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 .
Introduction
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on January 30, 2026. Claims 1-5 and 7 are pending.
Examiner' s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below 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. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety 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. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Response to Arguments
All of applicant’s arguments have been considered.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Lee, Nam, and Guo do not disclose each and every feature recited in amended claim 1 (Applicant’s Response, pg. 7), the examiner agrees. The argument is moot in view of the new rejection below.
Specification
Amendments to the specification were received on January 30, 2026.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On pg. 3, line 12, “when the mowing robot has reached to the charging station” should read “when the mowing robot has reached the charging station.
Appropriate correction is required.
The amendment filed January 30, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
On pg. 6, lines 4-16 are new matter as there is no prior disclosure of the details on how implementation of the charging alignment is done.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2023/0345865) in view of Wirz (US 2014/0015493).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a mowing system comprising:
a charging station (Lee, [0037] regarding a docking station being used to charge a battery of the robotic mower);
a base station set independently from the charging station, the base station including a first communication unit and a first GPS antenna (Lee, [0042] regarding a base station being able to be placed away from the charging station & [0059] regarding the base station having a third network interface which includes a GPS receiver and a transceiver for wirelessly communicating information to the robotic mower); and
a mowing robot including a second communication unit configured to establish a communication connection with the first communication unit of the base station, the mowing robot further including a second GPS antenna and a control unit electrically connected with the second GPS antenna and the first GPS antenna to receive a first GPS signal obtained by the first GPS antenna and a second GPS signal obtained by the second GPS antenna and determine a positioning coordinate of the mower robot according to the first GPS signal and the second GPS signal (Lee, [0048] regarding the robotic mower having an first electronic processor that is electrically coupled to a first network interface & [0050] regarding sending and receiving data from the base station through the first network interface and the first network interface additionally including a GPS receiver & [0063] regarding the robotic mower determining its location based on location signal received via RTK which uses GPS signals and calibration information received from the base station), but does not disclose
wherein when the mowing robot has reached the charging station, the control unit determines whether the mowing robot is charging and determines whether a charging alignment between the mowing robot and the charging station is within an error range.
Wirz teaches wherein when the mowing robot has reached the charging station, the control unit determines whether the mowing robot is charging and determines whether a charging alignment between the mowing robot and the charging station is within an error range (Wirz, [0033] regarding using current position/movement information of the device to determine whether the device is properly positioned or oriented on the surface of the charging station when the self-propelled device is being charged & [0033] regarding determining the self-propelled device is in a proper charging position when the current position/movement information is within a certain percentage or threshold corresponding to the optimal position/orientation).
Lee and Wirz are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of self-propelled devices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate determining the devices is misaligned when charging, as disclosed by Wirz, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of determining the devices is not charging properly and needs to be realigned.
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Wirz teaches the mowing system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the base station further includes a microcontroller electrically connected with the first communication unit and the first GPS antenna, and a power supply unit electrically connected with the microcontroller (Lee, [0059] regarding the base station having a third electronic processor electrically connected to the third network interface & [0060] regarding the base station including a battery).
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Wirz teaches the mowing system as claimed in claim 2, wherein the base station further includes a stake and a base; the first GPS antenna is disposed to a top end of the stake; the base is connected with a bottom end of the stake (Lee, [0042] regarding the base station being located on a pole/stake that is inserted into the ground & Fig. 1A regarding the base station be located at the top of the stake).
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Wirz teaches the mowing system as claimed in claim 1, wherein a wireless transmission method between the control unit and the first GPS antenna is LoRa, Zigbee, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth or a mobile communication network (Lee, [0059] regarding the base station and robotic mower communicating via Bluetooth or Wi-Fi).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Wirz, and further in view of Webb (US 11,022,699).
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Wirz the mowing system as claimed in claim 3, wherein the base has a ground rod (Lee, [0042] regarding the base station being located on a pole/stake that is inserted into the ground).
Lee does not disclose wherein the base has a tripod and a ground rod connected with the tripod.
Webb teaches wherein the base has a tripod (Webb, Col. 3, lines 45-47 regarding mounting a GPS base station on a tripod).
Lee and Webb are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of GPS base stations. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee, as modified, to incorporate mounting the base station on a tripod, as disclosed by Webb, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of being able to place the base station in locations that do not have a soft ground to insert the pole into.
Therefore, Lee, as modified, teaches wherein the base has a tripod and a ground rod connected with the tripod.
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Wirz teaches the mowing system as claimed in claim 2, wherein the power supply unit is a storage battery electrically connected with the microcontroller (Lee, [0060] regarding the base station including a battery).
Lee does not disclose wherein the power supply unit is a solar power unit, including a solar panel exposed outside and a storage battery electrically connected with the solar panel and the microcontroller.
Webb teaches wherein the power supply unit is a solar power unit, including a solar panel exposed outside and a storage battery electrically connected with the solar panel and the microcontroller (Webb, Col. 3, lines 3-6 regarding using photovoltaic cells of a solar panel to charge the battery of a GPS base station).
Lee and Webb are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of GPS base stations. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee, as modified, to incorporate powering the base station with a solar charged battery, as disclosed by Webb, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of charging the battery without the possibility of forgetting to charge it.
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 ALEX GRIFFIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5:30pm.
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, ERIN BISHOP can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/ALEX B GRIFFIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665