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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks
Amendments and Remarks filed on 04/23/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follow:
Regarding the Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103: Applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the non-final office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 39, 53, and 54 are 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.
Claim 39 recites the limitation "wherein the service acquiring information transmitted from a communicator arranged at the lawn mower." There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the service” and “the lawn mower” in the claim.
Claim 53 and 54 recite the limitation “the lawn mower”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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.
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 20, 26, 28, 37, 39, 41, 42, 48, 50, and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameyama (US 20200379469 A1) in view of Gustavsson (US 20180129199 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Kameyama teaches A management system, comprising [Kameyama ¶ 0017 "management system 100"]:
an electronic controller arranged at a self-propelled lawn mower, the electronic controller performing a drive control of a drive source that drives the lawn mower [Kameyama ¶ 0018 "drive section 154"]; and
a communicator arranged at the lawn mower [Kameyama ¶ 0018 “The moving object 150 may further include the communication section 152”], the communicator including an apparatus that communicates with the electronic controller [Kameyama ¶ 0056 “the control signal obtaining section 184 obtains the control signal transmitted by the control signal communication section 124 of the management apparatus 120. The control signal obtaining section 184 transmits the control signal to the control section 188.”] and communicating with a server via a network, the communicator acquiring drive control information used for the drive control from the electronic controller and transmitting the drive control information to the server [Kameyama ¶ 0018 "communication section 152" and ¶ 152 "the communication section 152 transmits and receives information with the management apparatus 120"],
wherein the server stores operation information including an operation area indicating an area to be mowed, in association with identification information of the lawn mower, the server transmitting time or position at which the lawn mower located in the operation area performed lawn mowing to a user client's terminal [Kameyama ¶ 0110 "the management server 230 manages the information indicating a location of the boundary of the working region 204" and ¶ 0146 "For example, the input/output control section 440 outputs the information indicating a state of the lawn mower 210 to at least one of the user terminal 22 and the management server 230 if the estimation precision of the self-location of the lawn mower 210 does not satisfy a predetermined condition, or if any failures occur in the lawn mower 210." and ¶ 0105 "For example, the management system 200 manages a state of the lawn mower 210. For example, the management system 200 manages a location, an advancing direction, an advancing speed, a move mode, a work mode, a remaining level of energy (for example, a remaining level of the battery) of the lawn mower 210, a schedule of work performed by the lawn mower 210, and the like."].
Kameyama does not teach wherein the server generates information indicating whether or not the lawn mower is deviating from the operation area and transmits the information to the terminal.
However, in a related field of invention, Gustavsson does teach wherein the server generates information indicating whether or not the lawn mower is deviating from the operation area and transmits the information to the terminal [Gustavsson ¶ 0059 “If the robotic work tool gets stolen and carried outside the geofence boundary a theft alarm is pushed to the application 350 and alerts the user of the event.”]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the lawn mower management system as taught by Kameyama with detecting the lawn mower deviating from the operation area as taught by Gustavsson in order to more effectively manage an autonomous lawn mower.
Regarding claim 26, Kameyama and Gustavsson teach claim 20. Gustavsson further teaches wherein when the server determines deviation of the lawn mower from the operation area, the server transmits information indicating the deviation of the lawn mower from the operation area to the user's terminal immediately after receiving the information [Gustavsson ¶ 0065 “When an error or fatal error is detected in the robotic work tool the user will be immediately updated with this information through the mobile application 350 by a push-notice and corresponding change of Mower status to Error or Fatal error as FIG. 9 displays.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the lawn mower management system as taught by Kameyama with detecting the lawn mower deviating from the operation area as taught by Gustavsson in order to more effectively manage an autonomous lawn mower.
Regarding claim 28, Kameyama and Gustavsson teach claim 26. Kameyama further teaches wherein the server collectively transmits information about more than one lawn mower that the user uses to the user's client terminal or collectively transmits the information about more than one lawn mower that the dealer deals with to a dealer's client terminal [Kameyama ¶ 0023 "In the present embodiment, the management apparatus 120 manages each of one or more moving objects 150. The management apparatus 120 may manage the movement or location of each of one or more moving objects 150."].
Regarding claim 37, Kameyama teaches A method for transmitting information about lawn mowing to a user or a dealer of a self-propelled lawn mower, comprising [Kameyama ¶ 0095 "the lawn mower 210 has an autonomous movement function and the computer mounted on the lawn mower 210 controls the operation of the lawn mower 210" and ¶ 0096 " the lawn mower 210 transmits and receives information with at least one of the user terminal 22 and the management server 230 via the communication network 20"]:
acquiring information transmitted from a communicator arranged at a lawn mower [Kameyama ¶ 0018 “The moving object 150 may further include the communication section 152”];
receiving a drive control information used for a drive control of a drive source that drives the lawn mower [Kameyama ¶ 0018 "drive section 154"];
storing operation information including an operation area indicating an area to be mowed, in association with identification information of the lawn mower, the server transmitting time or position at which the lawn mower located in the operation area performed lawn mowing [Kameyama ¶ 0110 "the management server 230 manages the information indicating a location of the boundary of the working region 204" and ¶ 0146 "For example, the input/output control section 440 outputs the information indicating a state of the lawn mower 210 to at least one of the user terminal 22 and the management server 230 if the estimation precision of the self-location of the lawn mower 210 does not satisfy a predetermined condition, or if any failures occur in the lawn mower 210."].
Kameyama does not teach generating information indicating whether or not the lawn mower is deviating from the operation area and transmits the information to the terminal of a user of the lawn mower or a dealer of the lawn mower.
However, in a related field of invention, Gustavsson does teach generating information indicating whether or not the lawn mower is deviating from the operation area and transmits the information to the terminal of a user of the lawn mower or a dealer of the lawn mower. [Gustavsson ¶ 0059 “If the robotic work tool gets stolen and carried outside the geofence boundary a theft alarm is pushed to the application 350 and alerts the user of the event.”]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the lawn mower management system as taught by Kameyama with detecting the lawn mower deviating from the operation area as taught by Gustavsson in order to more effectively manage an autonomous lawn mower.
Regarding claim 39, Kameyama teaches A management server, comprising [Kameyama ¶ 0093 “the management server 230"]:
wherein the service acquiring information transmitted from a communicator arranged at the lawn mower [Kameyama ¶ 0018 "communication section 152" and ¶ 152 "the communication section 152 transmits and receives information with the management apparatus 120" and ¶ 0096 “the lawn mower 210 transmits and receives information with at least one of the user terminal 22 and the management server 230 via the communication network 20.”],
wherein the server stores operation information including an operation area indicating an area to be mowed, in association with identification information of the lawn mower and time or position at which the lawn mower located in the operation area performed lawn mowing to a terminal [Kameyama ¶ 0110 "the management server 230 manages the information indicating a location of the boundary of the working region 204" and ¶ 0146 "For example, the input/output control section 440 outputs the information indicating a state of the lawn mower 210 to at least one of the user terminal 22 and the management server 230 if the estimation precision of the self-location of the lawn mower 210 does not satisfy a predetermined condition, or if any failures occur in the lawn mower 210." and ¶ 0105 "For example, the management system 200 manages a state of the lawn mower 210. For example, the management system 200 manages a location, an advancing direction, an advancing speed, a move mode, a work mode, a remaining level of energy (for example, a remaining level of the battery) of the lawn mower 210, a schedule of work performed by the lawn mower 210, and the like."], and
Kameyama does not teach wherein the server generates information indicating whether or not the lawn mower is deviating from the operation area and transmits the generated deviation information to a terminal of a user of the lawn mower or a dealer of the lawn mower.
However, in a related field of invention, Gustavsson does teach wherein the server generates information indicating whether or not the lawn mower is deviating from the operation area and transmits the generated deviation information to a terminal of a user of the lawn mower or a dealer of the lawn mower [Gustavsson ¶ 0059 “If the robotic work tool gets stolen and carried outside the geofence boundary a theft alarm is pushed to the application 350 and alerts the user of the event.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the lawn mower management system as taught by Kameyama with detecting the lawn mower deviating from the operation area as taught by Gustavsson in order to more effectively manage an autonomous lawn mower.
Regarding claim 48, Kameyama and Gustavsson teach claim 20. Kameyama further teaches wherein the server transmits a route for causing the lawn mower to travel when mowing the operation area to the client terminal [Kameyama ¶ 0074 "In the present embodiment, the path plan section 194 plans the moving path of the moving object 150."].
Regarding claim 50, Kameyama and Gustavsson teach claim 20. Kameyama further teaches wherein the server identifies a correspondence between the operation area and behavior history information, and transmits the correspondence to the terminal [Kameyama ¶ 0150 "The storage section 460 may store various types of information related to a history of the lawn mower 210. In one embodiment, the storage section 460 stores information related to the moving history of the lawn mower 210. In another embodiment, the storage section 460 stores information related to the work history of the lawn mower 210."].
Regarding claim 51, Kameyama and Gustavsson teach claim 20. Kameyama further teaches wherein the server reads past behavior history information when work was performed in the operation area to identify a correspondence between the operation area and the behavior history information [Kameyama ¶ 0150 "The storage section 460 may store various types of information related to a history of the lawn mower 210. In one embodiment, the storage section 460 stores information related to the moving history of the lawn mower 210. In another embodiment, the storage section 460 stores information related to the work history of the lawn mower 210."].
Regarding claim 41, Kameyama and Gustavsson teach claim 20. Gustavasson further teaches
wherein when the server determines deviation of the lawn mower from the operation area, the server transmits information indicating the deviation of the lawn mower from the operation area to the terminal while the lawn mower is in operation [Gustavsson ¶ 0059 “If the robotic work tool gets stolen and carried outside the geofence boundary a theft alarm is pushed to the application 350 and alerts the user of the event.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the lawn mower management system as taught by Kameyama with detecting the lawn mower deviating from the operation area as taught by Gustavsson in order to more effectively manage an autonomous lawn mower.
Regarding claim 42, Kameyama and Gustavsson teach claim 41. Gustavsson further teaches wherein when the server determines traveling in an area where the lawn mower has deviated from the operation area, the server transmits information indicating the deviation of the lawn mower from the operation area to the terminal [Gustavsson ¶ 0059 “If the robotic work tool gets stolen and carried outside the geofence boundary a theft alarm is pushed to the application 350 and alerts the user of the event.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the lawn mower management system as taught by Kameyama with detecting the lawn mower deviating from the operation area as taught by Gustavsson in order to more effectively manage an autonomous lawn mower.
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameyama in view of Gustavsson and in further view of Yamashita (US PGPub 2024/0302847).
Regarding claim 49, Kameyama and Gustavsson teach claim 20. Kameyama does not teach wherein the server transmits area analysis information including a degree of inclination of the operation area, a position in the operation area that should be beware of during lawn mowing, time required to finish mowing the operation area, and difficulty of mowing to the terminal.
However, in a related field of invention, Yamashita does teach wherein the server transmits area analysis information including a degree of inclination of the operation area, a position in the operation area that should be beware of during lawn mowing, time required to finish mowing the operation area, and difficulty of mowing to the terminal [Yamashita ¶ 0052-53 "The work area storage unit 116 stores information about a target work area AR in which lawn-mowing work as one example of gardening work is executed. The work area storage unit 116 stores a plan view of the work area AR and inclination information, for example. The inclination information includes an inclination angle of a lawn surface included in the work area AR. As described later with reference to FIG. 2, the work area AR includes trees TR and benches BN, for example. Further, the work area storage unit 116 stores position information of an obstacle arranged in the work area AR."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the lawn mower management system as taught by Kameyama and Gustavsson with transmitting area analysis information as taught by Yamashita in order to increase usability of the management system.
Claims 44-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameyama in view of Gustavsson and in further view of Moroniti (US PGPub 2021/0358290).
Regarding claim 44, Kameyama and Gustavsson teach claim 20. Gustavsson does teach deviation information as an error that the user will be immediately updated with [Gustavsson ¶ 0065]. Gustavsson also teaches a time indication on the status page which does not require an alert and is therefore low urgency [Gustavsson ¶ 0058]. Kameyama and Gustavsson do not explicitly teach wherein the electronic controller classifies information to be transmitted into "high urgency information" and "low urgency information," and varies a timing to transmit the information to the server depending on the urgency of the information, and wherein the high urgency information includes the deviation information, and the low urgency information includes a time required for lawn mowing work in the operation area.
However, in a related field of invention, Moroniti does teach herein the information transmission timing for the high urgency information is set during operation of the lawn mower, and the information transmission timing for the low urgency information is set after the operation of the lawn mower is finished and wherein the high urgency information includes the deviation information, and the low urgency information includes a time required for lawn mowing work in the operation area. [Moroniti ¶ 0037 "The criteria for triggering the alert may be based on, for example, sensor data from a robot 102, a condition associated with the sensor data, a time of occurrence of a detected condition, a location of occurrence of the detected condition, a state of the robot (e.g., indicative of the robot completing a cleaning task or other assigned task), a manual input (e.g., a code) entered directly on a user interface of the robot 102, and/or additional contextual information."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the lawn mower management system with a status page and an alert system as taught by Kameyama and Gustavsson with ranking information based on urgency as taught by Moroniti in order to increase usability of the management system.
Regarding claim 45, Kameyama Gustavsson, and Moroniti teach claim 44. Moroniti further teaches wherein the information transmission timing for the high urgency information is set during operation of the lawn mower, and the information transmission timing for the low urgency information is set after the operation of the lawn mower is finished [Moroniti ¶ 0037 "The criteria for triggering the alert may be based on, for example, sensor data from a robot 102, a condition associated with the sensor data, a time of occurrence of a detected condition, a location of occurrence of the detected condition, a state of the robot (e.g., indicative of the robot completing a cleaning task or other assigned task), a manual input (e.g., a code) entered directly on a user interface of the robot 102, and/or additional contextual information."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the lawn mower management system as taught by Kameyama and Gustavsson with ranking information based on urgency as taught by Moroniti in order to increase usability of the management system.
Regarding claim 46, Kameyama, Gustavsson, and Moroniti teach claim 44. Gustavsson further teaches wherein the high urgency information includes information indicating deviation of the lawn mower from the operation area [Gustavsson ¶ 0065].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the lawn mower management system that ranks information as taught by Kameyama and Moroniti with deviation information being high urgency as taught by Gustavsson in order to increase usability of the management system.
Regarding claim 47, Kameyama, Gustavsson, and Moroniti teach claim 44. Moroniti further teaches wherein the high urgency information includes information indicating an abnormality of the lawn mower [Moroniti ¶ 0056 " After almost an hour of cleaning, the battery capacity, as measured by the voltage sensors on the robot 102 and the currently remaining battery capacity as tracked by the battery, is almost empty. The robot server 102 receives voltage sensor data from the robot 102 when the battery capacity falls below a predefined threshold indicative of the low battery. The robot server 130 then sends a text message to the night security guard in accordance with the guard's configured communication preferences to request that the guard bring a fresh battery to the robot 102 so that the robot 102 can finish the hallway with minimal downtime."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the lawn mower management system as taught by Kameyama with ranking information based on urgency as taught by Moroniti in order to increase usability of the management system.
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameyama in view of Gustavsson and in further view Mejegard (US PGPub 2015/0109142).
Regarding claim 52, Kameyama and Gustavsson teach claim 20. Kameyama and Gustavsson do not teach wherein the drive control information includes a control command and wherein the server accumulates the drive control information, behavior history information, and maintenance history, and provides them to a manufacturer.
However, in a related field of invention, Meijegard does teach wherein the drive control information includes a control command and wherein the server accumulates the drive control information, behavior history information, and maintenance history, and provides them to a manufacturer [Mejegard ¶ 0079 "data management server system 270 … In some embodiments, portions of the fleet management portal are geared to fleet owners while other portions may be targeted to operators, dealers, manufacturers, and/or other users." and ¶ 0034 "For example, the data management server system 162 may provide a web portal where users can track information about a fleet's equipment and operators, including (for example, without limitation) such information as equipment run time, equipment performance, equipment maintenance records, equipment repair records,"].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the lawn mower management system as taught by Kameyama and Gustavsson with providing control information and maintenance history to a manufacturer as taught by Moroniti in order to increase usability of the management system.
Claims 53 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameyama in view of Gustavsson and in further view Morrison (US 20210382476 A1).
Regarding claim 53, Kameyama and Gustavsson teach claim 39. Gustavsson teaches sending an alert to a user’s mobile device if the lawn mower is stolen [Gustavsson¶ 0059 “If the robotic work tool gets stolen and carried outside the geofence boundary a theft alarm is pushed to the application 350 and alerts the user of the event.”]. Kameyama and Gustavsson do not explicitly teach wherein the server transmits the generated deviation information to a terminal of a landscape company which is the user of the lawn mower.
However, in a related field of invention, Morrison does teach wherein the server transmits the generated deviation information to a terminal of a landscape company which is the user of the lawn mower [Morrison ¶ 0032 "In one example, the server 108 uses the data 124 communicated from the mower fleet 102 to provide analytics to assist landscape company management." and ¶ 0040 "Of course, the invention is not meant to be so limiting and data from the mower (e.g., sensor data, control data, error data, message data, and/or data derived therefrom) may be sent to any one or more remote system."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the lawn mower management system sending alerts to a user’s mobile device as taught by Kameyama and Gustavsson with the user terminal being of a landscape company as taught by Morrison in order to increase usability of the management system.
Regarding claim 54, Kameyama and Gustavsson teach claim 39. Gustavsson teaches sending an alert to a user’s mobile device if the lawn mower is stolen [Gustavsson¶ 0059 “If the robotic work tool gets stolen and carried outside the geofence boundary a theft alarm is pushed to the application 350 and alerts the user of the event.”]. Kameyama and Gustavsson do not explicitly teach wherein the server transmits the generated deviation information to a terminal of a user who manages an operator working with the lawn mower.
However, in a related field of invention, Morrison does teach wherein the server transmits the generated deviation information to a terminal of a user who manages an operator working with the lawn mower [Morrison ¶ 0018 "Both the site manager 154 and customer 156 benefit from reporting of information regarding the autonomous lawn mowing system 100 as described below in accordance with examples of the present invention." and ¶ 0031 "Certain data or messages regarding the data may be sent directly to the local site manager device 104 such as error messages"].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the lawn mower management system sending alerts to a user’s mobile device as taught by Kameyama and Gustavsson with the user terminal being of an operator manager as taught by Morrison in order to increase usability of the management system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPHINE RICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
Prosecution Insights