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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Watanabe et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0037706).
In reference to claim 1, Watanabe discloses a robotic garden tool 10 (par. 0046), comprising:
a deck 12;
a blade 34 movably coupled to the deck 12 (Fig. 2);
a motor 30 (par. 0049) configured to move the blade 34 about an axis of rotation defining an axial direction (Fig. 2);
a blade height adjustment mechanism 44 (par. 0054) including a manual actuator (par. 0091) configured to move in response to manual actuation by an operator, the manual actuator operably coupled to a cam interface (par. 0091), the cam interface being disposed within a cylindrical volume defined circumferentially by the cam interface and bounded axially by upper and lower distal ends of the cam interface (Fig. 2, par. 0091), wherein the axis of rotation of the blade 34 intersects the cylindrical volume (Fig. 2), and wherein the blade 34 is configured to move at least partially in the axial direction in response to movement of the manual actuator (par. 0091),
wherein the motor 30 is disposed at least partially within the cylindrical volume (Fig. 2).
In reference to claim 8, Watanabe discloses that the motor 30 is disposed entirely within the cylindrical volume (Fig. 2).
In reference to claim 13, Watanabe discloses a cutting module for a robotic garden tool 10 (par. 0046), comprising:
a motor 30 (par. 0049) configured to drive a blade 34 about an axis of rotation, the axis of rotation defining an axial direction (Fig. 2);
a blade height adjustment mechanism 44 (par. 0054) including a manual actuator (par. 0091) configured to move in response to manual activation by an operator, the manual actuator operably coupled to a cam interface (par. 0091), the cam interface being disposed within a cylindrical volume defined circumferentially by the cam interface and bounded axially by upper and lower distal ends of the cam interface (Fig. 2, par. 0091), wherein the motor 30 is disposed at least partially within the cylindrical volume (Fig. 2), and wherein the manual actuator is configured to move the blade 34 in the axial direction (par. 0091),
wherein the motor 30 is disposed at least partially within the cylindrical volume (Fig. 2).
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 1-6, 9, 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pu et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0352842) in view of Coffin et al. (US Patent No. 7,775,025).
In reference to claim 1,
Pu discloses a robotic garden tool (Fig. 1), comprising:
a deck 18 (Fig. 9, par. 0143);
a blade 5/6 movably coupled to the deck 18;
a motor 36 (par. 0108) configured to move the blade 5/6 about an axis of rotation, the axis of rotation defining an axial direction (Figs. 12 and 16);
a blade height adjustment mechanism 25 including a manual actuator 10a configured to move in response to manual actuation by an operator (par. 0098), the manual actuator operably coupled to a height adjustment rod 26, the height adjustment rod 26 being disposed within a cylindrical volume defined circumferentially by the height adjustment rod 26 (Fig. 12) and bounded axially by upper and lower distal ends of the height adjustment rod 26 (Fig. 12), wherein the axis of rotation of the blade 5/6 intersects the cylindrical volume (Fig. 12), and wherein the blade 5/6 is configured to move at least partially in the axial direction in response to movement of the manual actuator 10 (Fig. 12),
wherein the motor 36 is disposed at least partially within the cylindrical volume (Fig. 12).
Pu fails to disclose that the height adjustment rod is a cam interface.
Coffin discloses a manual actuator 34 that is operably coupled to a cam interface 10, the cam interface 10 being disposed within a cylindrical volume defined circumferentially by the cam interface 10 and bounded axially by upper and lower distal ends of the cam interface 10 (Fig. 1).
In combination, this would result in the axis of rotation of the blade 5/6 (of Pu) intersecting the cylindrical volume of the cam interface 10 (of Coffin).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the cam height adjustment mechanism of Coffin in place of the height adjustment mechanism of Pu with a reasonable expectation of success as it amounts to a substitution of equivalents to perform the same function, which is to transmit movement of a manual actuator to a height adjustment of a mower blade.
In reference to claim 2, Pu discloses an axis of rotation of the blade 5/6 that intersects the manual actuator 10a (Figs. 12 and 13).
In reference to claim 3, Coffin discloses that the cylindrical volume defines a central axis (Fig. 1). In combination with Pu, this would result in the central axis being coaxial with the axis of rotation of the blade 5/6 (Figs 12 and 13).
In reference to claim 4, Coffin discloses that the cylindrical volume defines a central axis, and wherein the manual actuator 34 is rotatable about the central axis (Fig. 1).
In reference to claim 5, Pu discloses that the manual actuator 10a is rotatable about the axis of rotation of the blade 5/6 (Fig. 13).
In reference to claim 6, Coffin discloses that the cylindrical volume defines a central axis, and wherein the central axis is transverse to the axis of rotation of the blade 8 (Figs. 1 and 2). 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 transverse blade as disclosed by Coffin with a reasonable expectation of success as it amounts to a substitution of equivalents to perform the same function, which is in this case to mow a lawn.
In reference to claim 9, Pu discloses a motor mount 29 (par. 0097, “blade carrier lifting bracket 29 is configured for fixing the prime mover 36”) configured to support the motor 36 in generally fixed relation thereto. Coffin discloses that the cam interface 10 includes direct engagement between the manual actuator 34, the cam interface 10 including a cam surface 20u and a follower surface 20l. In combination with Pu, this would result in the cam interface including direct engagement between the manual actuator and the motor mount.
In reference to claim 11, Coffin discloses that the manual actuator 34 includes a detent mechanism 36 configured to provide audible and/or tactile feedback and to retain the manual actuator 34 in a plurality of discrete angular positions (Fig. 1).
In reference to claim 12, Pu discloses at least one biasing member 49 configured to exert a force for returning the blade 5/6 towards a raised position (par. 0124).
In reference to claim 13, Pu discloses 13. (Currently Amended) A cutting module for a robotic garden tool, comprising:
a motor 36 (par. 0096) configured to drive a blade 5/6 about an axis of rotation (Figs. 12 and 13), the axis of rotation defining an axial direction; and
a blade height adjustment mechanism including a manual actuator 10a configured to move in response to manual actuation by an operator, the manual actuator 10a operably coupled to a height adjustment rod 26, the height adjustment rod 26 being disposed within a cylindrical volume defined circumferentially by the height adjustment rod 26 and bounded axially by upper and lower distal ends of the height adjustment rod 26 (Fig. 12), wherein the motor 36 is disposed at least partially within the cylindrical volume (Fig. 12), and wherein the manual actuator 10a is configured to move the blade 5/6 in the axial direction (Figs. 12 and 13),
wherein the motor 36 is disposed at least partially within the cylindrical volume (Fig. 12).
Pu fails to disclose that the height adjustment rod is a cam interface.
Coffin discloses a manual actuator 34 that is operably coupled to a cam interface 10, the cam interface 10 being disposed within a cylindrical volume defined circumferentially by the cam interface 10 and bounded axially by upper and lower distal ends of the cam interface 10 (Fig. 1).
In combination, this would result in the axis of rotation of the blade 5/6 (of Pu) intersecting the cylindrical volume of the cam interface 10 (of Coffin).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the cam height adjustment mechanism of Coffin in place of the height adjustment mechanism of Pu with a reasonable expectation of success as it amounts to a substitution of equivalents to perform the same function, which is to transmit movement of a manual actuator to a height adjustment of a mower blade.
In reference to claim 15, Pu discloses at least one biasing member 49 configured to exert a force for returning the blade 5/6 towards a raised position (par. 0124).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10 and 14 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.
Claims 16-19 and 21 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In reference to claim 1, Applicant argues that both Pu and Coffin fail to disclose [A] a cam interface for facilitating blade height adjustment, [B] a motor disposed at least partially within the cam interface cylindrical volume, and [C] an axis of rotation of a blade that intersects a cylindrical volume of a cam interface. More specifically, Applicant argues that Pu fails to disclose elements [A] and [C], Coffin fails to disclose element [B], and therefore the references fail to disclose the elements of the invention.
The examiner finds this unpersuasive as Pu discloses as Pu discloses [A] a height adjustment rod 26 used for facilitating a blade height adjustment (par. 0098, Figs. 12 and 13); [B] a motor 36 disposed at least partially within the height adjustment rod 26 cylindrical volume (Fig. 13); and [C] an axis of rotation of a blade 5/6 that intersects a cylindrical volume of the height adjustment rod 26 (Fig. 13). The only difference between Pu and the claimed invention is that Pu discloses a height adjustment rod 26 rather than a cam interface. Coffin discloses the cam interface 10.
Applicant also argues that the rejection should be withdrawn as the examiner’s substitution of equivalent structures is flawed as the equivalency of the structures from Pu and Coffin is not recognized in the prior art and that this could not be the case as Coffin’s cylindrical hub 10 is offset from the axis of rotation of the reel and the interior of the hub is taken up by the rod 18.
The examiner finds the equivalency argument unpersuasive as both the height adjustment rod 26 (of Pu) and the cam interface 10 (of Coffin) are both height adjusting means for grass mowers that function by manual rotation of a knob to adjust the height of a cutting means.
The other details regarding the orientation of the cam interface 10 relative to the grooming reel 8 are not relevant as the rejection relies upon Pu for these features.
The rejection to claim 16 has been withdrawn.
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 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
3/02/26