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 .
Application Status
Claims 1, 3-17, 19, and 20 are currently pending in this application. Claims 1, 4, 5, 12, 16, 17, and 20 have been amended by way of the response filed 17 October 2025. Claims 2 and 18 were cancelled in this response. The amendments have overcome the objection to claim 4. Also, the reference to the priority document that applicant notes in the response is sufficient.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an adjustment mechanism including external threads, anti-rotation structure, a driving gear, a driven gear; the independent also do not recite calculating the number of revolutions of the adjustment motor or of the motor cylinder) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s response posits that the primary reference, Hahn, does not teach or disclose a working parameter comprises “one or more of a working current, a working voltage, and a back electromotive force of [an] adjustment motor.” This is consistent with the examiner’s reading of Hahn; the previous office action states – with respect to claim 2 (now cancelled and largely incorporated within amended claim 1) – that “Hahn does not disclose the working parameter comprises one or more of a working current, a working voltage, and a back electromotive force of the adjustment motor” (page 7 of the office action of 28 July 2025). However, that office action rejected claim 2 by adding a second reference, Fujinami. Applicant’s response does not show how Fujinami is insufficient to overcome the defects of Hahn. As such, the combination of Hahn in view of Fujinami is maintained to render obvious the claimed feature of a working parameter [comprising] one or more of a working current, a working voltage, and a back electromotive force of the adjustment motor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn (US 2019/0327886 hereinafter Hahn) in view of Fujinami et al. (US 2016/0241178 hereinafter Fujinami).
With respect to claim 1, Hahn discloses a robotic mower (in the title, Hahn discloses an autonomous lawn mower, with reads on a robotic mower), comprising:
a mowing system for cutting grass (in the abstract, Hahn discloses a cutting blade 212b, which and a motor 210 to drive the blade – these elements read on a mowing system);
a housing for supporting the mowing system (in the abstract, Hahn discloses a mower body 102 that reads on a housing); and
a traveling assembly comprising walking wheels for supporting the housing to drive the robotic mower to walk on a surface (in the abstract, Hahn discloses the body being propelled via a wheel arrangement, which reads on walking wheels – in figure 1, the wheels are labelled 104, with rear wheels being 104R);
wherein the mowing system comprises:
a cutting assembly comprising a mowing element for cutting the grass (in the abstract, Hahn discloses blade 212b, which reads on a mowing element for cutting the grass);
a driving mechanism comprising a mowing motor for driving the cutting assembly to rotate (in the abstract, Hahn discloses motor 210 for driving the mowing blade); and
a height adjustment mechanism for adjusting a movement of the cutting assembly along a direction of a first axis to cause the mowing element to have different cutting heights (in paragraph 183, Hahn discloses height adjustment system 1100 that assist in controlling “the operation of the cutting blade 212b within a predefined operating height” – Hahn paragraph 183 – this height adjustment system reads on the claim’s height adjustment mechanism; the movement of the cutting assembly is the normal operation of the blade to cut grass; adjusting this movement along a direction of a first axis means moving it up or down, which is what Hahn’s height adjustment system does);
wherein the height adjustment mechanism comprises:
an adjustment motor for generating an adjustment force for adjusting the mowing element to the different cutting heights (in paragraph 184, Hahn discloses height adjustment motor 1110, which reads on an adjustment motor); and
wherein the robotic mower further comprises:
a parameter detection unit configured to detect a working parameter of the adjustment motor in a working process (in paragraph 189, Hahn discloses deriving the number of rotations of the height adjustment motor for a desirable position and using that data to assist the controller – the rotations required by motor 1110 reads on the working parameter – hall sensor 1140 derives that number and thus reads on the parameter detection unit); and
a control unit configured to identify a cutting height of the mowing element according to the acquired working parameter (in paragraph 189, Hahn discloses control unit 202 that works with hall sensor 1140 to use the working parameter to reach a predefined desirable operating height – this system reads on the claim’s control unit).
Hahn further discloses that the sensing function of the blades’ height may be achieved by other means, as disclosed in paragraph 190. Hahn also discloses, in paragraph 129, that the controller monitors current going to motors to estimate how the parts driven by the motor are functioning, specifically current drawn by a wheel’s motor vs. the number of rotations. Hahn does not disclose the working parameter comprises one or more of a working current, a working voltage, and a back electromotive force of the adjustment motor.
However, Fujinami, which can apply to lawnmowers as disclosed in paragraph 122, discloses a motor’s working parameter comprises one or more of a working current, a working voltage, and a back electromotive force of the adjustment motor (in paragraph 4, Fujinami discloses determining that a motor has changed its operation state when a current exceeds a specified threshold).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute the current measurement of Fujinami for the rotation counting of Hahn because the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The predictable result of the combination would be an adjustment motor that is monitored with a system – current measurement – that is used for other systems in the lawnmower or Hahn (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
With respect to claim 3, Hahn in view of Fujinami discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hahn in view of Fujinami further discloses the control unit is configured to, when the working parameter is greater than a preset parameter threshold, determine that the mowing element is in an extreme cutting position and control the adjustment motor to lower a rotational speed or stop running, wherein the mowing element in the extreme cutting position has an extreme cutting height (in paragraph 189, Hahn discloses determining that the cutting blade has reached its maximum height, which reads on determining that a mowing element is in an extreme cutting position; as described in paragraph 185, the height adjustment motor 1110 moves a worm shaft to adjust the height of the cutting blade in concert with controller 202, which reads on controlling the adjustment motor to stop running as the system recognizes the maximum height and controls the height of the cutting blade; the preset parameter threshold is the number of adjustment motor rotations for a predefined desirable operating height – note that the control unit in this claim does not actually use the working parameter).
With respect to claim 4, Hahn in view of Fujinami discloses the limitations of claim 3. Hahn in view of Fujinami further discloses the extreme cutting position comprises an upper extreme cutting position and a lower extreme cutting position, and the robotic mower further comprises a limiting portion configured to limit the mowing element between the upper extreme cutting position and the lower extreme cutting position (in paragraph 184 and figure 12, Hahn discloses a worm shaft 1120 that is rotated to move the cutting blade up or down; the worm shaft, as shown in figure 12 rests on a floor and has a ceiling, above which the adjustment motor is seated – the floor and ceiling read on a limiting portion).
With respect to claim 9, Hahn in view of Fujinami discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hahn in view of Fujinami further discloses the control unit is configured to, when the cutting height of the mowing element reaches a target cutting height, control the adjustment motor to lower a rotational speed or stop running (in paragraph 189, Hahn discloses a predefined desirable operating height of the mower blades and using sensors to calculate when it is reached, at which point the adjustment mower would stop running so as to maintain the predefined desirable operating height).
With respect to claim 11, Hahn in view of Fujinami discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hahn in view of Fujinami further discloses a storage unit for storing a historical cutting height (in paragraph 144, Hahn discloses the mower’s memory or storage – since the mowing height is adjustable and has a predetermined optimal height, storing a historical cutting height is anticipated – see paragraph 141 as well, which discusses ), wherein the control unit is configured to control, according to the historical cutting height, the adjustment motor to adjust a present cutting height of the mowing element (in paragraph 141, Hahn also discloses the mower storing a previously generated survey map 208 that is used while the mower is operating so that commands can be executed over the correct area of the working area – one of those commands is to adjust the height of the blade over a particular part of a working area).
With respect to claim 12, Hahn in view of Fujinami discloses the limitations of claim 11. Hahn in view of Fujinami further discloses the storage unit is further configured to store preset lawn image data (in paragraph 141, Hahn discloses the mower using a previously generated survey map 208, which reads on a preset lawn image data – in paragraph 19, Hahn discloses that the optical elements used for the mower to “see” can include cameras) and the control unit is configured to control, according to the preset lawn image data, the adjustment motor to adaptively adjust a cutting height of the mowing element such that the mowing element cuts the grass according to the preset lawn image data (in paragraph 141, Hahn discloses using a previously generated survey map 208 to adjust the height of the blades so as to mow at the correct height over the correct working area).
With respect to claim 15, Hahn in view of Fujinami discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hahn in view of Fujinami further discloses the adjustment motor is a sensorless motor (in paragraph 184, Hahn discloses the height adjustment motor 1110 as distinct from the hall sensor 1140 – while figure 13 in Hahn shows the hall sensor apparently on top of the adjustment motor, their separation makes the adjustment motor sensorless).
With respect to claim 16, Hahn in view of Fujinami disclose the limitations of claim 1. The limitations of claim 16 are largely identical to those of claim 1 except that the mower of claim 1 is robotic, while that of claim 16 need not be. This makes claim 16 more broad than claim 1, and so the rejection of claim 1 meets all of the limitations of claim 16.
With respect to claim 17, which combines all of the limitations of claim 1 with the stipulation that the working parameter does not comprise a number of revolutions of the adjustment motor, Hahn in view of Fujinami has already been shown to teach all of the limitations of claim 1. When the current measurement of Fujinami is substituted for the rotation tallying of Hahn, which is done immediately above, the last clause of claim 17 – and the entire claim - is rendered obvious.
With respect to claim 19, Hahn in view of Fujinami discloses the limitations of claim 17. Hahn in view of Fujinami further discloses the control unit is configured to, when the working parameter is greater than a preset parameter threshold, determine that the mowing element is in an extreme cutting position and control the adjustment motor to lower a rotational speed or stop running and the mowing element in the extreme cutting position has an extreme cutting height (in paragraph 189, Hahn discloses determining that the cutting blade has reached its maximum height, which reads on determining that a mowing element is in an extreme cutting position; as described in paragraph 185, the height adjustment motor 1110 moves a worm shaft to adjust the height of the cutting blade in concert with controller 202, which reads on controlling the adjustment motor to stop running as the system recognizes the maximum height and controls the height of the cutting blade; the preset parameter threshold is the current that indicates that the motor is in a different state, which would be cause by the motor trying to rotate the worm shaft when the mowing blades have reached a maximum or minimum height – note that the control unit in this claim does not actually use the working parameter).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn in view of Fujinami as applied to claim 3 and further in view of Ikegami et al. (US 2015/0299986 hereinafter Ikegami).
With respect to claim 5, Hahn in view of Fujinami discloses the limitations of claim 3. Hahn in view of Fujinami does not disclose the control unit is configured to calibrate a preset standard working parameter according to a working parameter of the adjustment motor when the mowing element is in the extreme cutting position and the preset standard working parameter is an initially set working parameter of the adjustment motor when the mowing element is in the extreme cutting position.
However, Ikegami, which in the field of working vehicles discloses a control unit is configured to calibrate a preset standard working parameter according to a working parameter of the adjustment motor when the mowing element is in the extreme cutting position and the preset standard working parameter is an initially set working parameter of the adjustment motor when the mowing element is in the extreme cutting position (in paragraph 55, Ikegami discloses calibrating when a piston reaches the end of its stroke).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine calibrating a machine at its extreme – in both Ikegami and Hahn in view of Fujinami, this is when the device is at its most proximal or most distal to its motive force – as is taught by Ikegami with the adjustment motor of Hahn because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The predictable result of the combination would be that Hahn in view of Fujinami’s adjustment motor could be recalibrated to maintain its ability to adjust to expected mowing height settings (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn in view of Fujinami as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Koizumi et al. (US 2016/0204718 hereinafter Koizumi).
With respect to claim 6, Hahn in view of Fujinami discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hahn in view of Fujinami does not disclose a control switch for controlling the adjustment motor to adjust the cutting height of the mowing element, wherein the control unit is configured to control a running state of the adjustment motor according to a switch state of the control switch.
However, Koizumi discloses a control switch for controlling the adjustment motor to adjust the cutting height of the mowing element, wherein the control unit is configured to control a running state of the adjustment motor according to a switch state of the control switch (in paragraph 1, Koizumi discloses a switch that operates a motor to stop, rotate forward, and rotate in reverse; in figure 1, the switch is tumbler switch 4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the 3-phase tumbler switch of Koizumi with Hahn in view of Fujinami because each element would merely perform the same function that it does separately. The predictable result of this combination would be that the blade height could be adjusted by an operator via a single switch (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
With respect to claim 7, Hahn in view of Fujinami and further in view of Koizumi discloses the limitations of claim 6. Hahn in view of Fujinami and further in view of Koizumi further discloses that the control unit is configured to, when the control switch is in a first state, output a first drive signal to control the adjustment motor to rotate in a first direction, when the control switch is in a second state, output a second drive signal to control the adjustment motor to rotate in a second direction and, when the control switch is in a third state, output a brake signal to control the adjustment motor to stop rotating (in first paragraph and figure 1, Koizumi discloses a 3-phase switch that controls a motor to rotate in two directions and, when the switch is in the third state, stop; the two directional rotations read on the claim’s first drive signal and second drive signal; the third state’s output causes the motor to stop rotating).
With respect to claim 8, Hahn in view of Fujinami and further in view of Koizumi discloses the limitations of claim 6. Hahn in view of Fujinami and further in view of Koizumi further discloses that the first direction is opposite to the second direction (in paragraph 1, Koizumi discloses that the motor rotates in forward and reverse directions, which are opposite to one another).
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn in view of Fujinami as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Kodoma (US 2023/0320246).
With respect to claim 6, Hahn in view of Fujinami discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hahn in view of Fujinami does not disclose a control switch for controlling the adjustment motor to adjust the cutting height of the mowing element, wherein the control unit is configured to control a running state of the adjustment motor according to a switch state of the control switch.
However, Kodoma, which can be applied to unmanned mowers, as disclosed in paragraph 38, discloses a control switch for controlling the adjustment motor to adjust the cutting height of the mowing element, wherein the control unit is configured to control a running state of the adjustment motor according to a switch state of the control switch (in paragraph 65, Kodoma discloses a height setting dial; the dial reads on a switch since it can be used to adjust something – in this case the height of rotary tilling equipment).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the height setting dial of Kodoma with Hahn in view of Fujinami because each element would merely perform the same function that it does separately. The predictable result of this combination would be that the blade height could be variably adjusted by an operator via a single switch or dial (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
With respect to claim 10, Hahn in view of Fujinami and further in view of Kodoma discloses the limitations of claim 6. Hahn in view of Fujinami and further in view of Kodoma further discloses the control switch has a switch stroke of a preset length and the switch stroke is positively or negatively correlated to a target cutting height (in paragraph 65 Kodoma discloses a height setting dial; dials provide a continuous range of options, with the distance between the extremes determined by how far the dial can be turned from one of its extremes to the other – the switch stroke is this range of motion; as the dial moves through this switch stroke, the blades will move along with the change in the dial either positively or negatively to a cutting height determined by where the dial is set).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn in view of Fujinami as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Ni (US 2018/0028031).
With respect to claim 13, Hahn in view of Fujinami discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hahn in view of Fujinami further discloses a motor cylinder (in figure 11 – the photograph portion – Hahn discloses a cylinder in which the motor is ensconced – this cylinder is a darker color than the motor that it holds and has a bundle of twisted wires rising out of it), the motor cylinder is movable up and down along the first axis (as shown in figures 11 and 12, Hahn discloses that the cylinder and blade motor have an adjustable height along the first axis).
Hahn in view of Fujinami does not disclose an elastic member where the elastic member is configured to be capable of abutting against the motor cylinder.
However, Ni, which is in the field of engine operation, discloses an elastic member where the elastic member is configured to be capable of abutting against the motor cylinder (in figure 1 and paragraph 33, Ni discloses placing an elastic component 3 between a motor 2 and that motor’s cover 4 – the cover 4 reads on a motor cylinder while the elastic component 3 reads on an elastic member; the attachment of the elastic component to the cover is a type of abutment).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to modify the motor and cylinder of Hahn in view of Fujinami by adding an elastic member between them as taught by Li with the motivation of “motor noise reduction” and “obtaining better shock absorption” (Li, paragraph 33 for both quotations).
With respect to claim 14, Hahn in view of Fujinami and further in view of Ni discloses the limitations of claim 13. Hahn in view of Fujinami and further in view of Ni further discloses a gearbox (in figure 12, Hahn discloses a worm screw interacting with the structure that raises and lowers the blades – this combination of gears reads on a gearbox) and an anti-rotation structure (in paragraph 186 and figure 11, Hahn discloses linear bearings 1156 that counter torsional force induced by the worm shaft 1120), the gearbox is formed with an accommodation space for accommodating the height adjustment mechanism (in figure 12, the worm shaft runs along a cavity that has a ceiling and floor, which reads on an accommodation space because parts of the height adjustment mechanism are housed therein), and the anti-rotation structure is disposed between the motor cylinder and the gearbox (in figure 11, Hahn discloses some of the bearings between the gearbox and the cylinder).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn in view of Fujinami as applied to claim 19 and further in view of Ikegami et al. (US 2015/0299986 hereinafter Ikegami).
With respect to claim 20, Hahn in view of Fujinami discloses the limitations of claim 19. Hahn in view of Fujinami does not disclose the control unit is configured to calibrate a preset standard working parameter according to a working parameter of the adjustment motor when the mowing element is in the extreme cutting position and the preset standard working parameter is an initially set working parameter of the adjustment motor when the mowing element is in the extreme cutting position.
However, Ikegami, which in the field of working vehicles discloses a control unit is configured to calibrate a preset standard working parameter according to a working parameter of the adjustment motor when the mowing element is in the extreme cutting position and the preset standard working parameter is an initially set working parameter of the adjustment motor when the mowing element is in the extreme cutting position (in paragraph 55, Ikegami discloses calibrating when a piston reaches the end of its stroke).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine calibrating a machine at its extreme – in both Ikegami and Hahn, this is when the device is at its most proximal or most distal to its motive force – as is taught by Ikegami with the adjustment motor of Hahn in view of Fujinami because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The predictable result of the combination would be that Hahn’s adjustment motor could be recalibrated to maintain its ability to adjust to expected mowing height settings (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DOUGLAS JAMES MEISLAHN whose telephone number is (703)756-1925. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 EST M-Th, M-F.
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 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.
/DOUGLAS J MEISLAHN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671