DETAILED ACTION
This is on the merits of Application No. 18/358703, filed on 07/25/2023. Claims 1, 3-10, 13, and 21 are pending. 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 11/06/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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 1, 3-4, 10, 13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 213245770 to Du (cited in applicant’s IDS).
Du discloses:
(Claim 1) A self-propelled device (Figs. 1-8, par. [0037]-[0064]), comprising: a cutting assembly (see par. [0002], blades of lawnmower) for cutting; a body (Fig. 1 element 100) for supporting the cutting assembly, the body having a connector mounting hole (Fig. 4 element 3411); a traveling system (Fig. 3 elements 1 and 2) for driving the body to move, wherein the traveling system comprises a traveling wheel (1) and a wheel hub motor (2) integrally disposed in the traveling wheel; and a connector (4) for detachably mounting the wheel hub motor on the body, wherein the connector comprises a wheel hub mounting hole (Fig. 5 element 43), a first end surface facing a side of the traveling wheel, and a second end surface facing away from the side of the traveling wheel (See Fig. 5), an inner diameter of the wheel hub mounting hole mates with an outer diameter of an output shaft (22) of the wheel hub motor (see Fig. 7), and an inner diameter of the connector mounting hole mates with an outer diameter of the connector (see par. [0043], Fig. 5, the limiting bump 4111 is matched in the limiting groove 321, to define the movement of the fixing part 4. The outer diameter of 4111 mates with inner diameter of 321).
(Claim 3) wherein a limiting mechanism (Fig. 4 element 221) is disposed between the output shaft of the wheel hub motor and the connector and used for preventing a relative displacement from being generated between the output shaft and the connector, and the relative displacement comprises an axial displacement and/or a circumferential displacement.
(Claim 4) wherein the limiting mechanism comprises at least one of: at least one platform portion (221), at least one step portion, at least one protrusion, at least one groove portion, and at least one radial dimension gradient portion, and the at least one platform portion extends along an axial direction, is disposed in at least part of a region of the output shaft and the connector, and is used for limiting the circumferential displacement.
(Claim 21) A smart mower (Figs. 1-8), comprising: a cutting assembly (see par. [0002], blades of lawnmower) for cutting; a body (100) for supporting the cutting assembly, the body having a connector mounting hole (3411); and a traveling system (1, 2) for driving the body to move, wherein the traveling system comprises a traveling wheel (1) and a wheel hub motor (2) integrally disposed in the traveling wheel.
Du does not explicitly disclose:
(Claims 1 and 21) a radial length of the wheel hub motor is greater than or equal to 18 cm and less than or equal to 33 cm, and an axial thickness of the wheel hub motor is less than or equal to 3.5 cm.
(Claim 10) wherein output power of the wheel hub motor is greater than or equal to 1 W.
(Claim 13) wherein an energy density of the wheel hub motor is greater than or equal to 0.05 W/cm3 and less than or equal to 0.5 W/cm3.
It would have been obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified, with a reasonable expectation of success,
the structure of Du to have the radial length of the wheel hub motor greater than or equal to 18 cm
and less than or equal to 33cm, and an axial thickness of the wheel hub motor less than or equal to 3.5
cm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art,
discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Such a modification
would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized
as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 10 and 13, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, the motor of Du to have an output power greater than or equal to 1 W and an energy density greater than or equal to 0.05 W/cm3 and less than or equal to 0.5 W/cm3 since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du in view of CN 112806165 to Tian et al.
Du teaches:
The limitations of claim 1.
Du does not teach:
(Claim 5) wherein the limiting mechanism further comprises an end surface limiting member, the end surface limiting member is disposed on the second end surface, the end surface limiting member engages with and is fixed to a first groove of the output shaft, and the first groove is located at a projection of the second end surface on the output shaft.
(Claim 6) wherein the limiting mechanism further comprises a rigid limiting member, and the rigid limiting member is detachably fixed to the housing of the body through a mounting assembly and the rigid limiting member is fixed to the output shaft.
Tian teaches:
(Claim 5) wherein the limiting mechanism further comprises an end surface limiting member (521), the end surface limiting member is disposed on the second end surface, the end surface limiting member engages with and is fixed to a first groove (412) of the output shaft, and the first groove is located at a projection of the second end surface on the output shaft (see Figs. 5-6, par. [0044]).
(Claim 6) wherein the limiting mechanism further comprises a rigid limiting member (52 is rigid), and the rigid limiting member is detachably fixed to the housing of the body through a mounting assembly (elements 522 and 55) and the rigid limiting member is fixed to the output shaft (fixed when everything is attached, see Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, the structure of Du to have the limiting mechanism comprise an end surface limiting member, the end surface limiting member is disposed on the second end surface, the end surface limiting member engages with and is fixed to a first groove of the output shaft, and the first groove is located at a projection of the second end surface on the output shaft, as taught by Tian, in order to help prevent the output shaft from moving around or becoming dislodged while in operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, the structure of Du to have the limiting mechanism comprise a rigid limiting member, and the rigid limiting member is detachably fixed to the housing of the body through a mounting assembly and the rigid limiting member is fixed to the output shaft, as taught by Tian, in order to help prevent the output shaft from moving around or becoming dislodged while in operation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du in view of CN 108099583 to Wang.
Du discloses:
The limitations of claim 1.
Du is silent towards:
(Claim 7) further comprising a first sealing mechanism, wherein the first sealing mechanism is disposed on a side of the output shaft facing the first end surface and used for sealing a contact surface between the connector and the output shaft.
Wang teaches:
(Claim 7) further comprising a first sealing mechanism (4), wherein the first sealing mechanism is disposed on a side of the output shaft facing the first end surface and used for sealing a contact surface between the connector and the output shaft (see Fig. 3, oil seal shaft sleeve 4 between output shaft 52 and connector 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, the structure of Du to have the fixing member further seal the output shaft to the connector, as taught by Wang, to seal the shaft from any dirt or debris that could enter between the shaft and connector.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du and Wang in view of US 20120217079 to Besler et al.
Du and Wang teach:
The limitations of claim 7.
Du and Wang are silent towards:
(Claim 8) further comprising a second sealing mechanism, wherein the second sealing mechanism is disposed between the connector and the housing of the body and used for sealing a contact surface between the connector and the housing.
Besler teaches:
(Claim 8) further comprising a second sealing mechanism, wherein the second sealing mechanism is disposed between the connector and the housing of the body and used for sealing a contact surface between the connector and the housing (Fig. 5 seal 508 between connector 118 and housing 116/114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, the structure of Du and Wang to seal the connector and housing, as taught by Besler, in order to seal from any dirt or debris that could enter between the connector and housing.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2025/0185536 to Hjelmaker.
Du discloses:
The limitations of claim 1.
Du does not explicitly disclose:
(Claim 9) further comprising a second traveling wheel and a second wheel hub motor integrally disposed in the second traveling wheel, wherein a distance between an outer end surface of the wheel hub motor integrally disposed in the traveling wheel and an outer end surface of the second wheel hub motor integrally disposed in the second traveling wheel is greater than a cutting width of the cutting assembly.
Hjelmaker teaches:
(Claim 9) further comprising a second traveling wheel and a second wheel hub motor integrally disposed in the second traveling wheel, wherein a distance between an outer end surface of the wheel hub motor integrally disposed in the traveling wheel and an outer end surface of the second wheel hub motor integrally disposed in the second traveling wheel is greater than a cutting width of the cutting assembly (see Fig. 2, distance between outer end surfaces of wheels 130a and 130b is greater than a cutting width of 160. See also par. [0056], the wheels can be hub wheel motors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, the structure of Du to have the distance between outer end surfaces of the wheel hub motors be greater than the cutting width as an obvious design choice. A smaller cutting width would allow for easier control and less weight. Du discloses a cutting tool, but does not distinctly show the width of such a tool in the drawings or establish the size in the specification. Hjelmaker teaches a similar robotic lawn mower that can use hub wheel motors and shows that the cutting width can be smaller than the wheel distance. One of ordinary skill could easily apply this cutter to the structure of Zhao and produce predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-10, 13, and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 TIMOTHY HANNON whose telephone number is (571)270-1943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-6.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/TIMOTHY HANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655