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 03/19/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on 12/19/2025, but included the fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.17(p). The submission 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
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendment of claim(s) 1-2, 5-7 and 15 in Applicant’s Response to Official Action dated 03/19/2026 (“Response”). Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are currently pending in this application and are subject to examination herein.
Based upon Applicant’s amendment of Claim 7 to recite “the base” rather than “the core”, the Examiner’s prior rejection of Claim 7 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 15-20 recite a statement of intended use, namely “for use with a robotic garden tool” (claim 15 at line 1). However, none of those claims recites a robotic garden tool outside the preamble. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Pat. Pub. No. CN 111969697 A to Sun et al. (hereinafter Sun) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0178665 to Chen et al. (hereinafter Chen ‘665).
Regarding claim 15, Sun discloses a charging station comprising:
a base (charger 2) (see Annotated Fig. 1 of Sun infra; P. 4, lines 15-30); and
a charging terminal (upper shell 21, five annular reflecting belt 4, charging head anode 6a and charging head cathode 6b) (see Annotated Fig. 1 of Sun infra; Figs. 1, 3; P. 4, lines 15-30; p. 5, lines 11-17) coupled to the base (charger 2) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 15-30),
wherein the charging terminal (upper shell 21, five annular reflecting belt 4, charging head anode 6a and charging head cathode 6b) (see Annotated Fig. 1 of Sun infra; Figs. 1, 3; P. 4, lines 15-30; p. 5, lines 11-17) includes a first portion defining a positive electrode (charging head cathode 6b) (Fig. 3; P. 4, lines 15-30; p. 5, lines 11-17) and a second portion defining a negative electrode (charging head anode 6a) (Fig. 3; P. 4, lines 15-30; p. 5, lines 11-17) electrically insulated from the positive electrode (charging head cathode 6b) (Fig. 3; P. 4, lines 15-30; p. 5, lines 11-17),
wherein the charging terminal (upper shell 21, five annular reflecting belt 4, charging head anode 6a and charging head cathode 6b) (see Annotated Fig. 1 of Sun infra; Figs. 1, 3; P. 4, lines 15-30; p. 5, lines 11-17) is convex (see Annotated Fig. 1 of Sun infra; Fig. 3).
However, Sun does not expressly disclose that the second electrode is a ground electrode. Nevertheless, it is exceptionally well-known in the art that a voltage potential can be applied across two electrodes in a variety of ways, such as by having a positive electrode (e.g., +6v) and a negative electrode (e.g., -6v) or a positive electrode (e.g., +12v) and a ground electrode (e.g., 0 v), wherein each option would provide the required voltage potential drop (e.g., 12v) across the circuit. Chen ’665 teaches a charging device wherein a first electrode is a positive electrode (providing a positive power P) (Fig. 1; Para. [0049]) and a second electrode is a ground electrode (providing ground N) (Fig. 1; Para. [0049]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the charging station disclosed in Sun with the positive and ground electrodes taught in Chen ’665 or based on common electrical knowledge with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce the chance that a person touching the second/negative electrode and receiving an electrical shock. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the charging station disclosed in Sun with the positive and ground electrodes taught in Chen ’665 or based on common electrical knowledge with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
[AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Charging Terminal)][AltContent: textbox (Base)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
716
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Sun.
Regarding claim 16, Sun in view of Chen ’665 teaches the charging station of claim 15 (see above). Furthermore, the combination of Sun in view of Chen ’665 discloses a charging station wherein the positive electrode (charging head cathode 6b) (Fig. 3; P. 4, lines 15-30; p. 5, lines 11-17) and the second/ground/negative electrode (charging head anode 6a) (Fig. 3; P. 4, lines 15-30; p. 5, lines 11-17) are electrically isolated from one another by an intermediate portion (reflecting belt 4) (Fig. 3; P. 4, lines 15-30; p. 5, lines 11-17).
Regarding claim 17, Sun in view of Chen ’665 teaches the charging station of claim 16 (see above Furthermore, the combination of Sun in view of Chen ’665 discloses a charging station wherein the positive electrode (charging head cathode 6b) (Fig. 3; P. 4, lines 15-30; p. 5, lines 11-17) and the second/ground/negative electrode (charging head anode 6a) (Fig. 3; P. 4, lines 15-30; p. 5, lines 11-17) are formed from conductive material and wherein the intermediate portion (reflecting belt 4) (Fig. 3; P. 4, lines 15-30; p. 5, lines 11-17) is formed from an insulating material (implied otherwise the cathode 6b and anode 6a would short circuit).
Regarding claim 18, Sun in view of Chen ’665 teaches the charging station of claim 16 (see above Furthermore, the combination of Sun in view of Chen ’665 discloses a charging station wherein the charging terminal (upper shell 21, five annular reflecting belt 4, charging head anode 6a and charging head cathode 6b) (see Annotated Fig. 1 of Sun infra; Figs. 1, 3; P. 4, lines 15-30; p. 5, lines 11-17) includes an outer portion (see Annotated Fig. 3 of Sun infra), the intermediate portion (see Annotated Fig. 3 of Sun infra) and a central portion (see Annotated Fig. 3 of Sun infra), the outer portion (see Annotated Fig. 3 of Sun infra) substantially encircling the intermediate portion (see Annotated Fig. 3 of Sun infra), and the intermediate portion (see Annotated Fig. 3 of Sun infra) substantially encircling the central portion (see Annotated Fig. 3 of Sun infra).
[AltContent: textbox (Intermediate Portion)][AltContent: textbox (Central Portion)][AltContent: textbox (Outer Portion)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
301
384
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Sun.
Regarding claim 19, Sun in view of Chen ’665 teaches the charging station of claim 16 (see above Furthermore, the combination of Sun in view of Chen ’665 discloses a charging station wherein the outer portion forms one of the ground electrode and the positive electrode (charging head cathode 6b) (Fig. 3; P. 4, lines 15-30; p. 5, lines 11-17) and wherein the central portion (see Annotated Fig. 3 of Sun infra) forms the other of the second/ground/negative electrode (charging head anode 6a) (Fig. 3; P. 4, lines 15-30; p. 5, lines 11-17) and the positive electrode (see Annotated Fig. 3 of Sun infra).
Regarding claim 20, Sun in view of Chen ’665 teaches the charging station of claim 15 (see above Furthermore, the combination of Sun in view of Chen ’665 discloses a charging station wherein charging terminal (upper shell 21, five annular reflecting belt 4, charging head anode 6a and charging head cathode 6b) (see Annotated Fig. 1 of Sun infra; Figs. 1, 3; P. 4, lines 15-30; p. 5, lines 11-17) is resiliently deformable (P. 6, lines 34-51).
Allowable Subject Matter & Examiner's Reasons For Allowance
Claims 1-7 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record fails to disclose or otherwise teach the combination of limitations claimed in the aforementioned claims. In particular regarding independent claim 1, the prior art of record fails to disclose or otherwise teach a charging station for use with a robotic garden tool, the charging station comprising:
a base having an upper surface and a lower surface, the lower surface of the base being configured to be supported on a support surface;
a charging terminal coupled to the upper surface of the base, wherein the charging terminal includes a positive electrode, a ground electrode electrically insulated from the positive electrode, and a moveable member movable between a first position adjacent the upper surface of the base and a second position below the upper surface of the base,
wherein at least one of the positive electrode and the ground electrode are configured to selectively extend upward to a location vertically above the upper surface of the base upon movement of the moveable member toward the second position.
Specifically, the prior art does not disclose or otherwise teach the claimed combination and, in particular, does not teach a charging station comprising a base and a charging terminal coupled to the upper surface of the base comprising a positive electrode, a ground electrode electrically insulated from the positive electrode and a moveable member movable between a first position adjacent the upper surface of the base and a second position below the upper surface of the base, wherein at least one of the positive electrode and the ground electrode are configured to selectively extend upward to a location vertically above the upper surface of the base upon movement of the moveable member toward the second position.
Claims 2-7 depend, either directly or ultimately, from allowable, independent claim 1 and are, therefore, likewise allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0372367 to Chuang et al.; German Pat. Pub. No. DE 698 25 642 T2 to Petersson et al.; and Chinese Pat. Pub. Nos. CN 110477825 B to Liu et al.; CN 214450382 U to Ye; CN 112435422 A to Cao et al.; and relate to robot charging stations/bases. Chinese Pat. Pub. Nos. CN 219420343 U to Li et al. relates to a charging state detecting system. Int’l. Pat. Pub. No. WO 2019/060939 A1 to Flechl relates to a charging device having a convex charging terminal and an arm that moves the terminal vertically.
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 CLAUDE J BROWN whose telephone number is (571)270-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8AM-5PM.
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, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at (571) 272-8971. 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.
/CLAUDE J BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights