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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 5/9/2023. Claims 1,4-9, and 11-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to arguments
Applicant amended claims 1,4-5,8-9,13,15-18 and cancelled claims 2-3, and 10, which changes the scope of the claims and as such a new grounds of rejection is issued.
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 11-12 Applicant asserts:
With respect to claims 11 and 12, the Examiner argues that differences in surface area of conductive plates are obvious due to manufacturing tolerance. However, manufacturing tolerance does not provide a proper motivation to modify Ichige to arrive at the claimed configuration of intentionally unequal surface areas.
In response:
Examiner respectfully disagree, and stated “However, it is well known that different surface areas or portions of conductive plates are not identical due to manufacturing tolerance. Therefore the surface areas or the different portions of the positive charging plates being different wherein one portion is greater than the other would have been obvious as it is merely a difference in shape”.
In regards to applicants remaining remarks:
Applicant remarks have been considered but are moot base on new grounds of rejection.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/25/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites “and the positive charging plate surface area and the ground charging plate surface area are not equal” is not supported in the specification and is therefore new matter.
The specification recites “where the ground charging plate has a greater total surface area than the total surface area of the positive charging plate”.
The claim language “ not equal” includes the ground charging plate has a smaller surface area than the surface area of the positive charging plate which is not supported in the specification.
Claims 11-14 are included in this rejection based on their dependence on claim 9.
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 9,11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichige (JP 2016208885) evident by Asada (US 20090039836) .
PNG
media_image1.png
550
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 9, Ichige discloses a robotic tool (Fig. 2 mower 1) comprising:
a body having an outer surface (Fig. 2-3,9 (10) §.[0016}-{0017]), the body having a front end (41), a first side end extending from the front end, and a second side end extending from the front end opposite the first side end (fig. 2-3,9);
one or more driven wheels coupled to the body (fig.2-3, (12a, 12b, 13a, 13b) .[0016)(0017]);
a working tool coupled to the body ([0016], the cutting blade);
a battery (fig.2-4, (27),[0019]); and
a positive charging plate including (fig.2-4, (42) [0027]-[0028]);
a first portion extending partially along the front end of the body (Fig. 2-3 “front portion” of 42), a second portion extending at least partially along the first side of the body (Fig. 3 “back portion” 42), and
a ground charging plate (fig.2-4, (43) [0027]-[0028]), including: a third portion extending partially along the front end of the body (Fig. 3 “front portion” of 43), and a fourth portion extending at least partially along the second side of the body (Fig. 3 “back portion” 43).
wherein the first portion and the second portion define a positive charging plate surface area (fig.2-4, (42); the third portion and the fourth portion define a ground charging plate surface area (fig.2-4, (43)),
Ichige does not disclose/teach the positive charging plate surface area and the ground charging plate surface area are not equal.
However it is old and well-known and common engineering practice to have the ground surface area as large as possibly in order to reduce noise and achieve optimal thermal and heat dissipation. This is evident in Asada (Fig. 3-4 ([0039] The circuit board 100 includes a large area of the ground plane as a reference potential plane. …. The large area of the ground plane 102 makes it possible to reduce heat occurring at the circuit board caused by the current consumption of the circuit board 100).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive and ground charging plate surface area of Ichige to not be equal in order to reduce heat occurring at the circuit board caused by the current consumption of the circuit board.
As to claim 11, Ichige evident by Asada teaches the robotic tool of claim 9.
Ichige does not disclose/teach wherein the second portion of the positive charging plate has a greater surface area than the first portion of the positive charging plate.
However, it is well known that different surface areas or portions of conductive plates are not identical due to manufacturing tolerances. Therefore the surface areas or the different portions of the positive charging plates being different wherein one portion is greater than the other would have been obvious as it is merely a difference in shape.
As to claim 12, Ichige evident by Asada teaches the robotic tool of claim 9.
Ichige does not disclose/teach the fourth portion of the ground charging plate has a greater surface area than the third portion of the ground charging plate
However, it is well known that different surface areas or portions of conductive plates are not identical due to manufacturing tolerances. Therefore the surface areas or the different portions the ground charging plate being different wherein one portion is greater than the other would have been obvious as it is merely a difference in shape.
As to claim 13, Ichige evident by Asada teaches the robotic tool of claim 9.
Ichige does not disclose/teach wherein the ground charging plate has a greater total surface area than the total surface area of the positive charging plate
However it is old and well-known and common engineering practice to have the ground surface area as large as possibly in order to reduce noise and achieve optimal thermal and heat dissipation. This is evident in Asada (Fig. 3-4 ([0039] The circuit board 100 includes a large area of the ground plane as a reference potential plane. …. The large area of the ground plane 102 makes it possible to reduce heat occurring at the circuit board caused by the current consumption of the circuit board 100).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ground charging plate to have a greater total surface area than the total surface area of the positive charging plate in order to reduce heat occurring at the circuit board caused by the current consumption of the circuit board.
As to claim 14, Ichige evident by Asada teaches the robotic tool of claim 9, wherein the working tool is a rotating blade ([0021] A motor 30 for rotating the cutting blade 35).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1,4-8, and 15-20 are allowed
The following is a statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim(s) 1, although the prior art discloses a charging station for use with a robotic tool, the charging station comprising: a first column defining a first column axis; a second column defining a second column axis; a first charging terminal pivotably coupled to the first column for rotation about the first column axis, wherein the first charging terminal includes a first electrode and a second electrode; and a second charging terminal pivotably coupled to the second column for rotation about the second column axis, wherein the second charging terminal includes at least one electrode, the prior art of record does not disclose or teach the combination of:
“wherein the first charging terminal includes a plurality of horizontally stacked portions including a first portion comprising the first electrode which forms a first surface, a second comprising the second electrode which forms a second surface, and a third portion positioned between the first portion and the second portion.”
Regarding independent claim(s) 15, although the prior art discloses a robotic tool kit, comprising: a charging station including: a first column defining a first column axis, Anda first charging terminal pivotally coupled to the first column for rotation about the first column axis, and a robotic tool comprising: a body having an exterior surface; at least one driven wheel coupled to the body, a battery, and a first charging plate open to the exterior surface of the body, wherein the first charging plate is configured to contact and form an electrical connection with either the first electrode or the second electrode, the prior art of record does not disclose or teach the combination of:
“wherein the first charging terminal extends radially outwardly from the first column and includes a plurality of horizontally stacked portions including a first portion comprising a first electrode which forms a first surface, a second electrode which forms a second surface, and a third portion positioned between the first portion and the second portion.”
Dependent claims 4-8, and 16-20 are allowable for the reasons set forth supra with respect to the independent claims from which they depend.
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 and related art
US 20060142055 ([0009]) is cited for having in order to supply a steady power while reducing the generation of noise, it is necessary to provide a ground surface with a larger area. When the ground surface is small, elements on the ground surface of the PCB may interfere with each other which may cause noise to be generated.
Gao (US 10772217) is cited for having the second ground layer 55 is a large-area heat dissipation structure to improve heat dissipation efficiency.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYNESE V MCDANIEL whose telephone number is (313)446-6579. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F, 9am to 530pm.
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Drew 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TYNESE V MCDANIEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights