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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/11/2026 has been entered.
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 1-6 and 9-12 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “the motor is disposed at least partially within the cylindrical volume”, and the claim also recites “the motor is disposed entirely within the cylindrical volume” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagiwara et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0132733) in view of Watanabe et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0037706).
In reference to claim 1, Hagiwara discloses a robotic garden tool 1, comprising:
a deck 2;
a blade 5a movably coupled to the deck 2 (Fig. 1);
a motor 22 configured to move the blade 5a about an axis of rotation, the axis of rotation defining an axial direction (Fig. 2); and
a blade height adjustment mechanism 30a including an actuator 23 configured to move in response to actuation by an operator, the actuator 23 operably coupled to a cam interface 31a (Fig. 2), the cam interface 31a being disposed within a cylindrical volume defined circumferentially by the cam interface 31a and bounded axially by upper and lower distal ends of the cam interface 31a, wherein the axis of rotation of the blade 5a intersects the cylindrical volume (Fig. 2), and wherein the blade 5a is configured to move at least partially in the axial direction in response to movement of the actuator 23 (Fig. 2),
wherein the motor 22 is disposed at least partially within the cylindrical volume (Fig. 2); and
wherein the motor 22 is disposed entirely within the cylindrical volume (Fig. 2).
Hagiwara fails to disclose that the actuator is a manual actuator.
Watanabe discloses that actuators can be formed as either motors or manual actuators (par. 0091). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a manual actuator in place of the motorized actuator disclosed by Hagiwara as it amounts to a substitution of equivalents to perform the same function, which is to rotate and drive a height adjustment mechanism.
In reference to claim 6, Hagiwara discloses that the cylindrical volume defines a central axis Z1, and wherein the central axis is transverse to the ais of rotation of the blade 5a (Fig. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 and 9-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13, 15-19 and 21 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in reference to claim 1 are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAD HARCOURT whose telephone number is (571)272-7303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9am to 6pm.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571)272-4137. 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.
/BRAD HARCOURT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
7/13/26
Prosecution Insights