DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-15 & 17-21 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This NON-FINAL communication is in response to the RCE submitted on 1/15/26.
Regarding a pathway to potentially overcoming 101, applicant should look to roll up either Claims 7, 10, 11, 12, 19 or 21 as well as intervening claims into the independent claim to further advance compact prosecution.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/15/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/3/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
RE: 101
Issue #1
Applicant: Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1-6, 8-9, and 13-16 are subject matter eligible under Step 2A, Prong I because they are not directed to a mental process as alleged…Applicant submits that Claim 1 is directed to a technical improvement in operation of autonomous vehicles. Amended claim 1 recites applying a set of rules to a user selection to determine an allowable sequence of movements that an autonomous vehicle can actually achieve or perform. This rule-based determination directly addresses a technical problem unique to autonomous systems, that is, whether a sequence of user-selected movements can be physically and operationally performed by an autonomous vehicle within a work region. For example, as stated by Applicant's specification, "The assembly of data structures 1202 into an ordered collection 1204 playlist may confirm certain rules to ensure the resulting sequence is achievable."2 Without a rule-based determination of whether user-selected movements can actually be performed, the autonomous vehicle may be left attempting to perform an operation it can not actually perform. For example, as stated by Applicant's specification, "Thus, while the paths in block 1300 and block 1301 have the same geometry, the paths in block 1301 cannot be used together because they are in opposing directions, and so the vehicle cannot transition from the end of pl to the beginning of p2." Applicant's claim 1 is analogous to the claims in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In McRo, the Federal Circuit held that claims were patent-eligible where they used rules to automate a process that previously relied on human judgment, thereby improving a technical field (see also MPEP 2106.05(a)). Here, claim 1 similarly recites a set of rules applied by a computing device to determine an allowable, achievable sequence of movements for an autonomous vehicle. As in McRO, the rules are not generic or aspirational. They are applied to produce a specific technical result, namely a movement sequence that the autonomous vehicle can actually perform. The claim therefore improves the functioning of an autonomous system itself, rather than merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer.
Examiner: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention is unlike the claimed invention recited in McRo. McRo was found to be eligible because the rules claimed improved computer-related technology by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performed by a computer. The McRo court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be animated when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. The rules recited in the instant invention are not improving the computer related technology. Rather, the claims are reciting the use of general purpose computing hardware components to perform the abstract idea. The hardware components that are recited are operating in exactly the same way they were designed to function. Applicant is implementing the identified abstract idea using generic hardware components. Therefore the claims are unlike the claims in McRo. The rejection is maintained.
Issue #2
Applicant: Moreover, claim 1 is integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 does not stop at determining information. Claim 1 requires using rules to determine an allowable sequence of movements that an autonomous vehicle can actually achieve as an ordered collection of movements, storing that ordered collection in a network-accessible data center, and downloading the collection to an autonomous vehicle for execution within a work region. Thus, the claimed rules are used to control physical movement of a machine in the real world. This is a textbook example of integration into a practical application under the USPTO's 2019 Guidance.
Examiner: Can the applicant point to precedential cases that are at least listed on the USPTO’s eligibility case examples? It is not clear how the retrieval of user selected “playlists” corresponds to the automation provided in Example 37 as was mentioned in the last correspondence. What is the technical problem and the technical solution and how is it actively recited in at least Claim 1?
To advance compact prosecution, Applicant is advised to roll up either Claims 7, 10, 11, 12, 19 or 21, as well as intervening claims, into the independent claim to potentially overcome the 101 rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, “Balutis teaches that a controller can generate a path for a mowing operation, but does not disclose or suggest generating such a path "by applying a set of rules to the user selection" where "the set of rules are applied to validate that the allowable sequence of movements is achievable," as recited by amended claim 1. Further, while Balutis states that a user can control movement selection and lawn area selection, Balutis does not provide any disclosure of a computing device that "determines .. . an allowable sequence of movements" "by applying a set of rules to the user selection," …Li fails to cure the deficiencies of Balutis”. The 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 10-12, 19 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
No Prior Art of Record
Based on prior art search results, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter, as a whole or taken in combination, and does not teach:
in response to a user selection of the graphic objects via the user interface, determining, by a computing device and by applying a set of rules to the user selection, an allowable sequence of movements that includes the plurality of fill paths and the at least one transit path, the set of rules being applied to validate that the allowable sequence of movements is achievable, and wherein the allowable sequence of movements forms an ordered collection that together defines sequentially executed movements of the autonomous work vehicle within the work region;
Most Relevant Prior Art:
Balutis (US 20170079202) teaches the robotic mowing of separated lawn areas.
LI (US 20220163969) teaches systems and methods for optimizing route plans in an operating environment.
Therefore, the claimed invention has overcome the prior art of record.
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 1-6, 8-9, 13-15, 17-18 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are either directed to a system or method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (additional elements emphasized in bold and are considered to be parsed from the remaining abstract idea):
A method for operating an autonomous vehicle within a work region having a plurality of fields, each field of the plurality of fields having a work area defined by a boundary within each field, comprising: storing a plurality of data structures, each data structure describing a respective path of a plurality of paths, the plurality of paths comprising a plurality of fill paths and at least one transit path, the plurality of fill paths comprising a first fill path within a first work area defined by a first boundary within a first field and a second fill path within a second work area defined by a second boundary within a second field, the first field and the second field being different fields of the work region, the at least one transit path being used to connect the first field to the second field; presenting a plurality of graphic objects to a user via a user interface, each graphic object representing a data structure of the plurality of data structures; in response to a user selection of the graphic objects via the user interface, determining, by a computing device and by applying a set of rules to the user selection, an allowable sequence of movements that includes the plurality of fill paths and the at least one transit path, the set of rules being applied to validate that the allowable sequence of movements is achievable, and wherein the allowable sequence of movements forms an ordered collection that together defines sequentially executed movements of an autonomous work vehicle within the work region; storing the ordered collection via a network-accessible data center; and in response to user selection of the ordered collection at the work region via the user interface, downloading the ordered collection from the network-accessible data center to the autonomous working vehicle in order to perform the sequentially executed movements and operations within the work region defined in the ordered collection.
which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a Mental process (concept performed in the human mind) of storing and retrieving ordered paths for use by an autonomous work vehicle.
Similarly if a claim limitation under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. (Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63; "Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015).)
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h). The data structures, user interface, graphic objects, computing device, network-accessible data center, and autonomous work vehicle in Claim 1 are just using generic computer components. The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on or with the use of generic computer components, cannot provide an inventive concept - rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
The dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements (including Claim 6 – computer generated map that is clickable which further applies the abstract idea on a generic computer component) that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Abiakle (US 20210197762) provides a method for stopping a vehicle.
Benmimoun (US 20220396292) provides a method/system for controlling a user-initiated vehicle-operation-command.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULMAJEED AZIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5046. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-3:00 PM.
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, ALLANA LEWIN BIDDER can be reached at (571) 272-5560. 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.
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
