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 .
Applicant's Response
In Applicant's Response dated 8/19/2025, Applicant amended the Claims and argued against all objections and rejections set forth in the previous Office Action.
All objections and rejections not reproduced below are withdrawn.
The prior art rejections of the Claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 previously set forth are partially withdrawn and partially maintained.
The examiner appreciates the applicant noting where the support for the amendments are described in the specification.
The Application was filed on 6/8/2023, with priority to PRO 63/351,699 Filing Date 06/13/2022.
Claim(s) 1-20 are pending for examination. Claim(s) 1, 16, 19 is/are independent claim(s).
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.
Claim 12 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.
The claim recites: “wherein when the current autonomous state of the first robotic garden tool was entered into manually, and is not associated with the previously stored schedule”.
The specification discloses “wherein when the current autonomous state of the first robotic garden tool was entered into manually” but does not disclose “and is not associated with the previously stored schedule”.
The specification recites “a sub-status 529A may also indicate whether the current status 511C of the robotic mower 105 was entered into manually (e.g., in response to user selection of one of the user-selectable inputs 513) or based on a previously stored schedule.” [Published specification ¶ 0090].
The is the specification discloses that the status was “based on a previously stored schedule”, but does not disclose that it was not based on a stored schedule.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyakusawa; Dai US Pub. No. 2019/0384287 (Hyakusawa) in view of Schneider; Ryan et al. US Pub. No. 2021/0373558 (Schneider).
Claim 1:
Hyakusawa teaches:
An external device [¶ 0033] (mobile device) comprising:
a display;
a device network interface configured to allow the external device to wirelessly communicate with one or more robotic garden tools [¶ 0030, 35] (wireless communication) [¶ 0003, 19, 36] (autonomous lawn mowing machine); and
an electronic processor coupled to the display and to the device network interface and configured to communicate with the one or more robotic garden tools via the device network interface [¶ 0034] (CPU) [¶ 0030, 35] (wireless communication), the electronic processor configured to
display a home screen on the display, wherein the home screen includes information related to a first robotic garden tool of the one or more robotic garden tools [¶ 0038, 40, 42-50] (Figs. 6-10, home screen showing a working machine or autonomous lawn mower),
…
wherein the home screen includes a second display area that includes a current status of the first robotic garden tool and a plurality of user-selectable inputs configured to alter the current status of the first robotic garden tool in response to being selected via a user input [¶ 0043] (“on standby”, the apparatus updates the home screen that is currently displayed on the display apparatus so as to display an image indicating being “on standby” in a standard size. When the state of the working machine is an “error state” the processing apparatus updates the home screen that is currently displayed in the display apparatus so as to display an image indicating an “error state” in a small size) [¶ 0042] (image indicating the remaining amount of the battery could also be considered a “status”) [¶ 0042-46] (Figs. 6-10 show a change in the appearance of the working machine based on status this could be the “first display area”, the battery percentage is a “second display area” as well as the buttons to control the machine in Fig. 6), and
wherein the current status of the first robotic garden tool that is displayed in the second display area indicates (i) one of a plurality of autonomous states of the first robotic garden tool as a current autonomous state of the first robotic garden tool [¶ 0041-44, 49-50] (determines that the state of the working machine 1 is one of “in operation”, “on standby”, and an “error state” based on data from the various sensors of the working machine) and (ii) whether the current autonomous state of the first robotic garden tool was entered into manually [¶ 0040] (remote control is a manual mode or state) or based on a previously stored schedule.
[Examiner’s Interpretation: the phrase “whether the current autonomous state of the first robotic garden tool was entered into manually or based on a previously stored schedule” is interpreted as being either or but both are not necessary, that is only one of the elements between the “or” are required. If the applicant is attempting to claim both options the claim should be reworded to require both options being available but only one selected and displayed.]
Hyakusawa also teaches a robot schedule [¶ 0038-39] (work schedule of the working machine, Fig. 6 button 602).
Hyakusawa teaches, but Schneider also teaches:
display a home screen on the display, wherein the home screen includes information related to a first robotic garden tool of the one or more robotic garden tools;
…
wherein the home screen includes a second display area that includes a current status of the first robotic garden tool and a plurality of user-selectable inputs configured to alter the current status of the first robotic garden tool in response to being selected via a user input [¶ 0136, 145] (Fig. 6A,, user interface 600A may display a robot information shelf 620, a mission routine shelf 630, and a mission status shelf 640, the user interface 600A would be a “home screen”, the mission status shelf could be a “current status” and the robot information shelf could be a “current status”);
Hyakusawa does not give any detail about the work schedule button and does not appear to explicitly disclose “work overview”.
However, the disclosure of Schneider teaches:
wherein the home screen includes a first display area that includes a work overview of scheduled work to be performed by the first robotic garden tool [¶ 0136, 145] (Fig. 6A,, user interface 600A may display a robot information shelf 620, a mission routine shelf 630, and a mission status shelf 640, the user interface 600A would be a “home screen”, the mission routine shelf could be a “work overview” and the robot information shelf could be a “current status”) [¶ 0110-111, 135, 156] (lawn mowing robot, the mobile robots included in the robot menu 610 (such as “Mappy”, “Chappie”, and “Mower” shown in FIG. 6A) may be of different types, such as cleaning (e.g., vacuuming or sweeping) robots, mopping robots, or mowing robots).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of controlling an autonomous lawn mower using a mobile device in Hyakusawa and the method of scheduling robots in Schneider, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been that of simple substitution (See KSR Int’l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(B)). Hyakusawa differs from the claimed invention by including the data display interface of Schneider in place of the interface display in Hyakusawa. Further, Schneider teaches that “shelves may be arranged in a list or in separate pages, and accessible via one or more UI navigational controls such as a slider, pagination, breadcrumbs, tags, or icons” [0136] and rearranging of user interfaces was well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have predictably substituted the data display interface of Schneider in place of the interface display in Hyakusawa, with a reasonable expectation of success, because both display data from a robot and “to enhance user experience and improve the performance of robot scheduling and controlling” [Schneider: ¶ 0153].
Claim 2:
Hyakusawa teaches:
The external device of claim 1, wherein the first display area is located above the second display area [¶ 0042-46] (Figs. 6-10 show a change in the appearance of the working machine based on status this could be the “first display area”, the battery percentage is a “second display area” as well as the buttons to control the machine in Fig. 6).
Claim 9:
Hyakusawa teaches:
The external device of claim 8, wherein at least one of the user-selectable inputs is not selectable by a user at any given time based on the current status of the first robotic garden tool [¶ 0044-45] (working machine does not properly operate as in an “error state” or when the state of the working machine cannot be appropriately acquired as in a “communication incapable state”, cannot control the mower if it is incapable of communication).
Claim 11:
Hyakusawa teaches:
The external device of claim 1, wherein the current autonomous state includes one of a general operational state, a paused state, a perimeter cutting state, a docking state, a charging state, a standby state, and an error state [¶ 0043] (“on standby”, the apparatus updates the home screen that is currently displayed on the display apparatus so as to display an image indicating being “on standby” in a standard size. When the state of the working machine is an “error state” the processing apparatus updates the home screen that is currently displayed in the display apparatus so as to display an image indicating an “error state” in a small size) [¶ 0042] (image indicating the remaining amount of the battery could also be considered a “status”).
Claim 12:
Hyakusawa teaches:
The external device of claim 11, wherein when the current autonomous state of the first robotic garden tool was entered into manually, and is not associated with the previously stored schedule, the plurality of user-selectable inputs includes a duration option configured to allow a user to select whether the current autonomous state of the first robotic garden tool should continue until a next scheduled operation or until further notice when another user input is received [¶ 0143, 172] (duration) [¶ 0077, 84, 88-89, 91-92, 94, 98, 113, 116] (work region, boundary, containment zone, exclusion zone; the user may even define the boundaries using the separate device, for example, by drawing the boundaries or using the device as a remote control for manual operation of the mower).
Claim 13:
Hyakusawa teaches:
The external device of claim 1, wherein the second display area includes at least one of an indication of battery charge level of the first robotic garden tool and an indication of wireless communication connectivity of the first robotic garden tool [¶ 0044-45] (working machine does not properly operate as in an “error state” or when the state of the working machine cannot be appropriately acquired as in a “communication incapable state”, cannot control the mower if it is incapable of communication) [¶ 0043] (“on standby”, the apparatus updates the home screen that is currently displayed on the display apparatus so as to display an image indicating being “on standby” in a standard size. When the state of the working machine is an “error state” the processing apparatus updates the home screen that is currently displayed in the display apparatus so as to display an image indicating an “error state” in a small size) [¶ 0042] (image indicating the remaining amount of the battery could also be considered a “status”).
Claims 16, 18:
Claim(s) 16 is/are substantially similar to claim 1 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Claim 16 is a “method” claim, claim 1 is a “device” claim but the steps or elements of each claim are essentially the same.
Claim 16 also recite: “wherein the first display area and the second display area are simultaneously displayed on the home screen.” Schneider teaches “simultaneously displayed” [Schneider: ¶ 0136, 145] (Fig. 6A,, user interface 600A may display a robot information shelf 620, a mission routine shelf 630, and a mission status shelf 640)
Claim(s) 18 is/are substantially similar to claim 11 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Claim(s) 3-8, 10, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyakusawa; Dai US Pub. No. 2019/0384287 (Hyakusawa) in view of Schneider; Ryan et al. US Pub. No. 2021/0373558 (Schneider) in view of Ingvalson; Ryan Douglas et al. US Pub. No. 2022/0129000 (Ingvalson).
Claim 3:
Hyakusawa teaches a schedule button [¶ 0040, Fig. 6 element 602’] but does not give detail about what is shown when the button is selected.
Schneider teaches: [¶ 0136] (Fig. 6A, schedule shows days, Mon, Wed, Fri).
Hyakusawa and Schneider teach all the elements of the claims as shown above.
Hyakusawa and Schneider do not appear to explicitly disclose “lists a plurality of days”.
However, the disclosure of Ingvalson teaches:
The external device of claim 1, wherein the first display area lists a plurality of days including a current day [¶ 0128-156] (Figs. 8-15, show a “plurality of days including the current day”, Fig. 15A shows current time of week between Tuesday and Wednesday); and
wherein the first display area lists a respective work schedule of the first robotic garden tool corresponding to each day of the plurality of days [¶ 0128-156] (Figs. 8-15, show a “work schedule”, Fig. 15A-B shows the day the task and the zone).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of controlling an autonomous lawn mower using a mobile device in Hyakusawa and Ingvalson and the method of scheduling robots in Schneider, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The know technique of displaying a schedule in Ingvalson could be applied to the schedule menu in Hyakusawa and Schneider. Hyakusawa, Schneider and Ingvalson are similar devices because each are interfaces for controlling autonomous robots or lawn mowers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, “facilitate the ease of scheduling autonomous machine operation while properly maintaining the work region” [Ingvalson ¶ 0004].
Claim 4:
Ingvalson teaches:
The external device of claim 3, wherein the respective work schedule includes one or more time blocks during which the first robotic garden tool one of (i) is scheduled to operate, (ii) is currently operating, or (iii) was scheduled to operate [¶ 0128-156] (Figs. 8-15, show a “work schedule”, Fig. 15A-B shows past or “was scheduled” as well as future or “is scheduled”, Fig. 12 shows completed tasks and future tasks).
Claim 5:
Ingvalson teaches:
The external device of claim 4, wherein each time block includes a status indicator that indicates one of (i) that future work by the first robotic garden tool is scheduled, (ii) whether current scheduled work is being performed by the first robotic garden tool, and (iii) whether past scheduled work was actually performed by the first robotic garden tool [¶ 0128-156] (Figs. 8-15, show a “work schedule”, Fig. 15A-B shows past or “was scheduled” as well as future or “is scheduled”, Fig. 12 shows completed tasks and future tasks).
Claim 6:
Ingvalson teaches:
The external device of claim 3, wherein a total work time of the first robotic garden tool for each day is listed with respect to each day [¶ 0128-156] (Figs. 8-15, show a “work schedule”, FIG. 13 shows another example of a visual presentation of operating schedule progress over a time period, hours required could be the “total work time”).
Claim 7:
Ingvalson teaches:
The external device of claim 3, wherein the first display area includes a second user-selectable input configured to alter the first display area to display the respective work schedule of the first robotic garden tool corresponding to different days in response to being selected via a first user input [¶ 0007, 14, 81, 105-106, 119, 125, 130, 142-149, 157, 169, 173-174] (user input for scheduling).
Claim 8:
Hyakusawa teaches:
The external device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of user-selectable inputs includes a user-selectable “start” button, and wherein the electronic processor is configured to send, via the device network interface, a first command to the first robotic garden tool to start operating in response to the “start” button being selected via a first user input [¶ 0040] (a play button is equivalent to a “start” button);
wherein the plurality of user-selectable inputs includes a user-selectable “pause” button, and wherein the electronic processor is configured to send, via the device network interface, a second command to the first robotic garden tool to pause operation in response to the “pause” button being selected via a second user input [¶ 0040] (a stop button is equivalent to a “pause” button); and
Ingvalson teaches:
wherein the plurality of user-selectable inputs includes a user-selectable “home” button, and wherein the electronic processor is configured to send, via the device network interface, a third command to the first robotic garden tool to instruct the first robotic garden tool to return to a docking station in response to the “home” button being selected via a third user input [¶ 0117-119] (user interface for offline mode, offline mode returns the mower to the charging station or “docking station”).
Claim 10:
Ingvalson teaches:
The external device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of user-selectable inputs includes a perimeter cutting option [¶ 0077, 84, 88-89, 91-92, 94, 98, 113, 116] (work region, boundary, containment zone, exclusion zone; the user may even define the boundaries using the separate device, for example, by drawing the boundaries or using the device as a remote control for manual operation of the mower);
wherein the electronic processor is configured to send, via the device network interface, a first command to the first robotic garden tool to include perimeter cutting during its operation in response to the perimeter cutting option being enabled via a first user input [¶ 0077, 84, 88-89, 91-92, 94, 98, 113, 116] (work region, boundary, containment zone, exclusion zone; the user may even define the boundaries using the separate device, for example, by drawing the boundaries or using the device as a remote control for manual operation of the mower); and
wherein the electronic processor is configured to send, via the device network interface, a second command to the first robotic garden tool to cease including perimeter cutting during its operation in response to the perimeter cutting option being disabled via the first user input [¶ 0089, 101, 116, 124, 134] (exclusion zone).
Claims 17:
Claim(s) 17 is/are substantially similar to claims 3-4 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyakusawa; Dai US Pub. No. 2019/0384287 (Hyakusawa) in view of Schneider; Ryan et al. US Pub. No. 2021/0373558 (Schneider) in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi; Ali et al. US Pub. No. 2022/0066456 (Afrouzi).
Claim 14:
Hyakusawa and Schneider teach all the elements of the claims as shown above.
Hyakusawa and Schneider do not appear to explicitly disclose “different robotic garden tool”.
However, the disclosure of Afrouzi teaches:
The external device of claim 1, wherein the home screen includes a user-selectable menu;
wherein the electronic processor is configured to display, in response to the user-selectable menu being selected, a plurality of selectable options, wherein each selectable option is associated with a different robotic garden tool, and wherein a first selectable option is associated with the first robotic garden tool [¶ 0708, 1440] (more than one robot and device … choose settings for each robot and device); and
wherein the electronic processor is configured to display, in response receiving a selection of the first selectable option of the plurality of selectable options, the home screen of the first robotic garden tool [¶ 0708, 1440] (more than one robot and device … choose settings for each robot and device) [¶ 0970, 1224, 1278, ] (robotic lawn mower).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of controlling an autonomous lawn mower using a mobile device in Hyakusawa and the method of scheduling robots in Schneider and the method of robotic control in Ebrahimi Afrouzi, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The know technique of selecting from multiple robots in Ebrahimi Afrouzi could be applied to the schedule menu in Hyakusawa and Schneider. Hyakusawa, Schneider, and Ebrahimi Afrouzi are similar devices because each are interfaces for controlling autonomous robots or lawn mowers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, for improved operation of the robots [Ebrahimi Afrouzi: ¶ 0271].
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyakusawa; Dai US Pub. No. 2019/0384287 (Hyakusawa) in view of Schneider; Ryan et al. US Pub. No. 2021/0373558 (Schneider) in view of Kim; Hyun Min US Pub. No. 2022/0035903 (Kim).
Claim 15:
Hyakusawa and Schneider teach all the elements of the claims as shown above.
Hyakusawa and Schneider do not appear to explicitly disclose a “registration screen”.
However, the disclosure of Kim teaches:
The external device of claim 1, further comprising a camera;
wherein the electronic processor is configured to
display a registration screen that indicates that the camera should be used to capture one of a bar code and a quick response (QR) code located on the first robotic garden tool [¶ 0040, 45, 60, 82, 90, 99, 134] (use information of the smart mobile device by allowing an NFC tag or a QR code to be scanned by the smart device or robot to be personalized, the use registration information of the smart device or robot),
receive, from the camera, captured data corresponding to the one of the bar code and the QR code [¶ 0079] (camera),
retrieve identification information of the first robotic garden tool from a remote database based on the captured data [¶ 0043, 63-64, 93-95] (a cloud based database is “remote”), and
register the first robotic garden tool with a first account associated with the external device using the identification information [¶ 0045-46] (registration).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of controlling an autonomous lawn mower using a mobile device in Hyakusawa and the method of scheduling robots in Schneider and the method of robotic registration in Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The know technique of QR code registration in Kim could be applied to the menu in Hyakusawa and Schneider. Hyakusawa, Schneider, and Kim are similar devices because each are interfaces for controlling autonomous robots. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, to more easily use and personalize a device [Kim: ¶ 0020-22].
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyakusawa; Dai US Pub. No. 2019/0384287 (Hyakusawa) in view of Ingvalson; Ryan Douglas et al. US Pub. No. 2022/0129000 (Ingvalson).
Claim 19:
Hyakusawa teaches:
A communication system comprising:
a first robotic garden tool including [¶ 0030, 35] (wireless communication) [¶ 0003, 19, 36] (autonomous lawn mowing machine)
a first network interface configured to allow the first robotic garden tool to wirelessly communicate with an external device [¶ 0034] (CPU) [¶ 0030, 35] (wireless communication),
a first electronic processor coupled to the first network interface [¶ 0030, 35] (communication apparatus may conform to a near field communication technology such as a wireless LAN or Bluetooth, or may conform to a mobile communication technology such as 3G or LTE, Bluetooth is “directly”, LTE and LAN are “indirectly”) and configured to
transmit information related to the first robotic garden tool, via the first network interface, to the external device [¶ 0030, 35] (communication apparatus may conform to a near field communication technology such as a wireless LAN or Bluetooth, or may conform to a mobile communication technology such as 3G or LTE, Bluetooth is “directly”, LTE and LAN are “indirectly”),
receive a command, via the first network interface, from the external device, and
control the first robotic garden tool based on the command [¶ 0040] (remote control is a manual mode or state); and
the external device including
a display;
a second network interface configured to allow the external device to wirelessly communicate with the first robotic garden tool [¶ 0034] (CPU) [¶ 0030, 35] (wireless communication); and
a second electronic processor coupled to the display and to the second network interface and configured to communicate with the first robotic garden tool via the second network interface, the second electronic processor configured to
display a home screen on the display, wherein the home screen includes at least a portion of the information related to the first robotic garden tool [¶ 0038, 40, 42-50] (Figs. 6-10, home screen showing a working machine or autonomous lawn mower, home screen 600, include home button 601 and schedule button 602),
wherein the home screen includes a first display area that includes a work overview … [¶ 0039] (work schedule of the working machine) [¶ 0042-46] (Figs. 7-10 show a change in the appearance of the working machine based on status, this could be a “work overview”), and
wherein the home screen includes a second display area that includes a current status of the first robotic garden tool and a plurality of user-selectable inputs configured to alter the current status of the first robotic garden tool in response to being selected via a user input [¶ 0043] (“on standby”, the apparatus updates the home screen that is currently displayed on the display apparatus so as to display an image indicating being “on standby” in a standard size. When the state of the working machine is an “error state” the processing apparatus updates the home screen that is currently displayed in the display apparatus so as to display an image indicating an “error state” in a small size) [¶ 0042] (image indicating the remaining amount of the battery could also be considered a “status”) [¶ 0042-46] (Figs. 6-10 show a change in the appearance of the working machine based on status this could be the “first display area”, the battery percentage is a “second display area” as well as the buttons to control the machine in Fig. 6), and
transmit, via the second network interface, the command to the first robotic garden tool in response to receiving a user input on the external device [¶ 0040] (a play button is equivalent to a “start” button).
Hyakusawa does not appear to explicitly disclose “work overview”.
However, the disclosure of Ingvalson teaches:
… {that includes a work overview} of scheduled work to be performed by the first robotic garden tool [¶ 0128-156] (Figs. 8-15, show a “work schedule”, Fig. 15A-B shows past or “was scheduled” as well as future or “is scheduled”, Fig. 12 shows completed tasks and future tasks).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of controlling an autonomous lawn mower using a mobile device in Hyakusawa and Ingvalson, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The know technique of displaying a schedule in Ingvalson could be applied to the schedule menu in Hyakusawa. Hyakusawa and Ingvalson are similar devices because both are interfaces for controlling autonomous lawn mowers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, “facilitate the ease of scheduling autonomous machine operation while properly maintaining the work region” [Ingvalson ¶ 0004].
In the examiner interpretation the “home screen” is all of the interface 600 in Fig. 6 and the “Home” button 601 is one way to manipulate the home screen 600 to change what is displayed on the image display region 606. This would mean when the schedule button 602 is pressed, the image display region 606 changes but the “home screen” 600 still displays the home button 601 along with the schedule button 602 and then the schedule would be displayed in the image display region 606 which could incorporate the display of the schedule show in Ingvalson.
Claim 20:
Hyakusawa teaches:
The communication system of claim 19, wherein the first robotic garden tool and the external device are configured to wirelessly communicate with each other at least one of directly and indirectly via an intermediary device [¶ 0030, 35] (communication apparatus may conform to a near field communication technology such as a wireless LAN or Bluetooth, or may conform to a mobile communication technology such as 3G or LTE, Bluetooth is “directly”, LTE and LAN are “indirectly”).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited.
Evidence of the level skill of an ordinary person in the art for Claim 1:
Newly Cited:
Schriesheim; Benjamin H. et al. US 20180344116 teaches: mission timeline displaying a status and schedule of the cleaning mission.
Case; Shannon Amelia et al. US 20220151450 Fig. 6F-6G, charging status, with schedule, lawn mower robot.
Duffley; Samuel et al. US 20140207280 teaches: status, schedule.
Previously Cited:
Doughty; Brian et al. US 20170020064 teaches scheduling and control of robotic lawn mowers.
Thacher; Russell et al. US 8295979 teaches: scheduling mowing tasks by a robotic mower; plurality of service robot mowers and charging stations.
Citations to Prior Art
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968". In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323,75 USPQ2d 1213,1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264,23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807,10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385,1390,163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 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.
35 USC 103 Rejection:
With respect to claims 19-20, Applicant's arguments filed 8/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the following: (response pages 8-11).
The alleged combination of Hyakusawa and Ingvalson is deficient because Hyakusawa teaches the display of a scheduling screen that is separate from the home screen shown in FIG. 6- 12. “Five buttons for switching the screen are arranged side by side on an upper side of the home screen 600. A button 601 is for displaying the home screen. The button 601 1s displayed in a larger size than those of other buttons 602 to 605 in order to indicate that the currently selected screen is the home screen.” Paragraph 0038. “The button 602 is for displaying a schedule setting screen. The user can set a work schedule of the working machine 1 on the schedule setting screen.” Paragraph 0039.
The other screens besides the home screen (e.g., the schedule setting screen) are not shown in any figures nor are they explained in detail in Hyakusawa. However, it is clear that these other selectable screens are separate screens that seemingly have different configurations and/or options. There is no indication in Hyakusawa that the buttons 607-609 of the home screen are included on any other screens. Accordingly, it seems that the buttons 607-609 of the home screen would be no longer be displayed on a schedule setting screen of Hyakusawa once the user selects the schedule button 602. The same seems to be true regarding the status information of the working machine that is displayed on the home screen.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim does not require the “first display area” and the “second display area” to be displayed together, at the same time. The applicant seems to realize this because of the amendment of claim 16 to require the “first display area” and the “second display area” to be “simultaneously displayed”.
Hyakusawa reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims consistent with the specification. The claims require “wherein the home screen includes a first display area that includes a work overview of scheduled work to be performed by the first robotic garden tool, and wherein the home screen includes a second display area that includes a current status of the first robotic garden tool and a plurality of user-selectable inputs …”
In the examiner interpretation the “home screen” is all of the interface 600 in Fig. 6 and the Home button 601 is part of the “home screen” and one way to manipulate the home screen 600 to change what is displayed on the image display region 606. This would mean when the schedule button 602 is pressed, the image display region 606 changes but the “home screen” 600 still displays the home button 601 along with the schedule button 602 and then the schedule would be displayed in the image display region 606 which could incorporate the display of the schedule show in Ingvalson.
Because the examiner interprets the home screen to be all the elements included in display screen 600 and because the claims do not require the “first display area” and the “second display area” to be displayed simultaneously, the prior art rejection of Hyakusawa in view of Ingvalson is proper and reads on the current claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BENJAMIN J SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-3825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:00 - 7:30 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, ADAM QUELER can be reached on (571) 272-4140. 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.
/Benjamin Smith/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172 Direct Phone: 571-270-3825
Direct Fax: 571-270-4825
Email: benjamin.smith@uspto.gov