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 action is in reply to the communication filed on . The disposition of claims is as follows:
Pending:
Canceled:
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered. The Examiner proceeds below with a response.
Regarding Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant’s argument have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to references as applied in the current rejection. (See updated rejections made in the current office action made in response to Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments.)
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, 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over (), hereinafter “” in view of (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A garden tools travel driving mechanism, comprising:
traveling wheels ();
a driving motor (); See at least ¶¶, Figs 1-8
wherein at least a part of the driving motor protrudes into the axial space in the center of the traveling wheels. See at least ¶¶ ; (32; Figs 3-6)
fails to explicitly disclose:
a speed reducer, the power input end of the speed reducer is connected with the driving motor, the power output end of the speed reducer is connected with the traveling wheels, and the speed reducer is arranged in an axial space in the center of the traveling wheels.
However, discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of utilizing a in order to reduce noise. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would utilize in to reduce noise. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the reducer is a planetary reducer. See at least : ¶¶
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
further comprising a brake disposed on a side of the driving motor opposite the speed reducer. See at least : ¶¶
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
Garden tools, comprising:
a body;
traveling wheels () positioned on two sides of the body;
a driving motor () secured to the body;
a power battery () connected with the driving motor (); See at least ¶¶, Figs 1-8
wherein at least a part of the driving motor protrudes into the axial space in the center of the traveling wheels. See at least ¶¶ ; (32; Figs 3-6)
fails to explicitly disclose:
a speed reducer, wherein the power input end of the speed reducer is connected with the driving motor, the power output end of the speed reducer is connected with the traveling wheels, and the speed reducer is arranged in an axial space in the center of the traveling wheels.
However, disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of utilizing a in order to reduce noise. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would utilize in to reduce noise. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over and as applied above, and further in view of Wang (), hereinafter “Wang”.
Regarding Claim 11,
The combination of references fail to explicitly disclose:
11. (Original): The garden tools travel driving mechanism according to claim 10,
wherein the brake is an electromagnetic brake, and the brake comprises a moving friction plate connected to the main shaft of the driving motor in a synchronous rotation manner, a fixed friction plate fixed to the housing of the driving motor, and an electromagnetic driver for driving the moving friction plate to approach to or depart from the fixed friction plate.
disclose
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of utilizing to accommodate envelope considerations. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would utilize in to accommodate envelope consideration. See at least ¶¶; MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(III)-(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01).
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Examiner and the prosecution history in the next response.
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
References Cited
R1: ()
R2: ()
R3: Wang ()
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is provided on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entirety of identified prior art references as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is noted that any citations to specific pages, paragraph numbers, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references presented and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A REINBOLD whose telephone number is (313)446-6607. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 8AM - 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on (571)270-5065. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Reinbold directly at (313)446-6607 (preferred) or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747