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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/31/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 1/20/2026. The examiner notes the following adjustments to the claims by the applicant:
Claims 1 and 13 are amended;
No claims are cancelled or added.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are pending examination, in which Claims 1 and 13 are independent claims.
In light of the instant amendments and arguments:
Further examination resulted in a new rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as detailed below.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments regarding the previous office action:
To overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, the applicant has amended Claim 1 as: “Independent claim 1 has been amended to recite, among other things, a robotic garden tool including a controller in operable communication with the wheel assemblies, the control configured to output one or more signals to the wheel assemblies to move the tool body in a first direction of travel relative to the body, stop movement of the tool body, rotate the tool body, and move the body away from the first location in a second direction of travel relative to the body opposite the first direction of travel after the tool body has rotated.”;
To overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, the applicant has amended Claim 13 as: “Independent claim 13 has been amended to recite, among other things, a method of turning a robotic garden tool in the presence of an object including moving the robotic garden tool in a first direction of travel with the first end serving as the leading end, stopping the robotic garden tool at a first location, rotating the robotic garden tool when in the first location, and moving the robotic garden tool away from the first location in a second direction of travel with the second end serving as the leading end after rotating the robotic garden tool.”;
“none of the disclosed maneuvers taught by Phanco teach traveling away from the first location in a second direction of travel relative to the body opposite the first direction of travel after the tool body has rotated. For at least this reason, Phanco does not teach each and every element of independent claim 1.”.
Applicant's arguments A., B. and C. appear to be directed to the instantly amended subject matter. Accordingly, they have been addressed in the rejections below.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102 as being unpatentable over Phanco (US 11,457,558 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Phanco explicitly discloses the limitations: a robotic garden tool {110, Fig. 1} comprising: a tool body having a first end and a second end opposite the first end {outer housing of lawn mower 110, Fig. 1}, wherein the tool body defines a longitudinal axis extending through the first end and the second end {as evident in Fig. 1 for mower 110}; one or more wheel assemblies coupled to the tool body {rear drive wheels 109 and front casters or non-drive wheels, Fig. 1}; and a controller in operable communication with the wheel assemblies {“Main board 101 includes drive controller 103 for controlling drive system 105, and blade controller 104 for controlling blade system 106.”, Col. 7, Lns 10-12}, the controller configured to output one or more signals to the wheel assemblies to: move the tool body in a first direction of travel relative to the tool body {“an approach by lawn mower 110 toward an object in front and to the right. Thus, processor 102 will communicate with drive controller 103, which will issue a command to drive system 105 to turn lawn mower 110 to the left to begin or continue a path that avoids colliding with the object”, Col. 10, Lns. 8-12}, stop movement of the tool body in a first location spaced a predetermined distance {“The timing of the turn of lawn mower 110 away from the corner determines the mowing precision: the closer lawn mower 110 approaches the corner before turning, the closer cut the lawn receives. Thus, a programmer might input logic into processor 102 that leads lawn mower 110 to implement its slight turn only after the lawn mower has closely—say, for example, within 3-6 inches of the corner—approached the edge of the corner. Because the timing of the start of the turn is a matter of programmer or user preference, the sequence in FIGS. 4A-4B is purely exemplary. Thus, a programmer might input logic into processor 102 that leads lawn mower 110 to implement its slight tum only after the lawn mower has closely-say, for example, within 3-6 inches of the corner-approached the edge of the corner.”, Col. 13, Lns. 38-45} from an object {“Sensors on the lawn mower detect the electromagnetic field so that, when the autonomous lawn mower confronts part of the lawn boundary or a permanent obstacle, the lawn mower can execute an evasive maneuver”, Col. 1, Lns. 30-34}, rotate the tool body while in the first location, and move the tool body away from the first location in a second direction of travel relative to the tool body opposite the first direction of travel after the tool body has rotated {various options are provided for avoiding an obstacle, including stopping the lawn mower, turning and moving in a new direction to avoid the obstacle: “lawn mower 110 can implement maneuvers besides a slight or moderate turn, such as (1) stopping, turning 180°, and moving away from the obstacle; (2) stopping, reversing, and then turning to the left or right; or (3) making a U-turn or a V-shaped turn away from the obstacle. Lawn mower 110 can implement any one of, or any combination of, maneuvers when it confronts an obstacle”, Col. 10, Ln. 62 to Col. 11, Ln. 1}.
Regarding Claim 2, Phanco discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Phanco explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the control system is configured to output one or more signals to cause the tool body to rotate less than 90 degrees in the first location {Col. 1, Lns. 27-34, describes the need for an “evasive maneuver” when an object like a tree is encountered, and Fig. 2 shows an unmowable region (white region of 202) the mower should avoid, with an angled boundary, providing two examples where the mower needs to change direction at less than a 90 degree angle to deal with the obstacle; the movement flexibility to adapt to different shaped obstacles, requiring different angular rotation to avoid – or move around the obstacle – is described in Col. 10, Ln. 62 to Col. 11, Ln. 1, as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art; Vision assembly 113, Fig. 1, identifies the shape or angular configuration of an obstacle or unmovable area}.
Regarding Claim 3, Phanco discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Phanco explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the control system is configured to output one or more signals to cause the tool body to rotate less than 30 degrees in the first location {Col. 1, Lns. 27-34, describes the need for an “evasive maneuver” when an object like a tree is encountered, and Fig. 2 shows an unmowable region (white region of 202) the mower should avoid, with an angled boundary, providing two examples where the mower needs to change direction at less than a 90 degree angle to deal with the obstacle; the movement flexibility to adapt to different shaped obstacles, requiring different angular rotation to avoid – or move around the obstacle – is described in Col. 10, Ln. 62 to Col. 11, Ln. 1, as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art; Vision assembly 113, Fig. 1, identifies the shape or angular configuration of an obstacle or unmowable area}.
Regarding Claim 4, Phanco discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Phanco explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the control system configured to output one or more signals to cause the tool body to rotate less than 10 degrees in the first location {Col. 1, Lns. 27-34, describes the need for an “evasive maneuver” when an object like a tree is encountered, and Fig. 2 shows an unmowable region (white region of 202) the mower should avoid, with an angled boundary, providing two examples where the mower needs to change direction at less than a 90 degree angle to deal with the obstacle; the movement flexibility to adapt to different shaped obstacles, requiring different angular rotation to avoid – or move around the obstacle – is described in Col. 10, Ln. 62 to Col. 11, Ln. 1, as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art; Vision assembly 113, Fig. 1, identifies the shape or angular configuration of an obstacle or unmowable area, such the recognition of tree can allow the rear wheel drive controller 103, Fig. 1, to begin gradual turning to move in a semi-circular fashion about the tree}.
Regarding Claim 5, Phanco discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Phanco explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the tool body includes a periphery, and wherein the tool body is configured to rotate about a tool pivot axis that is positioned within the periphery {“Drive system 105 controls drive motors 108 to rotate wheels 109 to accelerate, brake, reverse, and turn lawn mower 110.”, Col. 7, Lns. 12-14, which means turning is the result of the drive wheels turning at different speeds, corresponding to a zero-turn type system, as will appreciated by one skilled in the art}.
Regarding Claim 6, Phanco discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Phanco explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the tool body travels with the first end as the leading end when traveling in the first direction {with respect to Fig. 1, the leading end of lawn mower is on the left during forward motion of the mower}, and wherein the tool body travels with the second end as the leading end when traveling in the second direction {with respect to Fig. 1, the rear end of lawn mower is on the right, where the drive wheels are positioned, and this will be the lead part of the mower when moving in reverse: “Drive system 105 controls drive motors 108 to rotate wheels 109 to accelerate, brake, reverse, and turn lawn mower 110.”, Col. 7, Lns. 12-14}.
Regarding Claim 7, Phanco discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Phanco explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the control system is configured to send one or more signals to cause the tool body to pivot a randomly selected number of degrees when in the first location {“processor 102 can be programed to implement a random turn or pseudo random turn in such situations (e.g. alternate turns, sets of left and right turns based on Result Values in previously processed images, etc.)”, Col. 12, Lns. 33-37}.
Regarding Claim 8, Phanco discloses all the limitations of Claim 7, as discussed supra. In addition, Phanco explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the randomly selected number of degrees is less than 30 degrees {one skilled in the art will appreciate that the random motion described in Col. 12, Lns. 33-37, and flexibility of movement to deal with obstacles described in Col. 10, Ln. 62 to Col. 11, Ln. 1 (i.e., “Lawn mower 110 can implement any one of, or any combination of, maneuvers when it confronts an obstacle”) allows for small angular changes in direction of a random nature}.
Regarding Claim 12, Phanco discloses all the limitations of Claim 9, as discussed supra. In addition, Phanco explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the cutting assembly {106, Fig. 1} is configured to cut vegetation while the tool body is traveling in both the first direction of travel and the second direction of travel {“ Main board 101 includes drive controller 103 for controlling drive system 105, and blade controller 104 for controlling blade system 106. Drive system 105 controls drive motors 108 to rotate wheels 109 to accelerate, brake, reverse, and turn lawn mower 110. Blade system 106 rotates, brakes, and shuts off blades 119.”, Col. 7, Lns. 12-15}.
Regarding Claim 13, Phanco explicitly discloses the limitations: method of turning a robotic garden tool {110, Fig. 1} in the presence of an object {“Sensors on the lawn mower detect the electromagnetic field so that, when the autonomous lawn mower confronts part of the lawn boundary or a permanent obstacle, the lawn mower can execute an evasive maneuver”, Col. 1, Lns. 30-34}, where the robotic garden tool includes a body with a first end and a second end opposite the first end {as evident in Fig. 1 for mower 110}, the method comprising: moving the robotic garden tool in a first direction of travel with the first end serving as the leading end {“an approach by lawn mower 110 toward an object in front and to the right. Thus, processor 102 will communicate with drive controller 103, which will issue a command to drive system 105 to turn lawn mower 110 to the left to begin or continue a path that avoids colliding with the object” , Col. 10, Lns. 8-12}; stopping the robotic garden tool at a first location spaced a predetermined distance {“The timing of the turn of lawn mower 110 away from the corner determines the mowing precision: the closer lawn mower 110 approaches the corner before turning, the closer cut the lawn receives. Thus, a programmer might input logic into processor 102 that leads lawn mower 110 to implement its slight turn only after the lawn mower has closely—say, for example, within 3-6 inches of the corner—approached the edge of the corner. Because the timing of the start of the turn is a matter of programmer or user preference, the sequence in FIGS. 4A-4B is purely exemplary. Thus, a programmer might input logic into processor 102 that leads lawn mower 110 to implement its slight tum only after the lawn mower has closely-say, for example, within 3-6 inches of the corner-approached the edge of the corner.”, Col. 13, Lns. 38-45} from an object {“Sensors on the lawn mower detect the electromagnetic field so that, when the autonomous lawn mower confronts part of the lawn boundary or a permanent obstacle, the lawn mower can execute an evasive maneuver”, Col. 1, Lns. 30-34}; rotating the robotic garden tool when in the first location; and moving the robotic garden tool away from the first location in a second direction of travel with the second end serving as the leading end after rotating the robotic garden tool {various options are provided for avoiding an obstacle, including stopping the lawn mower, turning and moving in a new direction to avoid the obstacle: “lawn mower 110 can implement maneuvers besides a slight or moderate turn, such as (1) stopping, turning 180°, and moving away from the obstacle; (2) stopping, reversing, and then turning to the left or right; or (3) making a U-turn or a V-shaped turn away from the obstacle. Lawn mower 110 can implement any one of, or any combination of, maneuvers when it confronts an obstacle”, Col. 10, Ln. 62 to Col. 11, Ln. 1}.
Regarding Claim 14, Phanco discloses all the limitations of Claim 13, as discussed supra. In addition, Phanco explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the robotic garden tool includes a periphery, and wherein rotating the robotic garden tool includes rotating the robotic garden tool about a pivot point located within the periphery {“Drive system 105 controls drive motors 108 to rotate wheels 109 to accelerate, brake, reverse, and turn lawn mower 110.”, Col. 7, Lns. 12-14, which means turning is the result of the drive wheels turning at different speeds, corresponding to a zero-turn type system, as will appreciated by one skilled in the art}.
Regarding Claim 15, Phanco discloses all the limitations of Claim 13, as discussed supra. In addition, Phanco explicitly recites the limitation: wherein rotating the robotic garden tool includes rotating the robotic garden tool less than 90 degrees {Col. 1, Lns. 27-34, describes the need for an “evasive maneuver” when an object like a tree is encountered, and Fig. 2 shows an unmowable region (white region of 202) the mower should avoid, with an angled boundary, providing two examples where the mower needs to change direction at less than a 90 degree angle to deal with the obstacle; the movement flexibility to adapt to different shaped obstacles, requiring different angular rotation to avoid – or move around the obstacle – is described in Col. 10, Ln. 62 to Col. 11, Ln. 1, as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art; Vision assembly 113, Fig. 1, identifies the shape or angular configuration of an obstacle or unmowable area}.
Regarding Claim 16, Phanco discloses all the limitations of Claim 13, as discussed supra. In addition, Phanco explicitly recites the limitation: wherein rotating the robotic garden tool includes rotating the robotic garden tool less than 30 degrees {Col. 1, Lns. 27-34, describes the need for an “evasive maneuver” when an object like a tree is encountered, and Fig. 2 shows an unmowable region (white region of 202) the mower should avoid, with an angled boundary, providing two examples where the mower needs to change direction at less than a 90 degree angle to deal with the obstacle; the movement flexibility to adapt to different shaped obstacles, requiring different angular rotation to avoid – or move around the obstacle – is described in Col. 10, Ln. 62 to Col. 11, Ln. 1, as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art; Vision assembly 113, Fig. 1, identifies the shape or angular configuration of an obstacle or unmowable area}.
Regarding Claim 17, Phanco discloses all the limitations of Claim 13, as discussed supra. In addition, Phanco explicitly recites the limitation: wherein rotating the robotic garden tool includes rotating the robotic garden tool less than 10 degrees {Col. 1, Lns. 27-34, describes the need for an “evasive maneuver” when an object like a tree is encountered, and Fig. 2 shows an unmowable region (white region of 202) the mower should avoid, with an angled boundary, providing two examples where the mower needs to change direction at less than a 90 degree angle to deal with the obstacle; the movement flexibility to adapt to different shaped obstacles, requiring different angular rotation to avoid – or move around the obstacle – is described in Col. 10, Ln. 62 to Col. 11, Ln. 1, as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art; vision assembly 113, Fig. 1, identifies the shape or angular configuration of an obstacle or unmowable area, such the recognition of tree can allow the rear wheel drive controller 103, Fig. 1, to begin gradual turning to move in a semi-circular fashion about the tree}.
Regarding Claim 18, Phanco discloses all the limitations of Claim 13, as discussed supra. In addition, Phanco explicitly recites the limitation: further comprising selecting a random rotation angle, and wherein rotating the robotic garden tool includes rotating the robotic garden tool by the random rotation angle {“processor 102 can be programed to implement a random turn or pseudo random turn in such situations (e.g. alternate turns, sets of left and right turns based on Result Values in previously processed images, etc.)”, Col. 12, Lns. 33-37}.
Regarding Claim 19, Phanco discloses all the limitations of Claim 18, as discussed supra. In addition, Phanco explicitly recites the limitation: wherein selecting a random rotation angle includes selecting an angle that is less than or equal to 30 degrees {one skilled in the art will appreciate that the random motion described in Col. 12, Lns. 33-37, and flexibility of movement to deal with obstacles described in Col. 10, Ln. 62 to Col. 11, Ln. 1 (i.e., “Lawn mower 110 can implement any one of, or any combination of, maneuvers when it confronts an obstacle”) allows for small angular changes in direction of a random nature}.
Regarding Claim 20, Phanco discloses all the limitations of Claim 13, as discussed supra. In addition, Phanco explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the garden tool includes at least one wheel assembly, and wherein moving the robotic garden tool in the first direction includes rotating the first wheel assembly in a first rotational direction {with respect to Fig. 1, the leading end of lawn mower is on the left during forward motion of the mower}, and wherein moving the robotic garden tool in a second direction includes rotating the first wheel assembly in a second direction of rotation opposite the first direction of rotation {with respect to Fig. 1, the rear end of lawn mower is on the right, where the drive wheels are positioned, and this will be the lead part of the mower when moving in reverse: “Drive system 105 controls drive motors 108 to rotate wheels 109 to accelerate, brake, reverse, and turn lawn mower 110.”, Col. 7, Lns. 12-14}.
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 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Phanco and Messina et al. (US 8,336,282 B2, henceforth Messina).
Regarding Claim 9, Phanco discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Phanco explicitly recites the limitations: further comprising a cutting assembly {106, Fig. 1} and a cutting blade {119, Fig. 1}. Phanco does not appear to explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the cutting assembly includes a blade guard defining a guard axis, and a cutting blade that is rotatable with respect to the blade guard about the guard axis.
However, Messina explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the cutting assembly includes a blade guard defining a guard axis {140, Figs. 3-4}, and a cutting blade that is rotatable with respect to the blade guard about the guard axis {138, Fig. 4}.
Phanco and Messina are analogous art because they both deal with robotic lawn mowers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Phanco and Messina before them, to modify the teachings of Phanco to include the teachings of Messina to protect the operator from direct exposure to blades should contact with the robotic mower be necessary while it is in operation.
Regarding Claim 10, Phanco discloses all the limitations of Claim 9, as discussed supra. Phanco does not appear to explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the blade guard includes at least one axis of symmetry.
However, Messina explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the blade guard includes at least one axis of symmetry {blade shield 140, Figs. 3-4, is rotationally symmetric, in particular, with respect to the length and width of the robot}.
Regarding Claim 11, Phanco discloses all the limitations of Claim 9, as discussed supra. Phanco does not appear to explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the axis of symmetry is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the tool body.
However, Messina explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the axis of symmetry is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the tool body {blade shield 140, Figs. 3-4, is rotationally symmetric, in particular, with respect to the length and width of the robot}.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2024/0268259 A – Teaches of a cutting approach near a boundary, which includes stopping the mower at a predetermined distance from the boundary and rotating the drive wheels in “mutually different directions” to perform “an arcuate movement along a cutting arc” {¶[0075] and Fig. 6}.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD EDWIN GEIST whose telephone number is (703)756-5854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/R.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665