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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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: information acquisition device and identification unit in claims 1 and 30.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claims 1 and 30, there has been no previous disclosure within the specification for a preset area as claimed. Therefore, the preset area is considered new matter
Dependent claims 18-29 are rejected under the same rationale by virtue of dependency.
As per claim 29, there has been no previous disclosure within the specification for a non-working area. Therefore, the non-working area is considered new matter.
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.
Claim 20 is 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.
As per claim 20, the claims refers to an alarm module which was removed from claim 1 in the filed amendment. Therefore the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Willgert (US 2015/0220086).
As per claim 30, Willgert discloses an autonomous mower capable of automatically traveling and performing work in a working area, the autonomous mower comprising:
a housing (inner housing 52; outer housing 54);
a mowing module received in the housing and configured to perform predetermined mowing work (see at least para. 24 for cutting blade);
a traveling module configured to support the housing and drive the autonomous mower to travel within the working area (see at least para. 22 for front wheels 56 and rear wheels 58 controlled by control circuitry 12);
an information acquisition device disposed on the housing and configured to acquire external environment information (sensors 60);
an energy module configured to provide energy for the autonomous mower (see at least para. 19 for batteries); and
a control module connected to and configured to control the mowing module, the traveling module, the information acquisition device, and the energy module, so as to enable automatic traveling and automatic working of the autonomous mower (control circuitry 12),
wherein:
the control module comprises an identification unit configured to receive the external environment information (processing circuity 210);
the identification unit analyzes and determines, based on the external environment information, whether an abnormal object exists within a preset area (see at least para. 37-38 for determination of an unknown object on parcel 20; see at least para. 18 for parcel being a land lot with defined boundaries); and
the control module is configured to, at least in response to determining that the abnormal object exists, control the autonomous mower to rotate (see at least para. 38 for avoiding unknown object when detected; see also Fig. 4 for turning and driving around unknown object instead of driving into it; the claim does not require rotating in place and therefore turning would require at least partial rotation).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 18, 20-21, 25 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willgert (US 2015/0220086) in view of Einecke (US 2015/0128547).
As per claim 1, Willgert teaches an autonomous mower capable of automatically travelling and working in a working area, the autonomous mower comprising:
a housing (inner housing 52; outer housing 54);
a mowing module received in the housing and configured to perform predetermined mowing work (see at least para. 24 for cutting blade);
a traveling module configured to support the housing and drive the autonomous mower to travel within in the working area (see at least para. 22 for front wheels 56 and rear wheels 58 controlled by control circuitry 12);
an information acquisition device disposed on the housing and configured to acquire external environment information (sensors 60);
an energy module configured to provide energy for the autonomous mower (see at least para. 19 for batteries); and
a control module connected to and configured to control the mowing module, the traveling module, the information acquisition device, and the energy module, to enable automatic traveling and automatic working of the autonomous mower (control circuitry 12);
wherein:
the control module comprises an identification unit configured to receive the external environment information (processing circuity 210);
the identification unit analyses and determines, based on the external environment information, whether an abnormal object exists within a preset area (see at least para. 37-38 for determination of an unknown object on parcel 20; see at least para. 18 for parcel being a land lot with defined boundaries); and
the control module is configured to:
in response to determining that an abnormal object exists, send an alarm signal to an external device (see at least para. 38 and 51 for sending a message to a remote operator that an unknown object is detected);
Willgert teaches the mower may be remote controlled (see at least para. 16) but is not explicit regarding:
receive a control instruction transmitted from the external device; and
control the autonomous mower to rotate according to the control instruction, facilitating a user to see a region desired to be observed by the user.
However, Einecke teaches that the mower transmits images to a remote start device and receives remote control instruction from the remote smart device operated by a user to control movement of the mower and the camera (see at least para. 68-69; therefore the user may control the robot and thus the camera view to be directed towards a desired region if he/she wishes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mower of Willgert with the features of Einecke because it provides a means to remotely operate the mower and view the environment without having to be within the vicinity of the mower.
As per claim 18, Willgert further teaches wherein the control module transmits the alarm signal to the external device through the wireless communication module (see at least para. 20 for control circuitry communicates wirelessly with electronic device of a remote operator; see at least para. 42 for wireless communication module provided by device interface of control circuity).
As per claim 20, Willgert further teaches an alarm module, wherein: the control module is configured to, in response to determining that the abnormal object exists, control the alarm module to transmit the alarm signal; and the alarm signal comprises at least one of a sound reminder message and a light reminder signal (see at least para. 38 and 51 for sounding a warning or alarm when an unknown object is detected; while Willgert is not explicit regarding a particular alarm module it is implied that some audio device is provided to produce the sound).
As per claim 21, Willgert further teaches wherein: the autonomous mower comprises a security patrol working mode; and the control module is configured to, in response to determining that the autonomous mower is in the security patrol working mode and the abnormal object existing, send the alarm signal to the external device (see at least para. 38 and 51 for sending a message to a remote operator that an unknown object is detected; the claim does not define what the security patrol working mode is other than the functions that are executed within the mode, therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation security patrol working mode is interpreted as the mower traveling along a route before encountering an object as described in para. 45).
As per claim 25, Willgert further teaches wherein the information acquisition device comprises an image acquisition device, and the identification unit determines whether an abnormal object exists in the working area based on image information acquired by the image acquisition device (see at least para. 23 for sensor 60 may be a camera; see also claim 11).
As per claim 29, Willgert further teaches wherein the preset area comprises a working area and a non-working area (see at least Fig. 4 wherein the non-working area are where objects 320 and 330 are located and the working area is everywhere else on the plat without objects).
Claim(s) 19 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willgert (US 20150220086) in view of Einecke (US 2015/0128547) and further in view of Papaefstathiou (US 2012/0313779).
As per claim 19, Willgert is silent regarding, but Papaefstathiou teaches wherein the control module is configured to obtain another control instruction from the external device and control the autonomous mower to travel toward the abnormal object according to another control instruction, another control instruction being transmitted by the external device based on the alarm signal (see at least para. 49 for user directly navigates robot to investigate the origin of the unexpected condition when robot detects and alerts users of an unexpected obstacle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the mower of modified Willgert with the features of Papaefstathiou because it allows the operator to decide whether or not to further investigate the unknown object and if investigating the object then how to approach the object.
As per claim 26, Willgert is silent regarding, but Papaefstathiou teaches wherein the identification unit identifies whether an object is an abnormal object according to a size or contour of the object presented in the image information (see at least para. 59 for using detected size and shape of an object and comparing to objects with known size and shape to determine whether or not the object is known).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the mower of modified Willgert with the features of Papaefstathiou because it allows the robot to determine whether the object is known and no further action is required or the object is unknown and further response is required.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willgert (US 20150220086) in view of Einecke (US 2015/0128547) and further in view of Choe (US 2011/0264305).
As per claim 22, modified Willgert is silent regarding a working mode selection button through which the user starts the security patrol working mode.
However, Choe teaches a working robot with a distinct working mode (cleaning mode) and security mode that is selectable on the user interface of a wireless terminal device by switching tabs (see at least Fig. 8 and 9 and para. 69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the mower of modified Willgert with the features of Choe because it allows for the user to separate the working mode and the security mode of a robot to prioritize one over the other and allow the user to activate the modes remotely without having to be within vicinity of the robot.
As per claim 23, Willgert is silent wherein the security patrol working mode is started through the external device.
However, Choe teaches a working robot with a distinct working mode (cleaning mode) and security mode that is selectable on the user interface of a wireless terminal device by switching tabs (see at least Fig. 8 and 9 and para. 69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the mower of modified Willgert with the features of Choe because it allows for the user to separate the working mode and the security mode of a robot to prioritize one over the other and allow the user to activate the modes remotely without having to be within vicinity of the robot.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willgert (US 20150220086) in view of Einecke (US 2015/0128547) and further in view of Farlow (US 2011/0288684).
As per claim 27, modified Willgert is silent regarding, however Farlow teaches wherein the identification unit comprises a face identification program configured to identify a face, determine that the identified face is a strange face, and determine that an abnormal object exists in the working area (see at least para. 113 for facial recognition used to validate users; therefore a user that is not validated due to an unrecognizable face would be considered an “abnormal object”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the mower of modified Willgert with the features of Farlow because it allows users to validate without requiring physical user input.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willgert (US 20150220086) in view of Einecke (US 2015/0128547) in view of Papaefstathiou (US 2012/0313779) and further in view of Li (US 5,684,531).
As per claim 28, modified Willgert is silent regarding wherein: the image acquisition device further comprises an illuminating lamp; and the control module is configured to, after receiving the control instruction, control the illuminating lamp to be turned on.
However, Li teaches a directional light source, activated by a remote user, positioned relative to the video camera of a system with a robotic device (see at least claim 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the mower of modified Willgert with the features of Li because it allows the operator to illuminate a target before capturing an image of said target.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4PM ET.
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, ANITA COUPE can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/ROBERT T NGUYEN/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 3619