DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that Koki et al. (JP2014187951) in view of Sennef et al. (EP2020169 fails to disclose “the identified boundary is of the target area is displayed on the user side”, the examiner disagrees and submits that the applicant broadly claims that boundary is displayed on the user side, but does not explicitly require that the boundary display is graphical or pictured on the user side, therefore the examiner is applying the broadest reasonable interpretation and argues that the textual depiction of the boundary (Sennef: Fig. 3 and Paragraph 0027) and the distance to the boundary constitutes displaying a boundary on the user side. Sennef further discloses that the user may store, retrieve, modify, or delete boundaries via an application programming interface.
In response to applicant’s argument that Koki in view of Sennef fails to disclose “"in response to determining according to the boundary as identified that a distance between the mower and the boundary is within a first preset range, sending, by the mower, the boundary as identified to display the boundary of the target region to a user" the examiner respectfully disagrees and relies on (Sennef: paragraph 0054-0055) wherein Sennef discloses that the boundary is displayed to the user when the distance range is within a range of the distance of the approaching boundary to the implement and a preset minimum distance from the boundary.
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, 4-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-18, and 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koki et al. (JP2014187951) in view of Sennef et al. (EP20200169).
Regarding claims 1, 17, and 20: Koki discloses a method for selecting a direction, comprising: identifying, by a mower a boundary of a target region (Fig. 4 and Paragraph 0026-0028, controlling the mower to move in a movement direction along the boundary, the movement direction being either a leftward direction along the boundary or a rightward direction along the boundary, which direction has a less angle with respect to an orientation of a head of the mower (Fig. 4 and Paragraph 0026-0028). Koki fails to explicitly disclose in response to determining according to the boundary as identified that a distance between the mower and the boundary is within a first preset range sending, by the mower, the boundary as identified to display the boundary of the target region to a user: receiving, by the mower, a location determining operation via an interface; and in response to the location determining operation, controlling, by a controller of the mower. However, Sennef discloses a similar method of controlling an implement such as a mower and further discloses in response to determining according to the boundary as identified that a distance between the mower and the boundary is within a first preset range sending, by the mower, the boundary as identified to display the boundary of the target region to a user: receiving, by the mower, a location determining operation via an interface; and in response to the location determining operation, controlling, by a controller of the mower (Fig.3 and Paragraph 0027, 0054-0055). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Koki in view of Sennef in order to improve the user’s control of the mower.
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 18: Koki discloses wherein the boundary is an external entity boundary or an internal entity boundary, wherein a value of the first preset range corresponding to the external entity boundary differs from a value of the first preset range corresponding to the internal entity boundary (Fig. 4 and Paragraph 0026-0028).
Regarding claims 4 and 12: As discussed above, Koki discloses the claimed invention and further discloses wherein in response to the location determining operation, controlling, by the controller of the mower, the mower to move in the movement direction along the boundary comprises: and in response to the location determining operation, determining, via the mower, the leftward direction along the boundary or the rightward direction along the boundary, which direction has a less angle with respect to a current orientation of the head of the mower, as the movement direction, and controlling, by the controller of the mower, the mower to move in the movement direction along the boundary (Fig.4 and Paragraph 0026-0028).
Regarding claims 5 and 13: Koki discloses wherein moving in the leftward direction along the boundary is advancing based on the orientation of the head of the mower, and when the boundary is reached, turning left and continuing to move along the boundary, and moving in the rightward direction along the boundary is advancing based on the orientation of the head of the mower, and when the boundary is reached, turning right and continuing to move along the boundary (Fig. 4 and Paragraph 0026-0028).
Regarding claims 6 and 14: Koki discloses wherein moving in the leftward direction along the boundary is advancing based on the orientation of the head of the mower, and when the boundary is reached, turning left and continuing to move along the boundary, and moving in the rightward direction along the boundary is advancing based on the orientation of the head of the mower, and when the boundary is reached, turning right and continuing to move along the boundary (Fig. 4, 5 and Paragraph 0026-0028).
Regarding claims 8 and 16: As discussed above Koki in view of Sennef disclose the claimed invention and Koki further discloses wherein moving in the leftward direction along the boundary is advancing based on the orientation of the head of the mower, and when the boundary is reached, turning left and continuing to move along the boundary, and moving in the rightward direction along the boundary is advancing based on the orientation of the head of the mower, and when the boundary is reached, turning right and continuing to move along the boundary (Figs. 4 and 5). See claim 3 above for obviousness and motivation to combine.
Regarding claim 9: Koki discloses A mower, comprising: a body; a wheel provided on the body (Fig. 3); a camera or scanner provided on the body (Fig.3 and Paragraph 0043), configured to identify a boundary of a target region (Paragraph 0043); and a positioning component provided on the body, configured to sense pose data of the mower to determine an orientation of a head of the mower according to the pose data, wherein the mower further comprises (Paragraph 0026-0028): a controller provided on the body, configured to, , control the mower to move in a movement direction, the movement direction being either a leftward direction along the boundary or a rightward direction along the boundary, which direction has a less angle with respect to the orientation of the head of the mower (Paragraph 0026-0028). Koki fails to explicitly disclose in response to determining according to the boundary as identified that a distance between the mower and the boundary is within a first preset range send the boundary as identified to display the boundary of the target region to a user: receive a location determining operation via an interface; and in response to the location determining operation. However, Sennef discloses a similar mower/implement and further discloses in response to determining according to the boundary as identified that a distance between the mower and the boundary is within a first preset range send the boundary as identified to display the boundary of the target region to a user: receive a location determining operation via an interface; and in response to the location determining operation (Fig.3 and Paragraph 0027, 0054-0055). See claim 1 above for obviousness and motivation to combine.
Regarding claim 21: As discussed above, Koki in view of Sennef discloses the claimed invention and Sennef further discloses wherein before receiving, by the mower, the location determining operation via the interface, the method further comprises: receiving, by the mower, a location adjusting operation via the interface; and in response to the location adjusting operation, adjusting, by the mower, an orientation of the head of the mower, and re-sending, by the mower, the boundary as identified to update the boundary of the target region displayed to the user and a relation of location of the boundary with the mower (Paragraph 0008, 0027, 0047, 0054-0055).
Regarding claim 22: As discussed above, Koki in view of Sennef discloses the claimed invention and Sennef further discloses wherein before receiving the location determining operation via the interface, the controller is further configured to: receive a location adjusting operation via the interface; and in response to the location adjusting operation, adjust an orientation of the head of the mower, and re-send the boundary as identified to update the boundary of the target region displayed to the user and a relation of location of the boundary with the mower (Paragraph 0008, 0027, 0047, 0054-0055).
Regarding claim 23: Koki discloses wherein the operation of controlling the mower to move in the movement direction along the boundary comprises: in response to the location determining operation, determining the leftward direction along the boundary or the rightward direction along the boundary, which direction has a less angle with respect to a current orientation of the head of the mower, as the movement direction, and controlling the mower to move in the movement direction along the boundary (Paragraph 0026-0028).
Regarding claim 24: As discussed above, Koki in view of Sennef discloses the claimed invention and Sennef further discloses wherein before receiving the location determining operation via the interface, the operation of controlling the mower to move in the movement direction along the boundary further comprises: receiving a location adjusting operation; and in response to the location adjusting operation, adjusting an orientation of the head of the mower, and re-sending the boundary as identified to update the boundary of the target region displayed to the user and a relation of location of the boundary with the mower (Paragraph 0008, 0027, 0047, 0054-0055).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael D Lang whose telephone number is (571)270-3213. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-11am and 2pm-6pm.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
/MICHAEL D LANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667