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
Claims 1-15 of U.S. Application No. 17/881176 filed on 03/19/2026 have been examined.
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed03/19/2026. Claims 1, 4-5, & 9 are currently amended. Claims 1-15 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
In regards to the previous claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f): Applicant does not provide separate remarks regarding the previous claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Accordingly, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation is maintained.
In regards to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claim(s) 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. A new grounds of rejection is made in view of US 2019/0025838A1 (“Artes”), in view of US 2018/0361583A1 (“Williams”).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a traveling device configured to be able to autonomously travel..”
“a working device configured to perform the work along a traveling route of the machine”
“a driving device configured to drive the traveling device and the working device” in claim 1.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure for the above limitation described in the specification: (see at least Applicant Specification, para. [0033-0035]: The illustrated traveling device 2 of the working robot 1 includes front wheels 2A and rear wheels 2B…With the example illustrated in FIGS. 2A and 2B, the driving device 4 includes a pair of right and left front wheel driving parts 4A and a pair of right and left rear wheel driving parts 4B, and also includes a working device driving part 4C configured to drive the working device 3…. Hereinafter, as an example, the working device 3 performing the mowing work will be described. With the example illustrated in FIGS. 2A and 2B, the working device 3 has a circular working range in a plane view, and mows grass just under the working device 3 by rotating a mowing blade (not illustrated) around a vertical axis. )
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, & 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0249874A1 (“Kuhara”), in view of US 2019/0025838A1 (“Artes”), in view of US 2018/0361583A1 (“Williams”).
As per claim 1 Kuhara discloses
A working robot system comprising (see at least Kuhara, para. [0083]: The cleaning system illustrated in FIG. 1 includes a point-of-sales (POS) cash register 3 within the eatery 10, a portable data terminal 4 that an employee 51 carries, an autonomous cleaner 2, and a management device 1 that is outside of the eatery 10.):
a working robot (see at least Kuhara, para. [0083]: an autonomous cleaner 2,); and
a first processor configured to set a working region in which the working robot performs work (see at least Kuhara, para. [0086]: The management device 1 outputs cleaning instruction information to the autonomous cleaner 2, to clean decided cleanable areas. & para. [0090-0092]: The management device 1 includes a communication unit 11, a control unit 12, and a storage unit 13…The control unit 12 is a central processing unit (CPU) for example, and includes a central control unit 121…),
the working robot comprising:
a machine including a traveling device configured to be able to autonomously travel (see at least Kuhara, para. [0119]: The autonomous cleaner 2 includes a sensor unit 21, a dust vacuuming unit 22, a dust accumulation unit 23, a drive unit 24, a communication unit 25, a control unit 26, a storage unit 27, and a power supply unit 28.);
a working device configured to perform the work along a traveling route of the machine (see at least Kuhara, para. [0121]: The dust vacuuming unit 22 is configured including a motor, fan, filter, and exhaust vent, for example (all omitted from illustration).);
a driving device configured to drive the traveling device and the working device (see at least Kuhara, para. [0122]: The drive unit 24 moves the autonomous cleaner 2. The drive unit 24 is configured of a motor and wheels, for example (all omitted from illustration), and causes the autonomous cleaner 2 to travel by controlling the rotation of the motor and rotating the wheels.); and
a battery as a power source of the driving device (see at least Kuhara, para. [0133]: The power supply unit 28 is a battery that supplies electric power to the components of the autonomous cleaner 2.),
an internal processor (see at least Kuhara, para. [0124]: The control unit 26 is a CPU for example, and controls the operations of the autonomous cleaner 2. The control unit 26 includes a central control unit 261, a travel control unit 262, and a communication control unit 263.); and
an internal memory (see at least Kuhara, para. [0127]: The storage unit 27 is semiconductor memory for example, and includes a cleaner information storage unit 271, a cleaning basic program storage unit 272, a management device information storage unit 273, a cleaning target area storage unit 274, a cleanable area allocation information storage unit 275, and a cleaning history storage unit 276.);
wherein the internal processor, receives from a user an input and sets a work boundary to define a preferential working region in the work site where the work can be finished, in view of work capacity of the working robot, based on location information of the inputted preferential location (see at least Kuhara, para. [0165]: As an example of a standard for allocation, the number of autonomous cleaners 2 to be allocated to the cleanable area may be decided based on the area of the cleanable area and the area that an autonomous cleaner 2 can clean on one charge, for example… As for another standard, the user may set the number of autonomous cleaners 2 that can be allocated to each cleanable area beforehand, with the cleaner allocation unit 125 deciding the number of autonomous cleaners 2 based on the contents set by the user. In this case, the user can decide the number of autonomous cleaners 2 necessary for each cleanable area beforehand, so the autonomous cleaners 2 can be made to clean in accordance with user preferences.).
However Kuhara does not explicitly disclose
wherein the internal processor receives from a user an input of a preferential location that is at least a spot, a line, or a direction on a map of a work site, the preferential location required to be prioritized on the map, and,
sets a work boundary to define a preferential working region in the work site where the work can be finished, based on location information of the inputted preferential location, wherein the work boundary is a virtual line on the map, which can be recognized by the working robot, and
wherein the working robot takes the map of only the preferential working region into the internal memory.
Artes teaches
wherein the internal processor receives from a user an input of a preferential location that is at least a spot, a line, or a direction on a map of a work site, the preferential location required to be prioritized on the map (see at least Artes, para. [0056]: a sectoring of the map "by the robot", that the sectoring can be carried out by a processor (including software) arranged in the robot, as well as on a device that is connected with the robot and to which the measurement data gathered by the robot is sent (e.g. via radio). The map sectoring calculations may therefore also be carried out on a personal computer or on an Internet server. This generally makes little difference to the human user. para. [0068]: Therefore, the user should be able to adapt the robot-generated sectoring of the apartment to his/her needs. The possibilities available to the user range here from altering the sectoring by shifting the borders between adjoining zones over the further sectoring of existing zones to the creation of new, user defined zones. These zones may be, for example, so-called "keep-out areas" that the robot is not allowed to enter on its own. The zones (suggested by the robot and, if needed, altered by the user) may thus be furnished by the user with additional attributes that can also influence the behavior of the robot when in operation (in the same manner as the attributes described above that may be automatically assigned to a zone). Possible attributes are, for example, (1.) priority (how important it is for the user that the zone be cleaned), (2.) floor type (which cleaning strategy-dry brushing, wet brushing or only vacuuming, etc.-should be employed?), (3.) accessibility (whether it is even allowed to enter the given zone).), and,
sets a work boundary to define a preferential working region in the work site where the work can be finished, based on location information of the inputted preferential location, wherein the work boundary is a virtual line on the map, which can be recognized by the working robot (see at least Artes, para. [0066]: For this, the user can inform the robot of the high priority zones while making preliminary adjustments or when selecting the quick cleaning program. These may be, e.g. the entrance way (see FIG. 3, zone 200) and the living room (see FIG. 3, zone 300), as the visitors will only be in these rooms. Both rooms are together too large to be completely cleaned in the given amount of time. It may therefore be advantageous to further sector the zones, in particular the large living room 300, into smaller zones. The carpet (see FIG. 4, zone 303), for example, may have high priority and the dinette (see FIG. 4, zone 320) may have a high degree of dirtiness (detected by the robot or assumed based on empirical data). It may now occur that the robot determines that, in the given amount of time, it will only be able to reliably clean either the corridor (200) and the carpet (303) or the dinette (320). & para. [0068]: The possibilities available to the user range here from altering the sectoring by shifting the borders between adjoining zones over the further sectoring of existing zones to the creation of new, user defined zones.).
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 Kuhara to incorporate the teaching of receives from a user an input of a preferential location that is at least a spot, a line, or a direction on a map of a work site, the preferential location required to be prioritized on the map, and, sets a work boundary to define a preferential working region in the work site where the work can be finished, based on location information of the inputted preferential location, wherein the work boundary is a virtual line on the map, which can be recognized by the working robot of Artes, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order for the area of operation of the robot is in this case so large that it cannot be cleaned in the allotted amount of time. It may therefore be of an advantage to be able to assign priorities to the various zones in the area of robot operation (see at least Artes, para. [0067]).
Williams teaches
wherein the working robot takes the map of only the preferential working region into the internal memory (see at least Williams, para. [0045]: (e.g., located in the memory of the main body 214 of the robotic platform 100 or in memory of the service module 102A-D processing. para. [0047]: In order to increase computational efficiency, a digital map for a task area may be divided up into a plurality of work areas, where operations through the plurality of work areas are coordinated. Dividing up a large task area into a plurality of work areas may increase computational efficiency by limiting the size of the digital map being presented for processing at any one time. For example, the digital map for a large task area may be stored in memory of the robotic platform 100, but where the task area digital map is further divided into work areas and loaded into working memory in chunks or as a progressive load. Maintaining computational efficiency through dividing a task area digital map into a plurality of work area digital maps may enable the robotic platform 100 to maintain a higher level of spatial resolution processing for navigating and servicing the task area.).
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 Kuhara to incorporate the teaching of wherein the working robot takes the map of only the preferential working region into the internal memory of Williams, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase computational efficiency (see at least Williams, para. [0047]).
As per claim 2 Kuhara discloses
wherein the work capacity is related to charging of the battery (see at least Kuhara, para. [0165]: As an example of a standard for allocation, the number of autonomous cleaners 2 to be allocated to the cleanable area may be decided based on the area of the cleanable area and the area that an autonomous cleaner 2 can clean on one charge, for example…).
As per claim 3 Kuhara discloses
wherein the work capacity is equivalent to an area which can be handled (see at least Kuhara, para. [0165]: As an example of a standard for allocation, the number of autonomous cleaners 2 to be allocated to the cleanable area may be decided based on the area of the cleanable area and the area that an autonomous cleaner 2 can clean on one charge, for example…).
As per claim 5 Kuhara discloses
wherein when location information of a non-preferential location is inputted, the first processor or the internal processor sets the work boundary to exclude a periphery of the non-preferential location from the preferential working region (see at least Kuhara, para. [0162]: However, an arrangement may be made where multiple cleaning target areas are grouped, person-present cleaning target areas and surrounding cleaning target areas around the person-present cleaning target areas are identified for each group, and autonomous cleaners 2 are made to travel to and clean cleanable areas from which person-present cleaning target areas and surrounding cleaning target areas have been excluded. According to this configuration, in a case where cleaning is to be performed independently by section, grouping cleaning target areas in each section enables cleaning to be performed without concern about other sections.).
As per claim 6 Kuhara discloses
wherein the location information of the preferential location is inputted as spot information (see at least Kuhara, para. [0102]: Seventeen cleaning target areas Al through Al 7 are set in the floor plan of the eatery in FIG. 3. The cleaning target areas Al through A17 are set for each of tables in the eatery.).
As per claim 8 Kuhara discloses
wherein the location information of the preferential location is inputted by operating a cursor on or touching a display screen on which map information is displayed (see at least Kuhara, para. [0101]: In a case of performing settings by a user, cleaning target areas can be set by a user terminal such as a personal computer, tablet computer, smartphone (none illustrated), or the like, of the user obtaining floor plan information from the management device 1, accepting user input regarding cleaning target areas based on the floor plan information, and transmitting the accepted information regarding cleaning target areas to the management device 1.).
As per claim 9 Kuhara discloses
wherein in a case where location information of a plurality of preferential locations are set, after the work in a preferential working region set based on location information of one preferential location is ended, the first processor or the internal processor sets a preferential working region for location information of another preferential location (see at least Kuhara, para. [0177]: Upon the cleaning of the cleanable area being completed, the communication unit 25 of the autonomous cleaner 2 then notifies the management device 1 that cleaning of the cleanable area has been completed (step S26). Upon having received the notification to the effect that cleaning has been completed from the autonomous cleaner 2, the management device 1 re-decides the cleanable areas at that point. In a case where there is a cleanable area regarding which cleaning has not been completed yet in the decided cleanable areas, the management device 1 decides that cleanable area to be a new cleanable area, and transmits cleaning instruction information to the autonomous cleaner 2 to clean the new cleanable area.).
As per claim 10 Kuhara discloses
wherein the processor is provided in the working robot (see at least Kuhara, para. [0250]: In the first through third embodiments, the components of the management devices 1, lA, and 1B may be included in any of the autonomous cleaner 2, POS cash register 3, and portable data terminal 4.).
As per claim 11 Kuhara discloses
wherein the processor is provided in a server connected to the working robot via a network (see at least Kuhara, para. [0083]: The cleaning system illustrated in FIG. 1 includes a point-of-sales (POS) cash register 3 within the eatery 10, a portable data terminal 4 that an employee 51 carries, an autonomous cleaner 2, and a management device 1 that is outside of the eatery 10. para. [0085]: The management device 1 is a server, for example, and is installed inside or outside of the eatery.).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhara, in view of Artes, in view of Williams, in view of US 2011/0295424A1 (“Johnson”).
As per claim 4 Kuhara does not explicitly disclose
wherein working capacity depends on capacity the internal memory of the working robot.
Johnson teaches
wherein working capacity depends on capacity the internal memory of the working robot (see at least Johnson, para. [0110]: Determine whether a number of conditions is met 618 may trigger performance estimation module 322 in FIG. 3 to analyze area completion percentages, resource supply, power supply, storage capacity, and/or any other component in order to determine whether an autonomous machine can leave one worksite area for another worksite area.).
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 Kuhara to incorporate the teaching of wherein working capacity depends on capacity the internal memory of the working robot of Johnson, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to determine whether an autonomous machine can leave one worksite area for another worksite area (see at least Johnson, para. [0110]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhara, in view of Artes, in view of Williams, in view of US 2022/0137631A1 (“Udagawa”).
As per claim 7 Kuhara does not explicitly disclose
wherein the location information of the preferential location is inputted as line information.
Udagawa teaches
wherein the location information of the preferential location is inputted as line information (see at least Udagawa, para. [0089]: As described above, according to the determination method 5, the boundary information (for example, arrangement information of a plurality of markers arranged at the boundary of the work area(position information designated by pointing) or information of a boundary line (line traced with a finger) indicating the boundary of the work area) of the work area designated on the map including the work area is acquired.).
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 Kuhara to incorporate the teaching of wherein the location information of the preferential location is inputted as line information of Udagawa, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to suppress entry into a region that should not be originally entered (see at least Udagawa, para. [0077]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhara, in view of Artes, in view of Williams, in view of US 2022/0167552A1 (“Kameyama”).
As per claim 12 Kuhara does not explicitly disclose
wherein the processor is provided in a charging base configured to charge the battery.
Kameyama teaches
wherein the processor is provided in a charging base configured to charge the battery (see at least Kameyama, para. [0072]: According to the present embodiment, the charging station 220 charges the lawn mower 210. para. [0077]: The above-described program may also be a program that causes a computer to execute one or a plurality of procedures related to various types of information processing in the management system 200. The above-described computer may be a computer mounted to at least one of the user terminal 22, the lawn mower 210, the charging station 220, and the management server 230.).
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 Kuhara to incorporate the teaching of wherein the processor is provided in a charging base configured to charge the battery of Kameyama, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to mutually transmit and receive information from the lawnmower to the charging station (see at least Kameyama, para. [0060]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhara, in view of Artes, in view of Williams, in view of US 2021/0064043A1 (“Kulkarni”).
As per claim 13 Kuhara does not explicitly disclose
wherein when the location information of the preferential location is inputted as a tentative work boundary by a user, the processor corrects the tentative work boundary to set the work boundary.
Kulkarni teaches
wherein when the location information of the preferential location is inputted as a tentative work boundary by a user, the processor corrects the tentative work boundary to set the work boundary (see at least Kulkarni, para. [0185-0186]: For example, in step 802, the electronic device 210 traverses the area. The electronic device can be an automatic lawn mower, which traverses a yard and trims the grass of the lawn. After the electronic device 210 finishes traversing the lawn, in step 804, a human or a sensor on the electronic device210 can inspect the lawn to identify any unmowed regions. For example, as shown in the lawn 808a, the electronic device 210 travels along the path 802a.The area 804a is the unmowed region which can be identified by a user or the electronic device 210 itself…Thereafter, in step 806, the electronic device 210 modifies its path to include a denser path in the designated area due to localization accuracy loss in the designated areas. For instance, if there is unmowed region near location (x.sub.0, y.sub.0) then the electronic device 210 may perform an extra spiral or an extra back and forth motion in such areas to cover the unmowed region.).
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 Kuhara to incorporate the teaching of wherein when the location information of the preferential location is inputted as a tentative work boundary by a user, the processor corrects the tentative work boundary to set the work boundary of Kulkarni, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order for distinguishing between boundary types (see at least Kulkarni, para. [0189]).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhara, in view of Artes, in view of Williams, in view of US 2020/0363796A1 (“Muro”).
As per claim 14 Kuhara does not explicitly disclose
wherein the working device includes a mowing blade configured to rotate around a vertical axis.
Muro teaches
wherein the working device includes a mowing blade configured to rotate around a vertical axis (see at least Muro, Fig. 3 & para. [0101]: The work unit 320 has, for example, a blade disk 322, a cutter blade 324, a work motor 326, and a shaft 328.).
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 Kuhara to incorporate the teaching of wherein the working device includes a mowing blade configured to rotate around a vertical axis of Muro, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to simplify developing a technique to identify a boundary of a work region (see at least Muro, abstract).
As per claim 15 Kuhara does not explicitly disclose
wherein the working robot performs the work in the preferential working region in a selected working mode.
Muro teaches
wherein the working robot performs the work in the preferential working region in a selected working mode (see at least Muro, para. [0081]: As the type of the boundary, (i) a boundary indicating that the progress of the lawn mower 210is prohibited in a region ahead of the boundary, (ii) a boundary indicating that the progress of the lawnmower 210 is permitted in the region ahead of the boundary, (iii) a boundary for sending a particular command to the lawn mower 210, and the like are exemplified. As the particular command, a command for instructing that the progress is to be made in a particular direction, a command for instructing that the travel is to be performed at a particular speed, a command for instructing that the travel is to be performed in a particular travel mode, a command for instructing that a particular work is to be started or stopped, and the like are exemplified.).
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 Kuhara to incorporate the teaching of wherein the working robot performs the work in the preferential working region in a selected working mode of Muro, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to simplify developing a technique to identify a boundary of a work region (see at least Muro, abstract).
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 MOHAMED ABDO ALGEHAIM whose telephone number is (571)272-3628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM EST.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/MOHAMED ABDO ALGEHAIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights