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 . The instant application with application Number 18/304,980 filed on 04/21/2023 is presented for examination; claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statment
The Information Disclosure Statements dated 11/10/2023 and 04/29/2024 are acknowledged and the cited references have been considered in this examination.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dower (US 2010/0308768) in view of Holgersson et al. (US 2019/0131812).
With respect to claims 1, 10 and 18, Dower discloses a charging station for use with a robotic garden tool (See reproduced drawing below: Fig. 14,200 and vehicle 800) having a charging port (Fig. 14, 820/822), the charging station (Fig. 14, 200) comprising: a pad having a top surface (Fig. 14, 201); a hub extending from the top surface to produce a distal end (Fig. 14, from ‘distal end top to bottom; Para. # 0068); a charging terminal (Fig. 14, 220 and 222) configured to form a temporary electrical connection with the charging port (vehicle tool and charging port 820 and 822), wherein the charging terminal is adjustable relative to the pad (charging terminal 220/222 is connected to arm 202 which is movable).
PNG
media_image1.png
503
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
478
821
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Dower, does not expressly disclose a robotic garden tool.
Holgersson, on the other hand, discloses a robotic garden tool or a robotic lawnmower.
DOWER and Holgersson are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely docking bays for recharging batteries and system for navigating robotic lawnmower into a docking station.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added a robotic battery powered garden tool (lawnmower) to automatically cut grass or plant within the referenced limits and return to docking station recharge rechargeable batteries and continuously working on the garden efficiently saving ample time by working continuously.
With respect to claims 2 and 13-14, the combined references of Dower and Holgersson disclose the charging station as described above, further Dower discloses wherein the charging terminal defines a docking axis, wherein the charging terminal is configured to engage the charging port in a direction parallel to the docking axis, and wherein the docking axis is adjustable relative to the pad thereto (Fig. 14, charging terminals 220 and 222 constant distance from bay/pad 200 and movement can be adjusted, charging port in moving tool engage somewhat parallel to the docking axis 200).
With respect to claims 3 and 11, the combined references of Dower and Holgersson disclose the charging station as described above, further Dower discloses, wherein the hub defines a hub axis, and wherein the docking axis extends radially from the hub axis (See Fig. 14, where the docking axis 202 extends from hub 200).
With respect to claim 4, the combined references of Dower and Holgersson disclose the charging station as described above, further Dower discloses wherein the hub axis is normal to the top surface (Fig. 14, hub 200 has distal end hub 201).
With respect to claims 5, 15-17 and 19, the combined references of Dower and Holgersson disclose the charging station as described above, further Holgersson discloses wherein the top surface of the pad includes an alignment mechanism configured to align the robotic power tool relative to the charging terminal (Para. #. 0025 and 0026; see also Fig. 1A/1B).
PNG
media_image3.png
376
640
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 6, the combined references of Dower and Holgersson disclose the charging station as described above, further Holgersson discloses , wherein the alignment mechanism includes a pair of tracks formed into the top surface of the pad (See Para. # 0040: the controller 110 of the robotic lawnmower 100 to determine how the robotic lawnmower 100 is aligned with relation to the boundary; and a guide cable 260 for enabling the robotic lawnmower to find the entrance of and to dock with the charging station 210).
With respect to claim 7, the combined references of Dower and Holgersson disclose the charging station as described above, further Dower discloses wherein the charging terminal is a first charging terminal, the charging station further comprising a second charging terminal configured to form a temporary electrical connection with the robotic garden tool (Para. # 0035, 0040-0041: a pair of electrical contacts 420, 422; contact between contacts 20, 22 and 420, 422 is a fundamental requisite to enable power flow from the docking bay to the vehicle 400).
With respect to claim 8, the combined references of Dower and Holgersson disclose the charging station as described above, further Dower discloses wherein the first charging terminal and the second charging terminal are both independently adjustable relative to the pad (Fig. 11, 420 and 422 is operable based on switching activities 40/41 to single or multiple charging as required).
With respect to claims 9, 12 and 20, the combined references of Dower and Holgersson disclose the charging station as described above, further Dower discloses wherein the charging terminal maintains a constant distance from the top surface of the pad when being adjusted relative thereto (Fig. 14, charging terminals 220 and 222 constant distance from bay/pad 200 and movement can be adjusted to fit the docking with recharging element, vehicle or moving tool in this case).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YALKEW FANTU whose telephone number is (571)272-8928. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:00PM.
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, DREW A DUNN can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/YALKEW FANTU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859