DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, amended claims 13 and 34 which now recite that the battery is mounted (presumedly directly) to the controller must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claims 47-48, 50, 52-57, 59-61, and 63 are objected to because of the following informalities: they have not been appropriately amended in the body of the claims to refer back to the correct renumbered claims. This objection is repeated from the previous office action dated 06-20-2025, to which Applicant has failed to address and amend the claims accordingly with the Examiner’s note stating that appropriate correction to the misnumbered claims is also required in the body of the claims such that they precede back to the correct renumbered claim (see bottom of page 2 in the previous office action).
Although Applicant has corrected the misnumbered claims, the beginning of each of the body of designated dependent claims 47-48, 52-57, 59-61, 63 have not been amended accordingly to reflect these changes such that they precede back to the correct renumbered claim to provide the necessary antecedent basis for all limitations therein.
Accordingly:
Claims 47 and 48 which recite “The grass compactor of claim 43” should recite –The grass compactor of claim 46-- as previously misnumbered claim 43 was renumbered claim 46.
Claim 50 which recites “The lawn mower of claim 46” should recite –The lawn mower of claim 49-- as previously misnumbered claim 46 was renumbered claim 49.
Claims 52-56, 59-61, and 63 which recite “The electric push lawn mower of claim 48” should recite --The electric push lawn mower of claim 51-- as previously misnumbered claim 48 was renumbered claim 51.
Claim 57 which recites “The electric push lawn mower of claim 53” should recite --The electric push lawn mower of claim 56-- as previously misnumbered claim 53 was renumbered claim 56.
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.
Claims 38, 47-48, 50, 52-57, 59-61, and 63 are 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.
Claims 47-48, 50, 52-57, 59-61, and 63 are rejected for failing to providing sufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claims as they have not been amended accordingly to refer back to the appropriate renumbered claim (see claim objections above).
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the motor housing" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-14, 17-18, 21-23, 25-30, 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abbott et al. (US 20200076337 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Abbott discloses a motor assembly (10) for an electric lawn mower (para. [0102] “motor unit 10 is mounted to a lawn mower”) comprising:
a brushless DC motor (36) having a motor drive shaft (106) (para. [0086] “motor 36 is a brushless direct current motor”);
a controller (46) coupled to a surface of the brushless DC motor (note all components of motor assembly 10 are inherently “coupled to” each other) and configured to control operation of the brushless DC motor (para. [0081] “motor unit 10 also includes…a controller 46 that is electrically connected to the motor 36”); and
a gearbox (110) having an output shaft (38) (Figs. 9-10), the gearbox configured to receive the motor drive shaft from the brushless DC motor and drive a rotary element of the electric lawn mower with the output shaft (para. [0087] “gear train 110…transfers torque from the output shaft 106 to the power take-off shaft 38”, para. [0105] drives rotary element of lawnmower), wherein the gearbox having a gear reduction ratio of at least 2:1 (approx. 6:1 as seen Fig. 47, gear reduction ratio of planetary transmission = (Ring Gear Teeth + Sun Gear Teeth)/Sun Gear Teeth = (75+15)/15 = 6:1, see also para. [0089,0205,0207-0208] teaches adjustable reduction ratios).
Regarding independent claim 21, Abbott discloses a removably insertable motor module (10) for individually powering a plurality of electrically driven garden tools (para. [0089] “motor unit 10 can…work with a broad range of power equipment” including lawn mowers (para. [0102]), tillers, saws, and snow blowers (para. [0090]), and other electric power tools (para. [0215])) comprising:
a brushless DC motor (36) having a motor drive shaft (106) (para. [0086] “motor 36 is a brushless direct current motor”);
a controller (46) coupled to a surface of the brushless DC motor (note all components of motor assembly 10 are inherently “coupled to” each other) and configured to control operation of the brushless DC motor (para. [0081] “motor unit 10 also includes…a controller 46 that is electrically connected to the motor 36”); and
a gearbox (110) having an output shaft (38) (Figs. 9-10), the gearbox configured to receive the motor drive shaft from the brushless DC motor and drive a rotary element of the electrically driven garden tool with the output shaft (para. [0087] “gear train 110…transfers torque from the output shaft 106 to the power take-off shaft 38”, para. [0105] drives rotary element of lawnmower); and
wherein the motor module is independently and removably mountable to each of the plurality of electrically driven garden tools (Fig. 15, para. [0092] first bolt pattern on flange 34 of the motor unit 10 matches a second bolt pattern on power equipment in order to couple motor unit 10 to different power tools).
Regarding claims 2 and 23, Abbott discloses the motor assembly of claim 1 and removably insertable motor module of claim 22, wherein the gear reduction ratio is at least 5:1 (approx. 6:1 as seen Fig. 47, see also para. [0089,0205,0207-0208] for adjustable reduction ratios).
Regarding claims 4 and 25, Abbott discloses the motor assembly of claim 1 and removably insertable motor module of claim 22, wherein the motor drive shaft (106) and the output shaft (38) are coaxially aligned (Figs. 9-10, para. [0087] axis 118 of motor drive shaft 106 is “coaxial” with axis 122 of output shaft 38).
Regarding claims 5 and 26, Abbott discloses the motor assembly of claim 1 and removably insertable motor module of claim 21, wherein the gearbox (110) is a planetary gearbox (114) (Figs. 10 & 47, para. [0087] gear train 110 is a planetary gear train 114).
Regarding claims 6 and 27, Abbott discloses the motor assembly of claim 5 and removably insertable motor module of claim 26, wherein the planetary gearbox (114) comprises a sun gear driven by the motor drive shaft (para. [0209] “shaft 106 of the motor 36 acts as a sun gear”) and two planet gears (748,752) to drive the rotary element, the sun gear and the two planet gears retained within a stationary ring gear (760) (Fig. 47).
Regarding claim 8, Abbott discloses the motor assembly of claim 1, wherein the motor assembly (10) is a motor module which is removably insertable into the electric lawn mower (para. [0102,0215], motor unit 10 can be removed from the mower and used with a plurality of different power tools).
Regarding claims 9 and 28, Abbott discloses the motor assembly of claim 8 and removably insertable motor module of claim 21, wherein the output shaft (38) comprises a keyed surface (seen in Fig. 42) to connect or interface with a receiving element of the electric lawn mower (implicit) to drive the rotary element of the electric lawn mower (para. [0199-0200] output shaft 38 is used to drive the rotary element of different power tools).
Regarding claims 11 and 32, Abbott discloses the motor assembly of claim 21 and removably insertable motor module of claim 31, wherein the controller (46) is configured to receive an input from the electric lawn mower to identify the type of electric lawn mower and related operating parameters (para. [0215] controller automatically detects via RFID communication the type of power tool the motor unit has been mated with and governs operation of the motor unit accordingly), and/or to activate and deactivate the brushless DC motor (para. [0218] controller 46 is configured to log and report data related to the power tool driven by motor unit 10 and activate/deactivate the motor unit based on detected conditions).
Regarding claims 12 and 33, Abbott discloses the motor assembly of claim 8 and removably insertable motor module of claim 21, wherein the motor module (10) further comprises coupling structure (keyed surface on output shaft 38 as seen in Fig. 42) to couple the motor module to the electric lawn mower (implicit from para. [0199-0200] output shaft 38 is used to drive the rotary element of different power tools).
Regarding claims 13 and 34, Abbott discloses the motor assembly of claim 8 and removably insertable motor module of claim 21, wherein the motor module (10) further comprises a battery (50) (para. [0082]), and wherein the battery is mounted to the controller (46) (controller 46 disposed within control electronics 42 in Fig. 16, note all components of motor unit 10 are mounted to each other).
Regarding claims 14 and 35, Abbott discloses the motor assembly of claim 8 and removably insertable motor module of claim 21, wherein the motor module (10) further comprises a housing (14,34) that contains at least the brushless DC motor (36) and the gearbox (110) (Fig. 19).
Regarding claims 17 and 29, Abbott discloses the motor assembly of claim 1 and removably insertable motor module of claim 21, wherein the motor (36) is generally of cylindrical shape having a diameter of from about 20 mm to about 80 mm (para. [0004,0086] electric motor 36 has an outer diameter of 80 mm).
Regarding claims 18 and 30, Abbott discloses the motor assembly of claim 1 removably insertable motor module of claim 21, wherein the motor is generally of cylindrical shape having a length of from about 60 mm to about 140 mm (para. [0086] electric motor 36 has an outer diameter of 80 mm and a volume of 443,619 mm3, therefore the length can be calculated as approx. 88 mm).
Regarding claim 22, Abbott discloses the removably insertable motor module of claim 21, wherein the gearbox has a gear reduction ratio of at least 2:1 (approx. 6:1 as seen Fig. 47, see also para. [0089,0205,0207-0208] for adjustable reduction ratios).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Notaras et al. (US 20100058726 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 24, Abbott discloses the motor assembly of claim 1 and removably insertable motor module of claim 21, wherein the motor drive shaft (106) may have a speed of greater than 3600 rpm or about 5000 rpm (para. [0217,0144), but does not explicitly detail a motor drive shaft speed of at least 6000 rpm and an output shaft speed of from about 1000 rpm to about 3000 rpm.
Notaras discloses a similar motor module (4) configured for use with a plurality of different garden tools, wherein the motor module comprises a universal electric motor operating at a speed of about 14,000 rpm (para. [0006]) and a speed reduction gearing having a reduction of approx. 7:1 such that an output shaft drives the blades to rotate at an ideal speed of 2,000 rpm (para. [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the motor drive shaft speed and output shaft speed, as Notaras teaches that the claimed speed ranges are ideal for cutting grass with a rotatable blade, and 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 16,19,37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Ackerman et al. (US 9991825 B1).
Regarding claims 16 and 37, Abbott in view of Ackermann discloses the motor assembly of claim 14 and removably insertable motor module of claim 35. Abbott further teaches wherein the motor module further comprises a communication port electrically connected to a kill switch on the electric lawn mower (para. [0102] communication port on the motor module electrically connects to a kill switch on the handlebar of the mower via a wiring harness, allowing the operator to control the motor module from a control interface on the mower).
Abbott does not explicitly detail wherein the housing further comprises external electrical contacts electrically connected to the controller, the external electrical contacts arranged to connect with complementary electrical contacts on the electric lawn mower.
In the same field of endeavor, Ackermann discloses a similar removable motor module (202) wherein electrical contacts located on the motor housing (203) electrically connect to complementary electrical contacts on the mower housing (20) (col. 11 lines 31-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize complementary electrical contacts on the motor housing and mower as taught by Ackermann as this is a mere simple substitution of one communication bus for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 19 and 38, Abbott discloses the motor assembly according to claim 1 and motor module according to claim 21, wherein the motor module (10) may be attached to drive a rotary element of the lawn mower (para. [0102,0105]) via a keyed surface on the output shaft (keyed surface on output shaft 38 as seen in Fig. 42, output shaft 38 is used to drive the rotary element of different power tools), but does not explicitly disclose details of the lawn mower.
In the same field of endeavor, Ackermann discloses an electric lawn mower (134) comprising: a housing (20) comprising a receptacle (21) for receiving a motor assembly or motor module (202) (Fig. 10A); and a rotary element (25) drivable with an electric motor (202), the rotary element comprising a receiving element (coupler 30) having a keyed interface corresponding to a keyed surface or structure on the output shaft (210) of the motor assembly or motor module (col. 15 lines 59-63 “output shaft and coupler could connect via a key and keyway, a spline”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the motor module of Abbott with a similar electric lawn mower as taught by Ackermann as this is a mere simple substitution of one electric mower/garden tool for another capable of implementing a modular motor assembly to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 39, Abbott in view of Ackermann discloses the electrically driven garden tool of claim 38, wherein the electrically driven gardening tool is selected from the group consisting of lawnmowers, line trimmers, edge trimmers, hedge trimmers, or leaf blowers (Abbott at para. [0102] discloses lawnmowers, Ackermann discloses lawnmowers 134, line trimmers 124, edge trimmers 122, “a hedge trimmer” (not shown), or leaf blower 138).
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1 and 21, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
“As shown in Figures 1-3 of Abbott, the controller 46 is not coupled to a surface of the motor 36. Therefore, Abbott fails to describe of suggest, at least, "a controller coupled to a surface of the brushless DC motor and configured to control operation of the brushless DC motor," as recited in amended claim 1.” (See Applicant’s Remarks Page 13).
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in para. [0081] of the specification and shown in Fig. 16, controller 46 is included in control electronics 42 which is positioned within the housing 14 of motor unit 10 along with brushless DC motor 36. The BRI of “coupled to” is to connect, fasten, or join two things together. Thus, all components of motor unit 10 are considered to be “coupled to” each other to form a cohesive system and structure.
However, for purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner draws Applicant’s attention toward that Ackermann (US 9991825 B1), cited and utilized as a secondary reference above, which discloses a motor controller (201) directly coupled to a surface of a DC motor (202) (see Fig. 2A, col. 7 lines 20-23).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joesph Rocca, can be reached on (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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671