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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDSes filed 5/19/23, 10/13/23 and 1/13/26 have all been considered and placed of record. The three (3) initialed copies are attached herewith.
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 1-13 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.
Re claim 1, the limitation “the docking station” on line 8 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Re claims 2-13, they are indefinite for depending directly or indirectly on indefinite claims.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chinese document CN104124730A. See attached machine translation.
Re claims 1 and 14, the document discloses a robotic work tool configured to operate in an area in an autonomous manner (i.e. robotic mowing charging device), wherein the robotic work tool having, at least, one or more rechargeable batteries (i.e. charging device does have rechargeable batteries), and a contact plate configured to transfer electricity from a contact of a docking station to the one or more rechargeable batteries (i.e. charging electrode 31), wherein the contact plate comprises an edge surface extending along an abutment plane, the edge surface being configured to abut against the contact of the docking station upon movement of the robotic work tool relative to the docking station along a docking direction, and wherein the contact plate comprises a number of sections each being angled relative to the docking direction (i.e. embodiment: the intelligent grass-removing charging device… button and fence; figures 3 and 5). It further includes a docking station (i.e. automatically drive towards charging device).
Re claim 3 the document further discloses the contact plate having multiple bent sections (see figure 5).
Re claim 13, the document further discloses the tool is a self-propelled mower (i.e. Intelligent grass-removing and charging circuit carry out wireless telecommunications, in the time of intelligent grass-removing power shortage, intelligent grass-removing is located the position of charging device by wireless telecommunications, automatically drive towards charging device, intelligent grass-removing is under the effect of driving wheel).
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.
Claims 2, 4-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese document CN104124730A.
Re claims 2, 5 and 6, the document does not disclose the claimed number of bent and straight sections. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included any number of appropriate bent and straight sections, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Re claim 7, the document does not disclose the claimed thickness of the plate. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the plate to have the claimed thickness, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Re claims 8-12, the document does not disclose the claimed direction of different surfaces. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the surfaces to have them faced in the claimed direction, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Re claims 4 and 15, the document does not disclose the claimed curvature. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the curvature to have the claimed radius, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to the Examiner at the below-listed number. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu from 7:00am-5:00pm.
The Examiner’s SPE is Taelor Kim and he can be reached at 571.270.7166. The fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is 571.273.8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800.786.9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571.272.1000.
/EDWARD TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 571.272.2087