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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 1 and 10 are the independent claims. Claims 1, 5, and 10 have been amended. This office action is in response to the Amendments received on 06/01/2026.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 06/01/2026 “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
In response to the amended claims filed on 06/01/2026, the rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C § 112 is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments according to the Applicant’s Remarks, see pages 5-10 “Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C § 103”, with respect to claims 1 and 10, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, the applicant’s arguments regarding the combination of Uemura, Xu and Yamamura are unpersuasive. Specifically, the applicant argued that this combination fails to teach or suggest a boundary positioning device having the specific structural features required by claim 1. However, this argument is unpersuasive for the reasons set for the below:
Uemura discloses a work area determination system for an autonomous traveling work machine, in which the work determination system includes an operational terminal capable of determining a work area. Applicant argued that in Uemura, user must hold the operation terminal in hand while walking along a boundary of the work area and Uemura fails to teach that the operational terminal is wheeled and is equipped with a push rod. The argument is unpersuasive because according to Uemura’s disclosure, the operational terminal is detachably attachable to the autonomous working machine (See Col 3 Lines 43-46, Col 4 last para and Col 5 first para, and Col 8). According to Col 8 Lines 5- 48, the terminal operation can be provided as a component in an autonomous traveling grass mower or any other device. Also, for further clarifying the rejection, Uemiua further discloses that the autonomous traveling work machine for which the work area is to be determined by the inventive work area determination system can be a vehicle on which a worker can ride e.g., a riding type grass mower (Col 8 Lines 27-48). Therefore, Uemura suggests applying the disclosed work determination system in a riding type grass mower. Therefore, applying Uemura’s work determination system in a device with a structure similar to a lawn mower taught by Xu would be obvious to arrive at a claimed invention of boundary positioning device. In fact, Xu discloses a similar structure for a handheld lawn mower and was relied upon for the structural features of the claimed invention. Therefore, in order for using the device manually, it would be obvious to attach a rod to push the machine along the boundary. Accordingly, the office maintains that it would have been obvious to apply the work area determination system taught by Uemura to a device with similar structure as taught by Xu, thereby arriving at the claimed invention for determining the boundary position for an automatic travelling mechanical equipment recited in the claim. Further, Yamamura discloses an unmanned autonomous vehicle that run about in an operating area defined by the area wire to perform an operation and it consists of two wheels and teaches the inside wheel being located inside the to-be-worked area and the outer wheel being located outside the to-be-worked area when it moves along the area wire and it is relied for the teaching of the claimed feature of inner and outer wheels location which respect to the area boundary. One ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to arrange the wheels so that the outer wheel stays outside the boundary and the inner wheel stays inside it, as shown in Yamamura, in order to improve the accuracy of the boundary positioning device, it would be obvious to arrange the wheels in order to have outer wheel outside the boundary and inner wheel inside the boundary. Therefore, it is the office stance that it would have been obvious to use the structure of the yawn mover of Xu in view of Yamamura and apply it into the invention of work area determination of Uemeda to arrive at the claimed invention.
Applicant, Further argued that the references fail to provide sufficient motivation to combine Uemura, Xu and Yamamura. However, this argument is also not persuasive, because the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art (See MPEP 2144 II), instead it can be inferred from knowledge available to one of person of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the motivation to combine the aforesaid arts is to improve a boundary-determination system by adding it to a wheeled device that a user can easily control.
Applicant’s similar argument regarding claim 10 was also considered. However, it is not persuasive for the same reasons stated for claim 1.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the below Office Action.
It is the Office’ stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemura et al., US11119495B2, hereinafter “Uemura”, in view of XU et al, CN 217591554 U, (machine translation provided by examiner), hereinafter “Xu”, further in view of Yamamura et al., US9483053B2, hereinafter “Yamamura”.
Regarding claim 1, Uemura teaches:
A boundary positioning device adapted for an automatic travelling mechanical equipment that will travel along a boundary of a to-be-worked area (at least Abstract, “A work area determination system for an autonomous traveling work machine [] capable of determining a work area”, Col 2, second paragraph, Col 4 Lines 53-64, and Fig. 5),
said, boundary positioning device comprising: a machine frame (at least Fig. 4), two wheels respectively connected to a left side and a right side of said machine frame [] (Figs. 4 and 5),
a positioning module disposed on said machine frame (at least Col 5 Lines 10-28, Col 8 Lines 5-26) and spaced apart from said outer wheel of said wheels in a left-right direction (any mounting of the positioning unit on a machine frame is understood to read on the limitation, therefore, a positioning module (GPS) disclosed on the device disclose by Uemura reads on this limitation, See at least Col 5 Lines 10-28, Col 8 Lines 5-26 of Uemura); and configured to record a travelling path when said boundary positioning device moves along the boundary of the to-be-worked area, the travelling path being for the automatic travelling mechanical equipment to travel therealong (at least Col 3, Lines 11-15, Col 3 Last para and Col 4 first para, Col 5 second para, and Col 5 last two para and Col 6 first para)
and a circuit module disposed on said machine frame and electrically coupled to said positioning module (“terminal control section” in Fig. 3 and its associated paragraphs).
Although Uemura’s disclosure device has a frame and wheels, but Uemura doesn’t explicitly disclose an outside-located wheel that is located outside the to-be-worked area when the automatic mechanical equipment moves along the boundary, said boundary positioning device comprising: two wheels respectively connected to a left side and a right side of said machine frame, one of said wheels being an inner wheel that is located inside the to-be-worked area when said boundary positioning device moves along the boundary, and another one of said wheels being an outer wheel that is located outside the to-be-worked area when said boundary positioning device moves along the boundary; a push rod connected to a rear side of said machine frame and extending rearwardly and upwardly from said machine frame along a central axis;
However, Xu teaches:
a machine frame; two wheels respectively connected to a left side and a right side of said machine frame ([n0003], “the universal wheels at the bottom of the two arc-shaped baffles”, __Note: this limitation is also mapped with Uemura as addressed in paragraph 16 of the present office action__),
a push rod connected to a rear side of said machine frame and extending rearwardly and upwardly from said machine frame along a central axis ([n0003], “allowing the user to push the lawnmower to move it by pushing the lever”, [n0004], [n0007], [n0022]);
Further, Yamamura teaches:
an outside-located wheel that is located outside the to-be-worked area when the automatic mechanical equipment moves along the boundary (at least Fig. 4, Fig. 6)
one of said wheels being an inner wheel that is located inside the to-be-worked area when said boundary positioning device moves along the boundary, and another one of said wheels being an outer wheel that is located outside the to-be-worked area when said boundary positioning device moves along the boundary (__at least Fig. 6 shows each wheel (10) is located on each side of the area wire (72) that meets the claimed limitation__);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device for determining a boundary of a to-be-worked area as taught by Uemura, with a device having a push rod and two wheels as taught by Xu, and further the two wheels as outer and inner located outside and inside of the work area when the device moves along the boundary, as shown/suggested by Yamamura, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the accuracy of the boundary determination and recording by a device for the area that an automatic mechanical equipment will be working.
Regarding claim 6, modified Uemura teaches the boundary positioning device as claimed in claim 1, however, Uemura doesn’t teach wherein said push rod includes a fixed rod body connected to said machine frame, a movable rod body pivotally connected to said fixed rod body so that said push rod is foldable, and a handgrip connected to an end of said movable rod body that is distal from said fixed rod body for a user to grip, said movable rod body changing between a use position where said movable rod body extends along the central axis, and a folded position where said movable rod body overlaps said fixed rod body, said handgrip having a stepped structure which is easy to hold.
However, XU teaches:
wherein said push rod includes a fixed rod body connected to said machine frame (See Fig. 1 and its associated texts, __branch 5, in Fig. 1, reads on the fixed rod recited in the claim__),
a movable rod body pivotally connected to said fixed rod body so that said push rod is foldable (See Fig. 1 and its associated texts, __branch 4, in Fig. 5, is movable and branch 1 is foldable__),
and a handgrip connected to an end of said movable rod body that is distal from said fixed rod body for a user to grip (See element 1 and 3 in Fig. 1 and its associated texts),
said movable rod body changing between a use position where said movable rod body extends along the central axis (Fig. 1 and [n0011], “The extension length of the lawnmower can be adjusted by the cooperation between the two-section rod 5 and the support rod 2”)
and a folded position where said movable rod body overlaps said fixed rod body (Fig. 2), said handgrip having a stepped structure which is easy to hold (See Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device for determining a boundary of a to-be-worked area as taught by Uemura, with a device having a movable push rod and a handgrip as taught by Xu, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the boundary determination device by designing a wheeled device capable of being controlled easily by a user by having a movable rod and a handgrip.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemura, in view of XU, further in view of Yamamura, and further in view of Kenzo JP 2002220060 A, hereinafter “Kenzo”.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Uemura in view of Xu and Yamamura teaches the boundary positioning device as claimed in claim 1, and XU teaches, wherein the central axis passes above a wheel axis that said wheels rotate around, said push rod residing in an imaginary plane, the imaginary plane being perpendicular to the wheel axis and passing through a midpoint of an imaginary line that interconnects centers of said wheels, (Figs,,, para [n0004], [n0009] “the central axis of the mowing device coincides with the central axis of the positioning ring.”, [n0024]).
Modified Uemura doesn’t teach said inner wheel of said wheels having a marking feature for recognition by a user; wherein each of said wheels includes a wheel frame and a tire, a color of said tire of said inner wheel of said wheels being different from a color of said tire of said outer wheel of said wheels, the marking feature being the color of said tire of said inner wheel
However, Kenzo discloses a mechanism capable of promoting an operator of the stroller to adjust the position of the wheels, which is an analogous art to the claimed boundary positioning device as both are hand push wheeled devices and teaches said inner wheel of said wheels having a marking feature for recognition by a user ([0011], “the outer wheel and the inner wheel have different colors”, [0022], [0026], “In this way, by coloring the outer wheels 10a, 20a with a first color and the inner wheels 10b, 20b with a second color different from the first color, the condition of each wheel can be easily recognized visually.”); wherein each of said wheels includes a wheel frame and a tire ([0011], “the outer wheel and the inner wheel each include a rotating rim and a tire mounted on the outer periphery of the rotating rim,”), a color of said tire of said inner wheel of said wheels being different from a color of said tire of said outer wheel of said wheels, the marking feature being the color of said tire of said inner wheel ([0011], “the color of the tire of the outer wheel is different from the color of the tire of the inner wheel”, [0026]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the device for determining a boundary of a to-be-worked area as taught by Uemura in view of Xu and Yamamura, with further a marking feature (i.e. different color) for inner and outer wheels as taught by Kenzo, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of visually informing the user that which side of the traveling path (right or left) is the working area.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemura, in view of XU, further in view of Yamamura, and further in view of Chicco manufacturer at you tube video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgY3bZ-YTvI (10/04/2021) or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7otRw9AZbs 08/29/2014).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Uemura in view of Xu and Yamamura, however, it doesn’t explicitly teach further comprising a support module, said support module including a fixed seat that is connected to said machine frame, and a foot that is pivotally connected to said fixed seat, said foot changing between a support position where said foot stands on a ground to support said machine frame, and a folded position where said foot is close to said machine frame and away from the ground. And wherein said fixed seat is connected to the rear side of said machine frame and is close to one of said wheels, one end of said foot being pivotally connected to said fixed seat so that the one end of said foot is close to the one of said wheels, another end of said foot being close to another one of said wheels when said foot is in the folded position.
However, Chicco, Italian company, manufactures a variety of strollers and teaches a support module, said support module including a fixed seat that is connected to said machine frame, and a foot that is pivotally connected to said fixed seat, said foot changing between a support position where said foot stands on a ground to support said machine frame, and a folded position where said foot is close to said machine frame and away from the ground. And wherein said fixed seat is connected to the rear side of said machine frame and is close to one of said wheels, one end of said foot being pivotally connected to said fixed seat so that the one end of said foot is close to the one of said wheels, another end of said foot being close to another one of said wheels when said foot is in the folded position (For example, Chicco suggested a foot brake that reads on the claimed limitation (See you tube video by Chicco at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgY3bZ-YTvI (10/04/2021) or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7otRw9AZbs (08/29/2014, timestamp 2:9 to 2:11). According to the video, all of the claimed limitations recited in claims 4 and 5 have been covered. Note: Chicco is an analogous prior art because the claimed invention is structurally is a hand push wheeled device and the recited limitations in claims 4 and 5 are similar to the existing foot brake links in many strollers (which are also hand push wheeled items) and this part in both the claimed invention and in the stroller serves a similar function of supporting the vehicle/appliance. According to the cited you tube videos of Chicco, a foot brake on the strollers disclosed by Chicco to support the stroller, pivotally rotates between two modes of fixed (support) when it is close to the ground and release when it is away from the ground. Further it is connected to the rear side of the stroller and it is close to one of the wheels. Therefore, Chicco’s food brake meets all of the claimed limitations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the device for determining a boundary of a to-be-worked area as taught by modified Uemura, with a support module as taught, for example, by Chicco, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of supporting the device when it is not in use or when it is intended to be stand by the user.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemura, in view of XU, further in view of Yamamura, and further in view Zhang et al., US 20230284847 A1, hereinafter “Zhang”.
Regarding claim 7, modified Uemura teaches the boundary positioning device as claimed in claim 1, however, modified Uemura doesn’t explicitly teaches wherein a center of gravity of an assembly of said machine frame, said positioning module, and said circuit module is located behind a wheel axis that said wheels rotate around.
Zhang teaches wherein a center of gravity of an assembly of said machine frame, said positioning module, and said circuit module is located behind a wheel axis that said wheels rotate around (at least [0005], [0018], [0061], [0072], “the center of gravity of the cleaning robot is located behind the connection line of the rotation axes of the two traveling wheels 21”, [0100]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the device for determining a boundary of a to-be-worked area as taught by modified Uemura with a center of gravity of the assemble of the machine (frame, positioning module and circuit module) being located behind a wheel axis connects between two wheels that the wheels rotate around as taught by Zhang, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the device’s stability.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemura, in view of XU, further in view of Yamamura, and further in view Ogura et al., US 20170168501 A1, hereinafter “Ogura”.
Regarding claim 8, modified Uemura teaches the boundary positioning device as claimed in claim 1, and Uemura teaches wherein said circuit module includes a control unit electrically coupled to said positioning module (“terminal control section” in Fig. 3 and its associated paragraphs), and an output unit electrically coupled to said control unit (Col9, Line 28, “211b a work area information outputting section”, and Fig. 3),
The foregoing references relied upon doesn’t explicitly teach said control unit controlling said output unit to indicate a reception status of said positioning module.
Ogura teaches:
said control unit controlling said output unit to indicate a reception status of said positioning module ([0066], “The display shows GPS (positioning) information, so that the status of signal reception from satellites can be known, and measures can be taken easily when signals from GPS satellites are disrupted.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the device for determining a boundary of a to-be-worked area as taught by modified Uemura, with an output unit to indicate a reception status of a GPS device as taught, by Ogura, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of informing the user if a reception status of the device’s GPS has been changed which can affect the device’s performance.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemura, in view of XU, further in view of Yamamura, and further in view Cann et al., US 20170080558 A1, hereinafter “Cann”, and further in view of Aoki, US20220088795, hereinafter Aoki.
Regarding claim 9, modified Uemura teaches the boundary positioning device as claimed in claim 1, and, Cann teaches:
wherein said circuit module includes a control unit electrically coupled to said positioning module (Cann, [0020], [0021], [0025])
Modified Uemura doesn’t teach a dynamic sensing unit electrically coupled to said control unit and adapted for sensing a tilt angle of said positioning module, and an output unit electrically coupled to said control unit, said control unit controlling said output unit to indicate whether the tilt angle of said positioning module falls within a predetermined tilt angle range according to the tilt angle sensed by said dynamic sensing unit, said positioning module substantially facing upward when the tilt angle thereof is within the predetermined tilt angle range.
However, Cann teaches:
a dynamic sensing unit electrically coupled to said control unit and adapted for sensing a tilt angle of said positioning module (Note: positioning module is interpreted as module 5 as located on top, so tilt angle of positioning module is interpreted as tilt angle of the robot, e.g. tilt of the suspension motor shaft that is considered as disclosed in Cann to determine the imbalance robot__ Cann, [0020]-[0021], [0024], [0043], “determine the angular position of the suspension motor shaft”, [0045]-[0046]),
([0017], “The robot 10 can additionally function to automatically balance the mobile device 20 and/or support within a predetermined angular range”), [0024], “the drive motor 120 can drive the wheels 130 to balance the robot about a tilt axis [] within a predetermined range of tilt []).”
said positioning module substantially facing upward when the tilt angle thereof is within the predetermined tilt angle range. (__the positioning module as shown in the drawing as item 5 locates on top of the robot, so the limitation of positioning module facing upward when the tilt angle is withing the predetermined tilt angle has been interpreted as the robot doesn’t fall or collapse while the recited tilt angle is with the predetermined range. Or on the other hand balance the robot__ Abstract, “balancing module”, [0017], “The robot 10 can additionally function to automatically balance the mobile device 20 and/or support within a predetermined angular range relative to the gravity vector”, [0020], [0024], “balance the robot about a tilt axis by maintaining the position of the support 200 (e.g., support longitudinal axis) relative to a gravity vector 40 (e.g., within a predetermined range of angles relative to the gravity vector 40, within a predetermined range of tilt angles” [])).
Although, Cann teaches transmitting the sensor data to the robot drive (according to at least paragraph [0020]) and also according to the previously mapping of the teaching of determining if the tilt angle is within a predetermined, it teaches control the robot (adjust the tilt angle), however, in the event that Cann doesn’t explicitly disclose an output unit electrically coupled to said control unit, [] output unit to indicate whether the tilt angle of said positioning module falls within a predetermined tilt angle range, for the purpose of compact prosecution, Aoki discloses a manipulator controller including a tilt angle obtainer of a manipulator and teaches an output unit electrically coupled to said control unit and an output unit indicating that whether the tilt angle of said positioning module falls within a predetermined tilt angle range ([0013], “output a notification in response to the tilt angle equal to or greater than a predetermined value”, [0070], [0071]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the device for determining a boundary of a to-be-worked area as taught by Uemura, with a device that can determine if its tilt angle is within a predetermined angle range as taught by Cann and output the user as taught by Aoki, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the accuracy of the boundary determination device and also enhancing the device’s balance control.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemura, in view of XU, further in view Cann, and further in view of Aoki.
Regarding claim 10, Uemura teaches A boundary positioning device (At least Abstract) comprising:
a machine frame (at least Fig. 4), two wheels respectively connected to a left side and a right side of said machine frame [] (Figs. 4 and 5),
a positioning module disposed on said machine frame (Col 5, Line 14, “a GPS 213 as a “positioning device”); and configured to record a travelling path when said boundary positioning device moves along a boundary of a to-be- worked area (at least Col 3, Lines 11-15, Col 3 Last para and Col 4 first para, Col 5 second para, and Col 5 last two para and Col 6 first para);
and a circuit module disposed on said machine frame and including a control unit electrically coupled to said positioning module ((“terminal control section” in Fig. 3 and its associated paragraphs).
Although Uemura’s disclosure device has a frame and wheels, Uemura doesn’t teach a push rod connected to a rear side of said machine frame, and extending rearwardly and upwardly from said machine frame along a central axis; and a dynamic sensing unit electrically coupled to said control unit and adapted for sensing a tilt angle of said positioning module, and an output unit electrically coupled to said control unit, said control unit controlling said output unit to indicate whether the tilt angle of said positioning module falls within a predetermined tilt angle range according to the tilt angle sensed by said dynamic sensing unit, said positioning module substantially facing upward when the tilt angle thereof is within the predetermined tilt angle range.
However, Xu teaches:
a machine frame; two wheels respectively connected to a left side and a right side of said machine frame ([n0003], “the universal wheels at the bottom of the two arc-shaped baffles”, __Note: this limitation is also mapped with Uemura as addressed in paragraph 16 of the present office action__);
a push rod connected to a rear side of said machine frame, and extending rearwardly and upwardly from said machine frame along a central axis ([n0003], “allowing the user to push the lawnmower to move it by pushing the lever”, [n0004], [n0007], [n0022]);
However, Cann teaches:
a dynamic sensing unit electrically coupled to said control unit and adapted for sensing a tilt angle of said positioning module (Cann, [0020]-[0021], [0024], [0027], [0043], “The encoder of the active suspension mechanism 300 functions to determine the angular position of the suspension motor shaft”, [0045]-[0046], Note: According to the specification and drawing of the present application, positioning module (shown as element 5 in Fig. 1 of the applicant drawings), is place on top of the machine. Therefore, tilt angle of positioning module as recited in the claim is interpreted as tilt angle of the robot, e.g. tilt of the suspension motor shaft that is considered as disclosed in Cann to determine the robot’s imbalance__)
([0017], “The robot 10 can additionally function to automatically balance the mobile device 20 and/or support within a predetermined angular range”), [0024], “the drive motor 120 can drive the wheels 130 to balance the robot about a tilt axis [] within a predetermined range of tilt []”).
said positioning module substantially facing upward when the tilt angle thereof is within the predetermined tilt angle range (__the positioning module as shown in the drawing as item 5 locates on top of the robot, so the limitation of positioning module facing upward when the tilt angle is withing the predetermined tilt angle has been interpreted as the robot doesn’t fall or collapse while the recited tilt angle is with the predetermined range. Or on the other hand balance the robot__ Abstract, “balancing module”, [0017], “The robot 10 can additionally function to automatically balance the mobile device 20 and/or support within a predetermined angular range relative to the gravity vector”, [0020], [0024], “balance the robot about a tilt axis by maintaining the position of the support 200 (e.g., support longitudinal axis) relative to a gravity vector 40 (e.g., within a predetermined range of angles relative to the gravity vector 40, within a predetermined range of tilt angles” []))
Although, Cann teaches sending the sensor data to the robot drive according to at least paragraph [0020] and also according to the mapping in previous paragraph that teaches based on determining if the tilt angle is within a predetermined, control the robot (adjust the tilt angle), however, in the event that Cann doesn’t explicitly disclose an output unit indicating that whether the tilt angle of said positioning module falls within a predetermined tilt angle range, for the purpose of compact prosecution, Aoki discloses a manipulator controller including a tilt angle obtainer of a manipulator and teaches an output unit indicating that whether the tilt angle of said positioning module falls within a predetermined tilt angle range ([0013], “output a notification in response to the tilt angle equal to or greater than a predetermined value”, [0070], [0071]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device for determining a boundary of a to-be-worked area as taught by Uemura, with a device having a push rod and two wheels as taught by Xu, and further determining if its tilt angle is within a predetermined angle range as taught by Cann and output that to the user as taught by Aoki, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the accuracy of the boundary determination device and also enhancing the device’s balance control.
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 HAJAR HASSANIARDEKANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8 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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 5712707429. 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.
/H.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights