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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 10, it appears “second member” should be changed to –second member,--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xue et al. CN 110920776 A.
Independent Claim 12: Xue discloses a modular wheel mount for installation on a body of a tool, the modular wheel mount comprising:
a first member (15);
a second member (3) movably coupled to the first member;
a wheel (4) rotatably coupled to the second member for rotation about a wheel axis of rotation (the horizontal axis of rotation of wheel 4 about its center);
a target (8) fixedly coupled to one of the first member (15) and the second member; and
a detector (7) fixedly coupled to the other of the first member and the second member (3), and wherein the distance between the target and the detector changes between a first predetermined target distance (the distance shown in Figs. 2, 7 when 7 and 8 are fixed in an unaligned relative position to each other) and a second predetermined target distance (the distance shown in Fig. 8 when 7 and 8 are in an aligned position relative to each) as the modular wheel mount is adjusted between a loaded position (Fig. 7) and an unloaded position (Fig. 8), and
wherein the detector (7) is configured to detect both the first predetermined target distance and the second predetermined target distance (detector 7 is a Hall Effect sensor which senses its distance to magnet 8, emitting a voltage signal proportional to the distance and direction between the two, thereby detecting all distances, including any predetermined target distances), as per claim 12.
Dependent Claims 13-20: Xue further discloses a caster assembly (6, 14, 11, a “free steering” caster wheel, seen in Fig. 3) movably coupled to the second member (3), wherein the wheel (4) is rotatably mounted to the caster, and wherein moving the caster assembly relative to the second member causes the wheel axis of rotation to move relative to the second member (as seen between Figs. 7 and 8), as per claim 13;
wherein second member (3) pivots with respect to the first member (15) about a first pivot axis (9) between the loaded position (Fig. 7) and the unloaded position (Fig. 8), as per claim 14;
a stop (6) coupled to one of the first member and the second member, and wherein the second member (3) transmits force to the first member (15) via the stop when the modular wheel mount is in the loaded position (Fig. 7), as per claim 15;
wherein the second member (3) does not transmit force to the first member (15) via the stop (6) when the modular wheel mount is in the unloaded position (Fig. 8), as per claim 16;
wherein the stop (6) at least partially defines the distance between the detector (7) and the target (8) when the modular wheel mount is in the loaded configuration (Fig. 7), as per claim 17;
wherein the distance between the detector (7) and the target (8) increases as the modular wheel mount moves from the loaded position (Fig. 7) to the unloaded position (Fig. 8), as per claim 18;
wherein the detector (7) is a hall effect sensor (the detector is a Hall element that senses the distance to target magnet 8), as per claim 19;
wherein the first member (15) is configured to be fixedly coupled to the body (2) of the tool, as per claim 20.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue et al. CN 110920776 A.
Independent Claim 1: Xue discloses a robotic garden tool comprising:
a body (2);
a plurality of wheels (4);
a wheel mount (3) extending between and coupled to both a corresponding one of the plurality of wheels and the body, wherein the wheel mount is adjustable between a loaded position and an unloaded position, and wherein wheel mount includes
a first member (15, 16) coupled to the body,
a second member (3) movably coupled to the first member at a pivot point (at 9), the second member including a mounting point (11) for mounting one of the plurality of wheels to the second member
a sensor (7 or 8) fixed to the first member (as seen in the boxed text of page 6 of the attached document, the hall sensor 7 and the magnet 8 are interchangeably mounted between the first and second members) and configured to output a signal (“electrical signal”, Abstract, lns. 6-8) indicating whether the wheel mount is in the loaded position (Fig. 7) or the unloaded position (Fig. 8); and
a target (the other of 7 or 8) fixed to the second member (as seen in the boxed text of page 6 of the attached document, the hall sensor 7 and the magnet 8 are interchangeably mounted between the first and second members), the target configured to be detected by the sensor to indicate whether the wheel mount is in the loaded position or the unloaded position; and
a controller (“control unit”, Abstract, ln. 7) in operable communication with the sensor of the wheel mount, and wherein the controller is configured to adjust the operation of the robotic garden tool based at least in part on the signal output by the sensor of the wheel mount (blade stoppage, see page 2 of the attached document, lns. 6-7 and page 6, lns. 14-17), as per claim 1.
However, Xue fails to specifically disclose wherein the target is arranged between the pivot point and the mounting point, as per claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to relocate Xue’s target between the pivot point and the mounting point since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art and in this case is a minor rearrangement that would provide a more immediate lift signal.
Dependent Claims 2-3, 5-11: Xue further discloses a cutting assembly (unnumbered “cutting working head” seen in Fig. 2), and wherein the cutting assembly includes a blade rotatable relative to the body (2) about a blade axis (through the vertical blade shaft, see Fig. 2), as per claim 2;
wherein the robotic garden tool is one of a lawn mower (1), a robotic trimmer (1), a robotic fertilizer spreader, a robotic aerator, and a robotic sprinkler, as per claim 3;
wherein the detector is configured to detect a distance between the detector and the target (the detector is a Hall element that senses the distance to a target magnet 8), as per claim 5;
wherein the sensor (7, 8) is configured to output a first signal (in this case 0 or absence of a trigger) indicating the wheel mount (3) is in the loaded position (Fig. 7) when the distance between the detector (7) and the target (8) are below a predetermined threshold value, and wherein the sensor is configured to output a second signal (a 1 or a trigger signal) indicating the wheel mount is in an unloaded position (Fig. 8) when the distance between the detector and the target exceeds the threshold value, as per claim 6;
wherein the detector (7) is a hall effect sensor (page 3, lns. 11-12), as per claim 7;
wherein the wheel mount (3) includes a stop (6), and wherein at least a portion of the forces applied to the at least one of the plurality of wheels (4) is transmitted to the first member (15) via the stop when the wheel mount is in the loaded position, as per claim 8;
wherein at least one wheel of the plurality of wheels (4) includes a steerable wheel (a “free steering” caster wheel, seen in Fig. 3), and wherein the steerable wheel is coupled to the body (2) via the wheel mount (3), as per claim 9;
wherein the steerable wheel (4) includes a caster assembly (6, 14, 11, a “free steering” caster wheel, seen in Fig. 3) that is rotatable relative to the wheel mount (3) and a wheel (4) that is rotatable relative to the caster assembly, as per claim 10;
wherein at least one wheel (the rear wheels) of the plurality of wheels is a driven wheel, and wherein the controller (“control unit”, Abstract, ln. 7) is configured to adjust the operation of the operation of the driven wheel (“to avoid idling of the motor, it is necessary to close the motor drive circuit… to the walking wheel” when lifted to avoid damage) based at least in part on the signal output by the sensor (7, 8) of the wheel mount (3), as per claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that the Xue’s target location does not provide operational advantages such as smoothing out the detected signals. However, this “criticality” was not discussed in the original disclosure. Furthermore, it is unclear that Xue’s target location, as-is, does or does not provide smooth signals given that there was no discussion by applicant by which to measure this limitation. That said, relocating Xue’s target to the claimed position would be a matter of inches, if that, and would provide the added benefit of signaling a lift condition sooner than its current location. The rejection is therefore maintained.
Regarding claim 12, as seen in the updated art rejection above, the nature of a Hall Effect sensor and magnet is to operate as claimed. A Hall Effect sensor will naturally detect the location/distance of the magnet throughout its range of motion, thereby detecting any predetermined target distances. The rejection is therefore maintained.
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 Alicia M. Torres whose telephone number is 571-272-6997. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-6997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph M. Rocca, can be reached at (571) 272-8971.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the group receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-3600. The fax number for this Group is 571-273-8300.
/Alicia Torres/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 January 10, 2026