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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on the applications filed in China on 7/30/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the applications as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3 reads “an other end”, should read – another end –.
Line 7 recites “anaction”, should read – an action –.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 5 sets forth “a natural state”. However, it is unclear what constitutes a “natural state”. Specifically, it is unclear if the lawnmower as a whole is in a natural state or the shields, and what is happening when the limitation is within the state; therefore, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean a normal operating state of the lawnmower in which no uneven terrain or obstacle moves the second shield upwards.
Claims 5 and 10 recite the same limitation and are rejected for the same reason as above. Further, claims 2-14 are rejected for dependency on claim 1.
Claim 2 in lines 1-2 sets forth “wherein a distance between a lowest point of the first shield and the working surface is greater than or equal to 60 mm.” However, it is unclear how this distance is related to the distance X1 set forth in claim 1, lines 5-6. Specifically, it is unclear the difference between “a lowest point of the first shield” in claim 2 and “a bottom edge of the first shield” in claim 1 to make the distances be different limitations; therefore, the claim is indefinite due to being unclear if these two portions are one and the same or two different portions altogether.
Claim 5, lines 1-3 sets forth “wherein in the natural state, a distance X2 between a bottom edge of the first shield that is closest to the working surface and the working surface meets: X2<75 mm.” However, is dependent on claim 1, lines 5-6 that set forth “wherein in a natural state, a distance X1 between at least a part of a bottom edge of the first shield and a working surface meets: X1>60 mm”. It is unclear the difference between “a bottom edge of the first shield” in claim 5 and the “at least a part of a bottom edge of the first shield” in claim 1 to make the distances be different limitations; therefore, the claim is indefinite due to being unclear if these two portions are one and the same or two different portions altogether.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. (JP 2016208950 A).
Regarding claim 1, Ishida et al. teaches an automatic lawn mower ([10B], see Fig. 10) comprising:
a cutting mechanism [17, 34, and 30], arranged on the automatic lawn mower and comprising a cutting element [30] configured to perform a cutting task (see paragraph [0021], lines 2-6);
a first shield [11B], arranged on the automatic lawn mower and at least partially located at a periphery of the cutting element (see Fig. 3; while the figure shows [11], [11B] is placed in the same manner around the periphery of [30], see paragraph [0062], lines 1-2);
wherein in a natural state (normal operating state of [10B]), there is a distance X1 (see below) between at least a part of a bottom edge (see below) of the first shield and a working surface (not shown but inherently present, see below); and
a second shield [22], arranged on the automatic lawn mower and at least partially located between the first shield and the cutting element to protect the cutting element (arranged between [11B] and [30]; protects cutting element by connecting guard plate [23] to the first shield and protects area around rotary shaft [34], see paragraph [0029], lines 3-6 and see Fig. 10), wherein in the natural state, a lowest point (see below) of the second shield is lower than the first shield, and has a distance Y1 (see below) between the lowest point and the working surface;
and the second shield is configured to move in a direction away from the working surface when a received external force in the direction is greater than a set value (when guard plate [23] comes in contact with uneven terrain or an obstacle, the force causes height absorbing portion [36] to retract the cutting element [30] upwards; therefore, the second shield [22] moves upward through connection to the guide plate and cutting element, see paragraph [0068], lines 2-4 and [0070], lines 1-4) (please see 112(b) rejection above).
PNG
media_image1.png
437
775
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But Ishida et al. fails to explicitly disclose that distance X1≥60 mm and distance Y1≤75 mm.
However, Ishida et al. teaches that various modifications can be made within the scope of the claims (see paragraph [0110], lines 1-3); therefore, the distance of the first shield in relation to the working surface is capable of being modified due to changing the height of the lawnmower does not embark from the scope of the invention. Further, Ishida et al. teaches the height of the second shield in relation to the working surface is adjustable (see paragraph [0062], lines 4-5 and [0070], lines 1-4); therefore, the distance between the second shield and the working surface ranges, and the distances X1 and Y1 are result effective variables.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the distance X1 be ≥60 mm in order to allow adequate space between the mower and the ground for the cutting mechanism while also allowing space for tall vegetation to be mowed and the distance Y1 be ≤75 mm in order to protect the user from the cutting mechanism while still being capable of cutting vegetation. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, Ishida et al. teaches a distance (see below) between a lowest point (see below) of the first shield [11B] and the working surface (not shown but inherently present, see below), but fails to explicitly disclose the distance is greater than or equal to 60 mm (please see 112(b) rejection above).
PNG
media_image2.png
437
775
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Ishida et al. teaches that various modifications can be made within the scope of the claims (see paragraph [0110], lines 1-3). The distance of the first shield in relation to the working surface is capable of being modified due to changing the height of the lawnmower does not embark from the scope of the invention; therefore, the distance between the lowest point of the first shield and the working surface is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the distance be greater than or equal to 60 mm in order to allow adequate space between the mower and the ground for the cutting mechanism while also allowing space for tall vegetation to be mowed. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, Ishida et al. teaches the distance X1 (see above), but fails to explicitly disclose X1 meets: X1≥65 mm; or X1≥70 mm.
However, Ishida et al. teaches that various modifications can be made within the scope of the claims (see paragraph [0110], lines 1-3). The distance of the first shield in relation to the working surface is capable of being modified due to changing the height of the lawnmower does not embark from the scope of the invention; therefore, the distance between the lowest point of the first shield and the working surface is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the distance X1 meet: X1≥65 mm; or X1≥70 mm in order to allow adequate space between the mower and the ground for the cutting mechanism while also allowing space for tall vegetation to be mowed. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, Ishida et al. teaches the distance X1 (see above), but fails to explicitly disclose X1 meets: 60 mm≤X1≤150 mm; or 65 mm≤X1≤105 mm.
However, Ishida et al. teaches that various modifications can be made within the scope of the claims (see paragraph [0110], lines 1-3). The distance of the first shield in relation to the working surface is capable of being modified due to changing the height of the lawnmower does not embark from the scope of the invention; therefore, the distance between the lowest point of the first shield and the working surface is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the distance X1 meet: 60 mm≤X1≤150 mm; or 65 mm≤X1≤105 mm in order to allow adequate space between the mower and the ground for the cutting mechanism while also allowing space for tall vegetation to be mowed. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, Ishida et al. teaches in the natural state, a distance X2 (see below) between a bottom edge (see below) of the first shield [11B] that is closest to the working surface and the working surface (not shown but inherently present, see below), but fails to explicitly disclose the distance X2 meets: X2≤75 mm (please see 112(b) rejection above).
PNG
media_image3.png
437
775
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Ishida et al. teaches that various modifications can be made within the scope of the claims (see paragraph [0110], lines 1-3). The distance of the first shield in relation to the working surface is capable of being modified due to changing the height of the lawnmower does not embark from the scope of the invention; therefore, the distance between the lowest point of the first shield and the working surface is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the distance X2 meet: X2≤75 mm in order to allow adequate space between the mower and the ground for the cutting mechanism while also allowing space for tall vegetation to be mowed. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 6, Ishida et al. teaches a connecting base (see below), connected (connected to the first shield through [35 and 36], see [0066], lines 1-4) to the first shield [11B];
and a connecting rod [24], wherein one end (see below) is rotatably connected to the connecting base (see paragraph [0068], lines 1-2), and another end (see below) is rotatably connected to the second shield ([22]; see paragraph [0068], lines 2-4);
and the second shield is provided with a through hole (hole in [22] where [24] is inserted, not shown but inherently present to be connected) for the connecting base to run through (through hole is for inserting [24] between the base and the shield [22], allowing for the connecting base to be connecting to the shield; therefore, the connecting base runs through to the shield through the rod, see Fig. 10), and the through hole is configured to extend in a moving direction (see below; moving direction of the shield [22] through height absorbing portion [36]) of the second shield under an action of the external force (second shields moves under external force of uneven terrain or an obstacle through guide plate [23], see paragraph [0068], lines 2-4 and [0070], lines 1-4).
PNG
media_image4.png
392
776
media_image4.png
Greyscale
But Ishida et al. fails to disclose the connecting base is detachably connected to the first shield.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the connecting base be detachable to the first shield, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Examiner’s Note: the limitation “rod” has been given the broadest reasonable interpretation as being “a slender bar” as taught by Merriam-Webster (see attached NPL for ‘rod’). While Ishida et al.’s connecting rod [24] is circular, it is still a slender, straight piece of material and therefore is analogous to a rod.
Regarding claim 7, Ishida et al. teaches in a horizontal direction (see below), a smallest distance Z (see below) between an outer edge (see below) of the second shield [22] and the cutting element [30], but fails to explicitly disclose that the distance Z≥80 mm.
PNG
media_image5.png
391
776
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Ishida et al. teaches that any type of cutting element can be used (see paragraph [0021], lines 6-9); therefore, the distance between the outer edge of the second shield and the cutting element is based on the type of cutting element used and is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the distance Z be ≥80 mm in order for the user to utilize a variety of different cutting elements. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, Ishida et al. teaches wherein in a direction perpendicular to the working surface (not shown but inherently present, see below), the second shield [22] has a first projection (see below; circular projection onto the working surface) on the working surface, the cutting element [30] has a second projection (see below; circular projection onto the working surface) on the working surface, the first projection at least partially surrounds the second projection (first projection is larger than the second; therefore, surrounds the second projection), and an interspace (space between the second shield [22] and the cutting element [30], see below) exists between the first projection and the second projection.
PNG
media_image6.png
437
775
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Ishida et al. teaches wherein the first projection (see above) surrounds the second projection (see above) 360-degree (first projection forms a circle around the second projection, see above).
Regarding claim 10, Ishida et al. teaches wherein the second shield [22] comprises an open end (see below), and corresponding, the first projection has an opening (second shield has an opening; therefore, the first projection of the second shield has an opening as well, see below); and
the automatic lawn mower [10B] further comprises:
a protection tooth ([24]; a protrusion surrounding the bottom of the motor [17], therefore, protecting the user) or a turning plate, arranged on the first shield (arranged on the first shield through connection to [35, 36, and 37], see Fig. 10) and extending towards a housing (see below) in a direction (vertical direction that approaches the working surface) approaching the working surface (not shown but inherently present, see below), wherein in the direction perpendicular to the working surface, the protection tooth or the turning plate has a third projection (see below; forms a circle around the motor [17]) on the working surface, the third projection is close to the opening (see below), and the second projection (see below) is located between the third projection and the first projection (see below); and
a distance (see below) between a lowest point (see below) of the protection tooth and the working surface ranges;
or in the natural state, a distance between a lowest point of the turning plate and the working surface ranges from 20 mm to 100 mm.
PNG
media_image7.png
437
775
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
411
776
media_image8.png
Greyscale
But Ishida et al. fails to explicitly disclose the distance between the lowest point of the protection tooth and the working surfaces ranges from 20 mm to 100 mm.
However, Ishida et al. teaches that the protection tooth adjusts with the second shield and the cutting mechanism when the lawnmower comes in contact with uneven terrain or an obstacle (see paragraph [0068], lines 1-4 and paragraph [0070], lines 1-4); therefore, the distance range between the lowest point of the protection tooth and the working surface is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the range be from 20 mm to 100 mm in order for the protection tooth to help protect the lower area around the motor while moving with the second shield under uneven terrain or an obstacle. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Examiner’s Note: only function claimed for “protection tooth” is that it protects. Ishida et al.’s [24] forms a slender, straight piece of material around the bottom of the motor [17], protecting the user by connecting the second shield [22] and the guide plate [23] to the first shield [11B] and protecting the area around the lower part of the motor. Therefore, Ishida et al.’s [24] is analogous to a protection tooth.
Regarding claim 11, Ishida et al. teaches a third shield [23], arranged (the upper portion of [23] is arranged between [22] and [30], see Fig. 10) between the second shield [22] and the cutting element [30], wherein a bottom edge (see below) of the third shield is lower than the cutting element.
PNG
media_image9.png
411
776
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Ishida et al. teaches an automatic lawn mower [10B] comprising:
a cutting mechanism [17, 34, and 30], arranged in the automatic lawn mower and comprising a cutting element [30] configured to perform a cutting task (see paragraph [0021], lines 2-6); and
a protection cover ([22]; protects cutting element by connecting guard plate [23] to the first shield and protects area around rotary shaft [34], see paragraph [0029], lines 3-6 and see Fig. 10), arranged on the automatic lawn mower and at least partially located at a periphery of the cutting element (see Fig. 10), and moving from a first position (position of Fig. 10, no outside force causing the shield to move) to a second position (moves upwards towards [11B] from outside force of uneven terrain or an obstacle, see paragraph [0068], lines 2-4 and [0070], lines 1-4) in a direction away from a working surface (not shown but inherently present, see below) when a received external force in the direction is greater than a set value (when guard plate [23] comes in contact with uneven terrain or an obstacle, the force causes height absorbing portion [36] to retract the cutting element [30] upwards; therefore, the second shield [22] moves upward through connection to the guide plate and cutting element, see paragraph [0068], lines 2-4 and [0070], lines 1-4), wherein:
when the protection cover is located at the first position, a smallest distance G1 (see below) exists between a bottom edge (see below) of the protection cover and the working surface;
and when the protection cover is located at the second position, a smallest distance G2 (area between G1 and Gmax, not shown but present when the height absorbing portion [36] lifts the second shield) exists between the bottom edge of the protection cover and the working surface,
and Gmax is equal to the distance between [11B] and the working surface (see below).
PNG
media_image10.png
418
776
media_image10.png
Greyscale
But Ishida et al. fails to explicitly disclose that distance G1<75 mm and distance G1<G2<Gmax, wherein Gmax>60 mm.
However, Ishida et al. teaches that various modifications can be made within the scope of the claims (see paragraph [0110], lines 1-3); therefore, the distance of Gmax in relation to the working surface is capable of being modified due to changing the height of the lawnmower does not embark from the scope of the invention. Further, Ishida et al. teaches the height of the protection cover in relation to the working surface is adjustable (see paragraph [0062], lines 4-5 and [0070], lines 1-4); therefore, the distance between the protection cover and the working surface ranges, and the distances G1 and G2 are result effective variables.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the distance G1 be <75 mm and G1<G2<Gmax, wherein Gmax>60 mm in order to allow adequate space between the mower and the ground for the cutting mechanism while also protecting the user. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. (JP 2016208950 A) in view of Li (CN 212116223 U).
Regarding claim 12, Ishida et al. teaches wherein the cutting mechanism [30] is arranged on a central axis (see below) in a moving direction (see below) of the automatic lawn mower ([10B], see paragraph [0062], lines 1-3) but fails to disclose the cutting mechanism is arranged on a side of the central axis.
PNG
media_image11.png
478
398
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Li discloses a similar automatic lawn mower [1] wherein the cutting mechanism [30] is arranged on a side (see Fig. 2) of a central axis [LO] in a moving direction of the automatic lawn mower.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply arranging the cutting mechanism on a side of the central axis as taught by Li to the lawn mower of Ishida et al. in order for the cutting mechanism to be close enough to the outer side of the casing on the mower as to cut the grass at the boundary line (see Li paragraph [014], lines 5-7). Further, the second shield of Ishida et al. is spread across the entire width of the lawnmower, capable of protecting the cutting mechanism anywhere within that width as long as the shield covers the range where the operator’s hand or foot can reach the blades (see paragraph [0029], lines 3-6 and [0030], lines 1-6); therefore, being capable of protecting the operator when the cutting mechanism is arranged to a side of the central axis.
Regarding claim 13, Ishida et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses a protection support [23], arranged between (the upper portion of [23] is arranged between [30] and [22], see Fig. 10) the cutting element [30] and the second shield [22] and arranged on a same side of the central axis (see above; [23] is connected to the shield [22], therefore, is arranged on the same side) as the cutting mechanism, wherein:
the protection support comprises a first protective wall (see below; downward extension of [23] from shield [22]) perpendicular to a plane (see below) in which the cutting element is located and a second protective wall (see below; horizontal extension forming the “combs” as seen in Fig. 4 and paragraph [0031], lines 6-8) extending inward from a bottom end (see below) of the first protective wall, and the second protective wall is located between the cutting element and the working surface (not shown but inherently present, see below).
PNG
media_image12.png
438
776
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Ishida et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses in a horizontal direction (see below), a smallest distance (see below) between an outer edge (see below) of the first shield [11B] that is close to the protection support [23] and the cutting element [30], but fails to disclose that the distance ranges from 15 mm to 80 mm.
PNG
media_image13.png
438
776
media_image13.png
Greyscale
However, Ishida et al. teaches that any type of cutting element can be used (see paragraph [0021], lines 6-9); therefore, the distance between the outer edge of the first shield and the cutting element is based on the type of cutting element used and is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the distance range from 15 mm to 80 mm in order for the user to utilize a variety of different cutting elements. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892 for the full list of references.
Reference US 20220354050 discloses an automatic lawn mower [1] comprising of a first shield [14] and a second shield [41].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNNY WEBB whose telephone number is (571)272-3830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 to 5:30 E.T..
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 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.
/SUNNY D WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671