DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to claims filed 1/25/2024.
Claims 1-7 are pending.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/25/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a mowing information acquirer in claims 1 and 7,
a collection route generator in claims 1 and 7, and
a weather information acquirer in claim 6.
The mowing information acquirer, collection route generator, and weather information acquirer are being interpreted consistent with Applicant’s specification at paragraphs [0033] through [0034] which recite:
“As shown in FIG. 5, the server 3 includes, for example, an arithmetic unit 341 such as CPU that performs arithmetic processing, a main storage 342 such as RAM that stores data temporarily required for the arithmetic unit 341 to run a program, an auxiliary storage 343 such as HDD that stores application software and various control programs such as OS, and a communication device 344 that transmits and receives various information items to and from external devices. The server 3 includes, as functional units operated by the arithmetic unit 341, a mowing route setting unit 31, a mowing information acquisition unit 32, a collection route generator unit 33, a weather information acquisition unit 34, and a compression processing unit 35.”
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis of Claim 1
Claim 1. A route generator, comprising:
a mowing information acquirer that acquires mower information including at least a direction in which grass mowed by a lawn mower is discharged; and
a collection route generator that acquires a travel route of the lawn mower and generates a travel route for an autonomous mowed grass collector to collect the mowed grass based on the acquired travel route and the direction in which the mowed grass is discharged.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a system. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
The claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of generates a travel route for an autonomous mowed grass collector to collect the mowed grass based on the acquired travel route and the direction in which the mowed grass is discharged. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “travel route” is data representative of a route. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “acquired travel route,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data representative of a route, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of “direction in which the mowed grass is discharged,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant’s disclosure, is data representative of a direction in which mowed grass is discharged. Particular control operations that require active discharge of mowed grass are not claimed. The “travel route” is merely generated and does not require controlled navigation of an autonomous mowed grass collector. The “collection route generator” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a generic processor.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “a collection route generator.” That is, other than reciting “a collection route generator,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “collection route generator” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. acquired travel route and direction in which the mowed grass is discharged) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. generate a travel route). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “collection route generator”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “a collection route generator” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The mere nominal recitation of an “autonomous mowed grass collector” as being objects upon which the travel route is generated for does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites, describes, or sets forth a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claim is evaluated for whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined potions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites additional elements of
a mowing information acquirer that acquires mower information including at least a direction in which grass mowed by a lawn mower is discharged; and
a collection route generator that acquires a travel route of the lawn mower.
The “acquires mower information” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general acquiring of mower information that includes a direction in which grass mowed by a lawn mower is discharged) and amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The “acquires a travel route” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general acquiring of a travel route of a lawn mower) and amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The limitations of “a mowing information acquirer” and “collection route generator” are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as pertaining to functions of a generic processor. Thus, the elements of “a mowing information acquirer” and “a collection route generator” merely act in their ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive or store data), and therefore, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim is evaluated for whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the steps of acquiring mower information and acquiring a travel route of the lawn mower were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites the mowed grass collector and lawn mower as being commonly used in farm work or green space environments, and the specification does not provide any indication that the mowing information acquirer and collection route generator interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) are anything other than a conventional processor. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016), OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015), buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014), indicate that mere storing and retrieving information in memory and receiving or transmitting data over a network are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 2-6
Dependent claims 2-6 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 2 recites the additional elements of the mower information includes a size of the lawn mower, and the collection route generator acquires a size of the mowed grass collector to calculate a relative distance between the lawn mower and the mowed grass collector during collection of the mowed grass based on the size of the lawn mower, the size of the mowed grass collector, and the direction in which the grass is discharged, and generates the travel route of the mowed grass collector based on the relative distance, the travel route of the lawn mower, and the direction in which the mowed grass is discharged.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “relative distance” is data representative of a distance between a lawn mower and mowed grass collector. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a “travel route,” in light of the overall claim Applicant's disclosure, is data representative of a route of a mowed grass collector. No control operations with respect to the travel route are claimed.
The limitation of calculate a relative distance between the lawn mower and the mowed grass collector during collection of the mowed grass based on the size of the lawn mower, the size of the mowed grass collector, and the direction in which the grass is discharged, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. size of the lawn mower, size of the mowed grass collector, and direction in which the grass is discharged) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. calculate a relative distance between the lawn mower and the mowed grass collector). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation of generates the travel route of the mowed grass collector based on the relative distance, the travel route of the lawn mower, and the direction in which the mowed grass is discharged, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. relative distance, travel route of the lawn mower, and direction in which the mowed grass is discharged) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. generate the travel route). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “acquire a size” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general acquiring a size of the mowed grass collector) and amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further limiting the mower information to include a size of the lawn mower represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the size to include a size of the lawn mower does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 2 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the additional elements of in a case where the mowed grass is discharged to one side in a lateral direction of the lawn mower, the collection route generator unit generates the travel route of the mowed grass collector that is deviated from the travel route of the lawn mower to the one side in the lateral direction. The limitation of “in case where the mowed grass is discharged to one side in a lateral direction of the lawn mower” does not require active control of the lawn mower but merely describes a circumstance in which the “travel route” data is generated.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “collection route generator.” That is, other than reciting “collection route generator,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “collection route generator” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. when the mowed grass is discharged to one side in a lateral direction) and forming a simple observations and evaluations (i.e. generate the travel route of the mowed grass collector that is deviated from the travel route of the lawn mower). Such evaluations and observations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “collection route generator”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “collection route generator” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 3 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the additional elements of the mowing information acquirer further acquires work information for distinction between a section where lawn mowing work is performed and a section where no lawn mowing work is performed on the travel route, and the collection route generator generates the travel route of the mowed grass collector reflecting the section where no lawn mowing work is performed so that a travel distance of the mowed grass collector is reduced.
The “generates” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “collection route generator.” That is, other than reciting “collection route generator,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “collection route generator” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. a section where no lawn mowing work is performed) and forming a simple observations and evaluations (i.e. generate the travel route of the mowed grass so that a travel distance of the mowed grass collector is reduced). Such evaluations and observations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “collection route generator”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “collection route generator” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The “acquires work information” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general acquiring of work information) and amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 4 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the additional elements of the mowing information acquirer further acquires work information for distinction between a section where lawn mowing work is performed and a section where no lawn mowing work is performed on the travel route, and the collection route generator sets a section that corresponds to the section where no lawn mowing work is performed and requires no collection work on the travel route of the mowed grass collector.
The “sets a section” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “collection route generator.” That is, other than reciting “collection route generator,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “collection route generator” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. the section where no lawn mowing work is performed and requires no collection work on the travel route) and forming a simple observations and evaluations (i.e. set a section). Such evaluations and observations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “collection route generator”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “collection route generator” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The “acquires work information” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general acquiring of work information) and amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 5 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the additional elements of:
a weather information acquirer that acquires weather information; and
a compression processor that determines a place to compress and discharge the mowed grass based on the weather information.
The “determines” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “a compression processor.” That is, other than reciting “a compression processor,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “compression processor” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. weather information) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determine a place to compress and discharge). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “compression processor”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “compression processor” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The “acquires” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general acquiring of weather information) and amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 6 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
101 Analysis of Claim 7
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 7.
Claim 7. A mowed grass collector including a route generator comprising:
a mowing information acquirer that acquires mower information including at least a direction in which grass mowed by a lawn mower is discharged; and
a collection route generator that acquires a travel route of the lawn mower and generates a travel route for the mowed grass collector to collect the mowed grass based on the acquired travel route and the direction in which the mowed grass is discharged.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a system. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
The same rationale discussed in step 2A prong one, with respect to claim 1, is applied to claim 7.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
The same rationale discussed in step 2A prong two, with respect to claim 1, is applied to claim 7.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The same rationale discussed in step 2B, with respect to claim 1, is applied to claim 7.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claims 1-7 are thus found ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 as directed to an abstract idea, with the additional computer-based elements, as tested above, not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more (Step 2B).
Examiner’s Note
To enhance clarity, claim language is underlined in the following prior art rejections.
Citations to the prior art are provided in parentheses following each claim limitation, along with any necessary supplemental explanations.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogura et al. (translation of WO 2016/076319 A1), hereinafter Ogura, in view of Sasakura et al. (translation of JP 2021-182887 A), hereinafter Sasakura.
Claim 1
Ogura discloses the claimed route generator (see Figure 2, depicting remote operation device 112, defined as including display device 113 for setting a travel route R in ¶0031), comprising a mowing information acquirer that acquires mower information (see ¶0049, with respect to Figure 7, regarding work machine selection screen 113s allows for the selection from a plurality of work machines that can be attached to the autonomously moving work vehicle 1, e.g., a mower may be selected from the “other” button, such that the selection is displayed in the length setting screen 11g, which provides settings for the lateral length X of the work machine, overlapping length W, and eccentric length from a lateral center of the vehicle body, defined in ¶0070 as influencing the travel route R by requiring rotational work, depicted in Figure 13, as opposed to reciprocal work, depicted in Figure 12). As depicted in the embodiments of Figures 13 and 15, the eccentric length of the “mower information” taught by Ogura further discloses a direction in which grass mowed by a lawn mower is discharged, interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Applicant’s specification. Specifically, the eccentric length of Ogura defines the lateral offset of a mower attachment on a tractor that directly influences the “direction” in which mowed grass is discharged, such that the direction may be lateral, as depicted in Figure 13, or in a rear direction when the eccentric length is zero, as depicted in Figure 15. Similarly, the Applicant’s specification describes discharge directions as being one of a lateral direction in paragraph [0042], with respect to Figure 2, and rear direction in paragraph [0047], with respect to Figure 7.
Ogura further discloses that the claimed route generator comprises a collection route generator that acquires a travel route of the lawn mower and generates a travel route for an autonomous mowed grass collector to collect the mowed grass based on the acquired travel route and the direction in which the mowed grass is discharged (see ¶0058-0064, with respect to Figures 7 and 10, regarding that based on the inputs to first/second work vehicle arrangement setting screen 315a and work machine setting screen 315c, a travel route R is set for the autonomously moving work vehicle 1 and auxiliary moving work vehicle 100, which may be defined as unmanned in manned/unmanned setting screen 315b; ¶0063, regarding that when work machine setting screen 315c is touched in Figure 10, the screen shifts to screen of Figure 7, where different attachments may be associated with each vehicle, as described in ¶0049, such as a mower and grass collector, as described in ¶0069-0070).
Sasakura is applied in combination with Ogura to more clearly teach the known combination of “lawn mower” and “mowed grass collector” in the configurations discussed above. Specifically, Sasakura teaches the known technique of using work vehicle 1A (similar to the lawn mower taught by Ogura) to perform work on a preceding process, defined as cutting grass, and work vehicle 1B (similar to the autonomous mowed grass collector taught by Ogura) to perform work on a subsequent process, defined as gathering the cut grass (see ¶0007, regarding the autonomous control of a work vehicle to perform a preceding process and a second work vehicle to perform a subsequent process, defined as cutting grass and gathering the cut grass, respectively in ¶0024).
Since the systems of Ogura and Sasakura are directed to the same purpose, i.e. cooperative autonomous control of two work vehicles in a field, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the autonomously moving work vehicle 1 and auxiliary moving work vehicle 100 of Ogura to specifically be a lawn mower and an autonomous mowed grass collector, respectively, in light of Sasakura, with the predictable result of performing tasks that have preceding and succeeding processes simultaneously to improve efficiency (¶0004 of Sasakura), where such tasks include the sequence of cutting grass and gathering the cut grass (¶0024 of Sasakura).
Claim 2
Ogura further discloses that the mower information includes a size of the lawn mower (see ¶0049, with respect to Figure 7, regarding work machine selection screen 113s allows for the selection from a plurality of work machines that can be attached to the autonomously moving work vehicle 1, e.g., a mower may be selected from the “other” button, such that the selection is displayed in the length setting screen 11g, which provides settings for the lateral length X of the work machine, overlapping length W, and eccentric length from a lateral center of the vehicle body), and the collection route generator acquires a size of the mowed grass collector (see ¶0063, with respect to Figure 7, regarding that selection of the second work vehicle of work machine setting 315c causes a screen similar to that of the first work vehicle for providing length settings) to calculate a relative distance between the lawn mower and the mowed grass collector during collection of the mowed grass based on the size of the lawn mower, the size of the mowed grass collector, and the direction in which the grass is discharged (see ¶0058-0064, with respect to Figures 7 and 10, regarding that based on the inputs to first/second work vehicle arrangement setting screen 315a and work machine setting screen 315c, a travel route R is set for the autonomously moving work vehicle 1 and auxiliary moving work vehicle 100, which may be defined as unmanned in manned/unmanned setting screen 315b, where the autonomously moving work vehicle 1 and auxiliary moving work vehicle 100 autonomously travel route R, as described in ¶0031-0032), and generates the travel route of the mowed grass collector based on the relative distance, the travel route of the lawn mower, and the direction in which the mowed grass is discharged (see ¶0058-0064, with respect to Figures 7 and 10, regarding that based on the inputs to first/second work vehicle arrangement setting screen 315a and work machine setting screen 315c, a travel route R is set for the autonomously moving work vehicle 1 and auxiliary moving work vehicle 100, which may be defined as unmanned in manned/unmanned setting screen 315b).
A “relative distance” between the vehicles of Ogura is inherently calculated according to the positional relationship set in first/second work vehicle arrangement setting screen 315a (see Figure 10), such that during operation, the vehicles maintain their defined positional relationship of the set travel route R using their respective autonomous control operations (see ¶0028, ¶0032).
Claim 3
Ogura further discloses that in a case where the mowed grass is discharged to one side in a lateral direction of the lawn mower, the collection route generator unit generates the travel route of the mowed grass collector that is deviated from the travel route of the lawn mower to the one side in the lateral direction (see Figure 13, depicting an embodiment of travel route R in which the work implement of the first work vehicle 1 is mounted eccentrically, such that second work vehicle 100 has a travel route that is “deviated” in a lateral direction from the travel route of the first work vehicle 1, as described in ¶0070).
Claim 4
Ogura further discloses that the mowing information acquirer further acquires work information for distinction between a section where lawn mowing work is performed and a section where no lawn mowing work is performed on the travel route, and the collection route generator generates the travel route of the mowed grass collector reflecting the section where no lawn mowing work is performed so that a travel distance of the mowed grass collector is reduced (see ¶0035, regarding set travel route R is determined for field H, depicted in Figures 12-18 as including sections where “no lawn mowing work is performed”). The “travel distance” of the second vehicle 100 is inherently reduced, given that travel route R does not include “sections where no lawn mowing work is performed.” The claim language fails to provide a baseline or point of reference from which said “travel distance” is reduced and thus, Ogura is applied under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language.
Claim 5
Ogura further discloses that the mowing information acquirer further acquires work information for distinction between a section where lawn mowing work is performed and a section where no lawn mowing work is performed on the travel route, and the collection route generator sets a section that corresponds to the section where no lawn mowing work is performed and requires no collection work on the travel route of the mowed grass collector (see ¶0035, regarding set travel route R is determined for field H, depicted in Figures 12-18 as including sections where “no lawn mowing work is performed”). The “distinction” can be seen in the displayed area that encompasses travel route R from the area that does not encompass travel route R, where auxiliary moving work vehicle 100 (i.e. “mowed grass collector”) travels along travel route R (see ¶0064).
Claim 7
The combination of Ogura and Sasakura discloses the claimed mowed grass collector including a route generator (see ¶0032, regarding remote control apparatus 112 is mounted on auxiliary moving work vehicle 100), as discussed in detail in the rejection of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Per MPEP 2106.05(I), the novelty of any elements or steps in a process or even the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the §101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter. A claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art of record, Ogura, Sasakura, and Kaneko et al. (US 2019/0313580 A1), hereinafter Kaneko, and Yokoyama (US 2017/0322550 A1), hereinafter Yokoyama, taken alone or in combination, does not teach that the claimed route generator further comprising:
a weather information acquirer that acquires weather information; and
a compression processor that determines a place to compress and discharge the mowed grass based on the weather information, in light of the overall claim.
While the techniques of providing specific destinations for mowed grass clippings (see ¶0095-0096 of Kaneko) and controlling the speed of a mower based on acquired weather information (see ¶0027; abstract of Yokoyama) are known in the art, the feature of determining a place to both compress and discharge the mowed grass collected from an autonomous mowed grass collector defined in claim 1 is not known in the art. No reasonable combination of prior art can be made to teach this claimed feature in light of the overall claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Sasakura (translation of JP 2022-187918 A) teaches that a second tractor is controlled to follow a first tractor to perform operations with grass (see ¶0015), and Hiraki et al. (US 2022/0386530 A1) teaches a mower that is controlled to follow a collector (see ¶0035).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm 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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661