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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on March 3, 2026 amends claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-9, 11, 13-14, 16, 18-19, and cancels claims 2 and 12. Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and corresponding arguments filed on March 3, 2026 regarding the newly presented claim limitations in the independent claims have been fully considered and are moot and/or unpersuasive. Applicant has rolled up the limitations of rejected claim 2 (and claim 12) and a portion of claim 4 (and claim 14) into independent claim 1 (and claim 11) in an attempt to overcome the rejections. However, the amendment to claim 1 (and claim 11), which incorporates the portion of claim 4 (and claim 14), does not render claim 1 (or claim 14) allowable.
With respect to the portion rolled up from claim 4 (or claim 14), the Applicant argues that “In the present application, the first travel structure and the second travel structure are respectively arranged on opposite sides of the sliding structure, and the travel structures are rotatably connected to the sliding structure.” In response to this argument, the Examiner notes that the portion obtained from claim 4 (and claim 14) is taught by newly cited reference, Kong et al. (CN 108323306 A).
Examiner notes that arguments from the Applicant, such as the following paragraphs in page 9 of Applicant’s remarks, are not persuasive because the Applicant has characterized the claimed language in an attempt to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103:
“As such, the first and second travel structures may be located on different horizontal planes, while at the same time reducing the number of sliding structures required. This configuration is beneficial for simplifying the sliding structure of the mower and reducing cost.
In Xu, the off-ground detection of multiple travel wheels is implemented through independent detection structures. In other words, the travel wheels are independent of one another. When encountering steps or pits, Xu cannot ensure that two wheels simultaneously and stably maintain contact with the ground. Moreover, when each wheel is independently provided with a detection device, erroneous off-ground detection may occur.”
Based on the foregoing reasons and as explained in detail in the rejections hereinafter, each of independent claim 1 and independent claim 11 is taught by Kong et al., in combination with the previously cited references, Johnson and Xu.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 10, 14-15, and 20 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 13, 16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 2012/0029752) in view of Xu et al. (CN 215530019 U) and further in view of Kong et al. (CN 108323306 A).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson teaches an off-ground detection device applicable to a harvester, wherein the off- ground detection device comprises: a frame; and a travel mechanism movably arranged on the frame, [the travel mechanism having a first position and a second position relative to the frame,] (see Johnson at [0002] which discloses that some robotic mowers may have a floating shell surrounding the mower chassis that becomes displaced if an obstacle is encountered, and a sensor that detects shell movement; further, see Johnson at [0002] which discloses that robotic mowers may become stuck if they lose traction without encountering an obstacle. Examiner maps the loss of traction to the travel mechanism being in the first position. Also, see Johnson at [0015] in conjunction with Fig. 1 which depicts a robotic mower 100 and discloses that vehicle control unit 101 may command a pair of traction motors 110, 111 to turn traction drive wheels, blade motor 112 to rotate a cutting blade or blades, battery pack 109, a user interface and various sensors; see Johnson at [0039] which discloses current draw of electric blade motor 112 that rotates one or more cutting blades (which corresponds to a cutter deck structure); see Johnson at [0041] which discloses that the vehicle control unit may determine if a bump is detected, indicating the robotic mower has contacted an obstacle and that bump detection may be provided to the vehicle control unit by one or more accelerometers attached to the chassis and/or top cover of the robotic mower. Examiner maps chassis to frame. Examiner maps traction motors and traction drive wheels to travel mechanism. Examiner maps the vehicle control unit including tractor motors of the robotic mower to the off-ground detection device applicable to a harvester. Examiner notes that the specification at [0032] discloses lawn mowing with the harvester. Therefore, in light of the specification, Examiner maps robotic mower to the recited harvester.
wherein when the travel mechanism is in the first position, the harvester stops operating, and when the travel mechanism is in the second position, the state of the harvester remains unchanged (see Johnson at [0002] which discloses that robotic mowers may become stuck if they lose traction without encountering an obstacle. Examiner maps becoming stuck to the harvester stops operating. Also, see Johnson at [0061] which discloses that the vehicle control unit may execute stuck detection in block 1000 and if the specified maximum time is exceeded, the vehicle control unit may execute a stuck vehicle task to safely move or stop the robotic mower. Examiner notes that in the alternative, not being in the stuck position corresponds to the second position where the state of the harvester remains unchanged.)
Johnson does not expressly disclose the travel mechanism having a first position and a second position relative to the frame which in a related art Xu teaches (see Xu at page 5 which discloses that when the mower is lifted or dropped, the walking wheel 43 and the wheel shaft 40 will fall under the action of the gravity, falling will be mounted seat 30 limit, the detecting device 50 of the trigger member 51 and the sensing member 52 of the relative position will be changed, sensing component 52 generates a control signal, and the control signal is transmitted to the control system of the mower; the control system will control the whole machine to stop working, the blade of the mower is prevented from hurting people. Examiner notes that by way of changing the relative position of a sliding section in a predetermined range, the detecting device triggers a control signal to control the machine to stop working. Examiner notes that the change of the relative position of the sensing member corresponds to the recited travel mechanism having a first position while no change in the position of the sensing member corresponds to the second position, where the state of the harvester remains unchanged. Examiner further notes that alternatively, Xu also teaches wherein when the travel mechanism is in the first position, the harvester stops operating, and when the travel mechanism is in the second position, the state of the harvester remains unchanged.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson to include the travel mechanism having a first position and a second position relative to the frame, as taught by Xu.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide for a control system that controls the whole machine to stop working and prevent the blade of the mower from hurting people, as suggested by Xu at page 5.
The modified Johnson further teaches wherein the travel mechanism comprises a sliding structure and a travel structure, wherein the sliding structure is slidably arranged on the frame and has the first position and the second position relative to the frame, and the travel structure is rotatably connected to the sliding structure, wherein when the sliding structure is in the first position, the harvester stops operating, and when the sliding structure is in the second position, the state of the harvester remains unchanged (see Xu at the Abstract which discloses that utility model claims a detecting mechanism and mower, the detecting mechanism comprises: a bottom shell, a wheel shaft and a detecting device; the bottom shell is provided with a guide shaft hole; the wheel shaft comprises a walking wheel mounting section and a sliding section, the walking wheel mounting section is equipped with a walking wheel, the sliding section passes through the guide shaft hole, and can slide along the axial direction of the guide shaft hole relative to the bottom shell in a predetermined range, the detecting device comprises a triggering component and a sensing component, one of the triggering component and the sensing component is set on the bottom shell, the other one is set on the wheel shaft, and it can move along with the wheel shaft, and that a trigger member generates a control signal by changing the relative position of the sensing member; see Xu at page 5 which discloses that when the mower is lifted or dropped, the walking wheel 43 and the wheel shaft 40 will fall under the action of the gravity, falling will be mounted seat 30 limit, the detecting device 50 of the trigger member 51 and the sensing member 52 of the relative position will be changed, sensing component 52 generates a control signal, and the control signal is transmitted to the control system of the mower; the control system will control the whole machine to stop working, the blade of the mower is prevented from hurting people; see Xu at Figs. 1-3 which illustratively discloses how the walking wheel is rotatably connected to the sliding section. Examiner notes that by way of changing the relative position of a sliding section in a predetermined range, the detecting device triggers a control signal to control the machine to stop working. Examiner notes that the change of the relative position corresponds to the recited first position while no change in position corresponds to the second position, where the state of the harvester remains unchanged.)
The modified Johnson teaches of the sliding structure (see Xu at the Abstract which teaches a sliding section. The modified Xu does not expressly disclose wherein the travel structure comprises a first travel structure and a second travel structure respectively arranged on opposite sides [of the sliding structure], which in a related art, Kong teaches (see Kong at page 2 which discloses that the walking module comprises walking wheels are installed on the machine body and driving motor of the walking wheel group along the travelling direction of the automatic walking robot, the walking wheel comprises a front of two front wheels and two back wheels opposite to each other.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson to include wherein the travel structure comprises a first travel structure and a second travel structure respectively arranged on opposite sides, as taught by Kong.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide for at least two walking wheels to leave the ground, as suggested by Kong at page 2.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Johnson teaches the off-ground detection device according to claim 1, wherein the travel structure comprises a connecting member and a travel wheel, wherein the connecting member is rotatably connected to the sliding structure, and an end of the connecting member away from the sliding structure is movably connected to the travel wheel (see Xu at page 4 in conjunction with Figs. 1-2 which discloses that in one embodiment, the trigger member 51 is set on the limiting member 60, the limiting member 60 is rotatably set on the sliding section 42. Examiner maps limiting member to the recited connecting member. Further, see Xu at Fig. 2 which depicts wheel shaft 40 rotatably connected to the sliding section and the further connected to wheel mounting section 41 of wheel 43.)
Regarding claim 6, the modified Johnson teaches the off-ground detection device according to claim 1, wherein the sliding structure comprises a slider and a rotating shaft, wherein the rotating shaft is connected to the slider, and the rotating shaft is rotatably connected to the travel structure, such that the travel structure is rotatable relative to the sliding structure (see Xu at page 4 in conjunction with Fig. 2 which discloses that in one embodiment, the trigger member 51 is set on the limiting member 60, the limiting member 60 is rotatably set on the sliding section 42. Further, see Xu at Fig. 2 which depicts wheel shaft 40 rotatably connected to the sliding section and the further connected to wheel mounting section 41 of wheel 43. Examiner maps wheel shaft to rotating shaft. Examiner maps sliding section to the slider.)
Regarding claim 8, the modified Johnson teaches the off-ground detection device according to claim 1, wherein the frame has a sliding space extending in an arrangement direction of the first position and the second position, and a slider is slidably arranged inside the sliding space and is slidable between the first position and the second position (see Xu at the Abstract which discloses that utility model claims a detecting mechanism and mower, the detecting mechanism comprises: a bottom shell, a wheel shaft and a detecting device; the bottom shell is provided with a guide shaft hole; the wheel shaft comprises a walking wheel mounting section and a sliding section, the walking wheel mounting section is equipped with a walking wheel, the sliding section passes through the guide shaft hole, and can slide along the axial direction of the guide shaft hole relative to the bottom shell in a predetermined range, the detecting device comprises a triggering component and a sensing component, one of the triggering component and the sensing component is set on the bottom shell, the other one is set on the wheel shaft, and it can move along with the wheel shaft, and that a trigger member generates a control signal by changing the relative position of the sensing member; Examiner notes that the sensing member may change its relative position from a first position to a second position. Also, see Xu at page 2 in conjunction with Fig. 2 which discloses that the limiting component (or limiting member) comprises a first shell and a second shell assembled together, the first shell and the second shell are assembled to form an inner space, the trigger component is set in the inner space. Examiner notes that the sliding section is within the inner space between the first shell and second shell.)
Claims 11, 13, 16, and 18 are directed toward a harvester that performs the steps recited in the device of claims 1, 3, 6, and 8. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejections of claims 1, 3, 6, and 8 teach the steps recited in the harvester of claims 11, 13, 16, and 18. Therefore, claims 11, 13, 16, and 18 are rejected under the same rationale used in the rejections of claims 1, 3, 6, and 8.
Claims 7, 9, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 2012/0029752) in view of Xu et al. (CN 215530019 U) and further in view of Johnson (US 2016/0128275) (hereinafter “Johnson 2”).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Johnson does not expressly disclose the off-ground detection device according to claim 3, wherein the off-ground detection device further comprises a cushion structure, wherein the cushion structure is fixed to the frame and connected to the connecting member to cushion an impact on the travel mechanism; and the cushion structure comprises a cushion mount and an elastic member, the cushion mount being connected to the frame and the elastic member, and the elastic member being connected to the connecting member and cushioning the impact on the travel mechanism which in a related art, Johnson 2 teaches (see Johnson 2 at the Abstract which discloses a robotic mower contact detection system includes a flexible and deformable bumper, a force sensing element embedded in the bumper; Examiner maps deformable bumper to the recited cushion structure; see Johnson 2 at [0013] which discloses that in one embodiment shown in FIGS. 1-3, the robotic mower contact detection system may include flexible and deformable bumper 150 which may be a generally U-shaped rubber member mounted to the front end of robotic mower 100. For example, the bumper may be attached to the front of the bottom chassis, wrapped around a forward portion of the bottom chassis adjacent and under the top cover and that the bumper may be secured to the front end of the bottom chassis with mechanical fasteners 157, adhesives or retaining members, and that optionally, the bumper also may be mounted to or extend around other parts of the robotic mower. Examiner notes that the deformable bumper being attached to the front of the bottom chassis corresponds to being fixed to a frame. Examiner notes that mechanical fasteners, adhesives, or retaining members correspond to connecting and elastic members.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson to include wherein the off-ground detection device further comprises a cushion structure, wherein the cushion structure is fixed to the frame and connected to the connecting member to cushion an impact on the travel mechanism; and the cushion structure comprises a cushion mount and an elastic member, the cushion mount being connected to the frame and the elastic member, and the elastic member being connected to the connecting member and cushioning the impact on the travel mechanism, as taught by Johnson 2.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to obviate the use of floating shells which are considered mechanically complex, prone to failure, and unsturdy, as suggested by Johnson 2 at [0003].
Regarding claim 9, the modified Johnson teaches the off-ground detection device according to claim 1, wherein the off-ground detection device further comprises a sensor and a controller, wherein the sensor is electrically connected to the controller [and is configured to send a first signal] when the travel mechanism is in the first position, and the controller is configured to control the harvester to stop operating according to the first signal (see Johnson at [0016] which discloses that the vehicle control unit may interpret and process information from various sensors, and use that information to control and operate the pair of traction motors to drive the robotic mower over a yard in order to maintain the lawn, and to drive the blade motor and that the vehicle control unit may be connected to a number of sensors including one or more boundary sensors 119, as well as one or more obstacle sensors or accelerometers; see Johnson at [0017] which discloses that in one embodiment, the vehicle control unit may include a microcontroller such as an LQFPSTM32F103ZET6 processor from ST Microelectronics; see Johnson at [0061] which discloses that the vehicle control unit may execute stuck detection in block 1000 and if the specified maximum time is exceeded, the vehicle control unit may execute a stuck vehicle task to safely move or stop the robotic mower.
The modified Johnson does not expressly disclose and is configured to send a first signal when the travel mechanism is in the first position which in a related art Johnson 2 teaches (see Johnson 2 which discloses that the force sensing element produces detectable electrical signals to a vehicle control unit which reverses rotation of a pair of traction drive motors if the electrical signals meet specified criteria. Examiner maps one of detectable electrical signals to the first signal.)
Claims 17 and 19 are directed toward a harvester that performs the steps recited in the device of claims 7 and 9. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejections of claims 7 and 9 teach the steps recited in the harvester of claims 17 and 19. Therefore, claims 17 and 19 are rejected under the same rationale used in the rejections of claims 7 and 9.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROY RHEE whose telephone number is 313-446-6593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am to 5:30 pm.
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 contact the Examiner via telephone or 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, Kito Robinson, can be reached on 571-270-3921. 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, one may visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. In addition, more information about Patent Center may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions, 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.
/ROY RHEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights