on mower as applied above, as well as, wherein the at least two drive wheels [116(1) and 116(2)] comprise a left drive wheel and a right drive wheel (see Fig. 1), and the left drive wheel and the right drive wheel are driven by at least two walking electric motors (comprise one or more electric motors to drive the drive wheels, see Col. 17, lines 47-50).
But Aghil fails to explicitly disclose the left drive wheel and the right drive wheel are driven by a first walking electric motor and a second walking electric motor, respectively.
Velke et al. discloses a similar stand-on mower [1] comprising a left drive wheel [23] and a right drive wheel [25], wherein the left drive wheel and the right drive wheel are driven by a first walking electric motor [27] and a second walking electric motor [28], respectively (see Col. 6, lines 39-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the plurality of walking electric motors of Aghil with the first and second walking electric motor of Velke et al. since both are electric motors providing power to the drive wheels for movement of the stand-on mower; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
Regarding claim 3, Aghil, of the above resultant combination, further discloses further comprising a transmission assembly ([308], transmits the torque to the drive wheels and therefore is a transmission assembly; see Col. 9, lines 12-25) configured to convert or transmit torque of the at least two walking electric motors (see Col. 17, lines 47-50) to the at least two drive wheels [116(1) and 116(2)].
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aghil (US 12342751 B1) as applied to claims 1, 4-5, and 8-20 above, and further in view of Spatchek et al. (US 20260091660 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Aghil discloses the stand-on mower as applied above, as well as, wherein the power supply [706] comprises a plurality of battery packs (comprised of one or more and therefore is a plurality; see Col. 17, lines 25-30), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of battery packs is detachably mounted to a coupling portion of the stand-on mower.
Spatchek et al. discloses a similar stand-on mower [10] wherein the power supply [65] comprises a plurality of battery packs (power supply is a plurality of battery packs [65], see Fig. 5) wherein at least one of the plurality of battery packs is detachably mounted (see para. [0028], lines 1-6) to a coupling portion [60] of the stand-on mower.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the plurality of battery packs of Aghil with the plurality of battery packs of Spatchek et al. since both are battery packs providing power to the stand-on mower; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
Regarding claim 7, Aghil, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the unladen weight (weight of the mower without an operator, see Col. 11, lines 60-62) of the stand-on mower [102] is defined as an overall weight of the stand-on mower when all battery packs (see Col. 17, lines 25-30) accommodable in the coupling portion of the stand-on mower are mounted and the user is not carried (unladen weight is the overall weight of the mower without a user, see Col. 11, lines 60-62; therefore is the weight with all battery packs mounted).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892 for the full list of references.
Reference WO 2021083180 A1 discloses a similar mower [13] with a plurality of battery packs [141].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNNY WEBB whose telephone number is (571)272-3830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 to 5:30 E.T..
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/SUNNY D WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
