DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “the any” is awkward and could be changed to remove the –to—. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 42 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 2-3, “the rear movable protecting member” should be changed to –a rear movable protecting member—as it has not yet been set forth. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 51 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “is the at any” is awkward and unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 51 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 23. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 33, 46, 48, 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bednar 6,047,530 in view of Matsumoto et al. US 2016/0014956 A1.
Independent Claim 1: Bednar discloses a lawn mower, comprising:
a housing (12), provided with a bottom shell (the underside of 12);
a movement module (14), configured to drive the lawn mower to move;
a cutting mechanism (38, 92, 96), configured to perform a cutting task at a predetermined adjustable cutting height (col. 3, lns. 41-44), and comprising a cutting element (92, 96) configured to perform cutting;
a protecting assembly (46, 48) comprising a movable protecting member (46, 48), wherein:
the movable protecting member at least comprises a movable protecting wall (46, 48), the movable protecting wall that is disposed on an outer side of the cutting mechanism in a horizontal direction (seen in Fig. 3),
when the cutting mechanism is at any cutting height and the movable protecting member is in a free state under no external force, a ground clearance of a lower end of the movable protecting wall of the movable protecting member is an initial distance,
the initial distance remains less than M (just beneath a maximum allowed of the protecting wall),
the movable protecting member is movable in a height direction relative to the bottom shell under an action of an external force, to change the ground clearance of the lower end of the movable protecting wall (col. 4, lns. 23-25), and
during an adjustment of a height of the cutting mechanism from a lowest level to a highest level (col. 3, lns. 41-44), the cutting mechanism is movable in the height direction relative to the movable protecting member (cutting mechanism walls, 66, 68 are lifted or lowered relative to protecting member walls 46, 48 via holes 78, 76 and bolts 80), as per claim 1.
However, Bednar fails to disclose wherein the lawn mower is an autonomous lawn mower, as per claim 1.
Matsumoto discloses a lawn mower similar to that of Bednar that can be operated autonomously (para. [0022, 0047]), as per claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the autonomous functionality of Matsumoto on the lawn mower of Bednar in order to create detailed design images or texts and to save workforce.
Dependent Claims 2-3, 5-8, 33, 50: Bednar further discloses wherein:
when the cutting mechanism (38, 92, 96) is at the any cutting height (via holes 76, 78 and bolts 80) and the movable protecting member (46, 48) is subjected to the action of the external force, the movable protecting member is movable upward relative to the bottom shell (the underside of 12), to increase the ground clearance of the lower end of the movable protecting wall (46, 48), and
when the external force is removed, the movable protecting member is movable downward relative to the bottom shell (under the force of gravity), to make the ground clearance of the lower end of the movable protecting wall return to the initial distance, as per claim 3;
wherein during the adjustment (col. 3, lns. 41-44) of the height of the cutting mechanism (38, 92, 96), a distance between the lower end of the movable protecting wall (46, 48) and a ground remains unchanged, as per claim 5;
wherein during an upward movement of the movable protecting wall under the action of the external force, a resistance for the movable protecting wall to move upward when a distance between the lower end of the movable protecting wall and a ground is greater than a preset grass safe lift height, is greater than a resistance for the movable protecting wall to move upward when the distance between the lower end of the movable protecting wall and the ground is less than the preset grass safe lift height, wherein the distance between the lower end of the movable protecting wall and the ground when the autonomous lawn mower is placed still on a lawn, is not greater than the preset grass safe lift height (this is a natural effect of gravity), as per claim 6;
wherein the movable protecting wall (46, 48) comprises at least one of a front movable protecting wall disposed in front of the cutting mechanism, a rear movable protecting wall disposed behind the cutting mechanism or a plurality of lateral movable protecting walls (46, 48) disposed on two sides of the cutting mechanism, as per claim 7;
wherein:
the protecting assembly (46, 48) further comprises a mechanism protecting member (38) that is fixed relative to the cutting mechanism in the height direction,
the mechanism protecting member comprises a mechanism protecting wall (38) located between the movable protecting wall and the cutting mechanism in the horizontal direction (seen in Fig. 3),
a lower end of the mechanism protecting wall remains lower than a lowest point of the cutting element (92, 96, see Fig. 4);
the mechanism protecting wall comprises a front mechanism protecting wall (front wall portion of 38) located in front of the cutting mechanism, lateral mechanism protecting walls (side wall portions of 38) located on two sides of the cutting mechanism, and a rear mechanism protecting wall (rear wall portion of 38) located behind the cutting mechanism,
the front mechanism protecting wall, the rear mechanism protecting wall, and the lateral mechanism protecting walls together define the mechanism protecting wall that is circumferentially closed (seen between Figs. 3-4), and
bottommost portions in a 360-degree circumferential direction of the mechanism protecting wall are all lower than the lowest point of the cutting element (seen between Figs. 3-4), as per claim 50.
However, the combination fails to disclose wherein 38 mm <= M <= 40 mm, and when the cutting mechanism is at the any cutting height, a range of the initial distance is 15 mm to 35 mm, as per claim 2;
where in the horizontal direction, a range of a minimum distance X between an outermost edge of the movable protecting wall and the cutting element is X > 58 mm, as per claim 8;
wherein a distance range of movement of the lower end of the movable protecting wall in the height direction is 15 mm to 80 mm or 20 mm to 40 mm, as per claim 33.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide 38 mm <= M <= 40 mm and an initial distance of the cutting mechanism at any height between 15-35 mm, as per claim 2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide X > 58 mm , as per claim 8, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a distance range of movement of the lower end of the movable protecting wall between 15-80 mm or 20-40 mm, as per claim 33, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Independent claim 46: Bednar discloses a lawn mower, comprising:
a housing (12), provided with a bottom shell (the underside of 12);
a movement module (14), configured to drive the lawn mower to move;
a cutting mechanism (38, 92, 96), configured to perform a cutting task at a predetermined adjustable cutting height (col. 3, lns. 41-44), and comprising a cutting element (92, 96) configured to perform cutting; and
a protecting assembly (46, 48), comprising a movable protecting member (46, 48), wherein:
the movable protecting member at least comprises a movable protecting wall (46, 48) that is disposed on an outer side of the cutting mechanism in a horizontal direction (see Fig. 3),
when the cutting mechanism is at any cutting height and the movable protecting member is in a free state under no external force, a ground clearance of a lower end of the movable protecting wall of the movable protecting member is an initial distance,
the initial distance remains less than M (just beneath a maximum allowed of the protecting wall),
the movable protecting member is movable in a height direction relative to the bottom shell under an action of an external force, to change the ground clearance of the lower end of the movable protecting wall (col. 4, lns. 23-25),
the protecting assembly further comprises a mechanism protecting member (38) fixed relative to the cutting mechanism in the height direction,
the mechanism protecting member comprises a mechanism protecting wall, located between the movable protecting wall and the cutting mechanism in the horizontal direction (seen in Fig. 3),
a lower end of the mechanism protecting wall remains lower than a lowest point of the cutting element (see Fig. 4),
the mechanism protecting wall comprises a front mechanism protecting wall (the front wall of 38) located in front of the cutting mechanism, lateral mechanism protecting walls (the side walls of 38) located on two sides of the cutting mechanism, and a rear mechanism protecting wall (the rear wall of 38) located behind the cutting mechanism, as per claim 46.
However, Bednar fails to disclose wherein the lawn mower is an autonomous lawn mower, as per claim 46.
Matsumoto discloses a lawn mower similar to that of Bednar that can be operated autonomously (para. [0022, 0047]), as per claim 46.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the autonomous functionality of Matsumoto on the lawn mower of Bednar in order to create detailed design images or texts and to save workforce.
Dependent Claim 48: Bednar further discloses wherein:
the front mechanism protecting wall (the front of 38), the rear mechanism protecting wall (the rear of 38), and the lateral mechanism protecting walls (the sides of 38) together define the mechanism protecting wall that is circumferentially closed (see 38 in the figures); and
bottommost portions in a 360-degree circumferential direction of the mechanism protecting wall are all lower than the lowest point of the cutting element (as seen between Figs. 3 and 4), as per claim 48.
Claim(s) 9, 11, 14, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bednar in view of Matsumoto et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishida et al. JP 2016208950 A.
Dependent Claims 9, 11, 14, 35: The lawn mower is disclosed as applied above. However, the combination fails to disclose wherein:
the movable protecting wall comprises a main movable portion,
the main movable portion comprises an obstacle passage region located at an outermost edge of the main movable portion,
the obstacle passage region comprises an inclined surface inclining from outside to inside and extending downward,
the movable protecting wall further comprises a locking portion formed by the main movable portion extending downward,
the locking portion comprises a safe locking region located at an outermost edge of the locking portion,
a ground clearance of a lower end of the safe locking region is less than M, and
the safe locking region is located on an outer side of an extension line of the obstacle passage region in a same radial direction as the safe locking region, as per claim 9;
wherein:
the movable protecting wall comprises a plurality of blocking protrusions that is disposed at a bottom of the movable protecting wall and is disposed at intervals in a circumferential direction, and
when the movable protecting member is in the free state under no external force, a ground clearance of a lower end of each blocking protrusion is greater than or equal to M/2, as per claim 11;
wherein:
a range of a height h of a blocking protrusion the plurality of blocking protrusions is 0 mm < h <= 80 mm or 3 mm < h <= 20 mm;
a range of a width m of the blocking protrusion is 0 mm < m <= 40 mm or 0 mm < m <= 20 mm; and
a range of a distance S between two adjacent blocking protrusions is 0 mm < S <= 40 mm or 3 mm < S <= 25 mm, as per claim 14;
wherein:
the movable protecting wall comprises a vertical protecting wall extending in the height direction,
a horizontal protecting wall that is located below the vertical protecting wall and extends in the horizontal direction, and
at least one side of the horizontal protecting wall in a horizontal inside-outside direction protrudes from a corresponding side of the vertical protecting wall, asper claim 35.
Ishida discloses a similar lawn mower wherein:
the movable protecting wall (23) comprises a main movable portion (23),
the main movable portion comprises an obstacle passage region (23A) located at an outermost edge of the main movable portion,
the obstacle passage region comprises an inclined surface inclining from outside to inside and extending downward (as seen in Fig. 10),
the movable protecting wall further comprises a locking portion (23C) formed by the main movable portion extending downward,
the locking portion comprises a safe locking region located at an outermost edge of the locking portion,
a ground clearance of a lower end of the safe locking region is less than M, and
the safe locking region is located on an outer side of an extension line of the obstacle passage region in a same radial direction as the safe locking region (as seen in Fig. 4), as per claim 9;
the movable protecting wall (23) comprises a plurality of blocking protrusions (23C) that is disposed at a bottom of the movable protecting wall and is disposed at intervals in a circumferential direction (seen in Fig. 4), as per claim 11;
wherein:
the movable protecting wall (23) comprises a vertical protecting wall (comprised of 23a, 23b, 23c, 23d in Fig. 8) extending in the height direction,
a horizontal protecting wall (21, shown in Fig. 3) that is located below the vertical protecting wall and extends in the horizontal direction, and
at least one side of the horizontal protecting wall in a horizontal inside-outside direction protrudes from a corresponding side of the vertical protecting wall (the horizontal wall extends in an inside direction as seen in Fig. 3), as per claim 35.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the obstacle passage region, as per claim 9, of Ishida on the lawn mower of Bednar and Matsumoto in order to provide protection from the mower blade while still allowing for a full lawn mowing operation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the blocking protrusions with a free ground clearance of greater than or equal to M/2, as per claim 11, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the blocking protrusions with a height range 0 mm < h <= 80 mm or 3 mm < h <= 20 mm, a width range of 0 mm < m <= 40 mm or 0 mm < m <= 20 mm and a separation range of 0 mm < S <= 40 mm or 3 mm < S <= 25 mm, as per claim 14, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23, 30, 42, 49, 51 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.
Claim 47 is allowed. Claim 47 recites all of the structural limitations of claim 46 in addition to the requirement that during a movement of the movable protecting member in the height direction under the action of an external force, the lower end of the movable protecting wall is movable relative to the cutting mechanism in the height direction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alicia M. Torres whose telephone number is 571-272-6997. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-6997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph M. Rocca, can be reached at (571) 272-8971.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the group receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-3600. The fax number for this Group is 571-273-8300.
/Alicia Torres/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 January 9, 2026