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 Claims
This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/586,242 filed on 02/23/2024.
Claims 11-14 and 20 have been cancelled.
Claims 21-25 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-10, 15-19, and 21-25 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 07/17/2026.
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 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more. The claims are being rejected according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 5, p. 50-57 (January 7, 2019).
Step One: Does the Claim Fall Within a Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 16 is directed towards a setting apparatus (machine). Dependent claims 17-19 are also directed towards a setting apparatus (machine).
Step Two A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. Taking into account claim 12 as one example, the claim recites display a map of a target area and a first adding control on a display interface of the terminal device in response to an ineffective area setting instruction for the target area triggered by a user through the terminal device; wherein the first adding control is used to add an ineffective area to the map of the target area; wherein the ineffective area is used to indicate that the lawn mower no longer avoids the non-grass area to walk based on information sensed by the first sensor and display at least one added ineffective area on the map of the target area in response to a trigger event for the first adding control triggered by the user through the terminal device, to enable the lawn mower to, when walking to any ineffective area, pass within the ineffective area. These limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses an individual analyzing a path and its environmental surroundings on a display, reporting the path’s characteristics and environmental surroundings including obstacles and/or other entities to a driver of a vehicle traversing the path, and providing driving instructions to the vehicle to traverse the path in order to avoid any potential collision with the obstacles/entities. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step Two A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. Claim 16 recites five additional elements – a processor, a memory, a display interface, a terminal device, and a sensor. All five elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as means to transmit and receive data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor, memory, display interface, terminal device, and sensor. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
This type of abstract idea recited in claims 16-19 is a mental process.
Step Two B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept
No. Regarding claim 16, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a processor, a memory, a display interface, a terminal device, and a sensor amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor, memory, display interface, terminal device, and sensor. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a processor, a memory, a display interface, a terminal device, and a sensor cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are merely further defining the abstract idea by providing field of use limitations on transmitting and receiving data and are not adding anything to the abstract idea set forth in the independent claims such that the invention will amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 17-19 are merely field of use limitations which simply further limit the abstract idea set forth in claim 16. These claims do not contain further limitations that make them subject matter eligible.
For example, dependent claim 17 merely recites the well understood, routine and conventional computing functions of data transmission and gathering. These claims do not contain further limitations that make them subject matter eligible.
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, 10, 15, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US Pat No. 11,582,903) in view of Wu (CN 115840447 A).
Regarding Claim 1:
Brown teaches:
A mowing control method, wherein the method is applied to a lawn mower, and the lawn mower comprises a first sensor, where the first sensor is a non-contact sensor, and the non-contact sensor is used to distinguish between a grass area and a non-grass area; and the method comprises: controlling the lawn mower to avoid, based on information sensed by the first sensor, the non-grass area to walk;, (See (Brown: Col. 1-2 – lines 13-11))
receiving first position information of an ineffective area;, (See (Brown: Col. 2-3 – lines 51-8, Col. 3 – lines 34-42, and Col. 7 – lines 12-38))
wherein the ineffective area is used to indicate that the lawn mower no longer avoids the non-grass area to walk based on the information sensed by the first sensor;, (See (Brown: Col. 8 – lines 7-65))
Brown does not teach but Wu teaches:
when it is determined according to the first position information that the lawn mower walks to the ineffective area, controlling the lawn mower to pass within the ineffective area., (“Control the lawn mower to perform an automatic mowing task in a first target area in a preset automatic mode. […] Look for untraveled areas, eventually achieving full coverage.” (Wu: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Brown with these above aforementioned teachings from Wu in order to create a smart mowing control method, setting method and apparatus, and electronic device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Brown’s vision-based guidance system and method for lawn mowing devices with Wu’s mower control method in order to control a lawn mower to pass/walk within a target area. Combining Brown and Wu would thus provide “a lawn mower control method, which can clear the area that needs to be mowed in the automatic mode.” (Wu: Description)
Regarding Claim 2:
Brown in view of Wu, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Brown further teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the controlling the lawn mower to pass within the ineffective area comprises:, (See (Brown: Col. 1 – lines 48-67, Col. 5 – lines 12-29, and Col. 8 – lines 51-65))
Brown does not teach but Wu teaches:
[…] determining a target path within the ineffective area, and controlling the lawn mower to pass along the target path and perform mowing., (“controlling the lawn mower to perform an automatic mowing task in the first target area in a preset automatic mode” (Wu: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Brown with these above aforementioned teachings from Wu in order to create a smart mowing control method, setting method and apparatus, and electronic device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Brown’s vision-based guidance system and method for lawn mowing devices with Wu’s mower control method in order to control a lawn mower to pass/walk within a target area. Combining Brown and Wu would thus provide “a lawn mower control method, which can clear the area that needs to be mowed in the automatic mode.” (Wu: Description)
Regarding Claim 3:
Brown in view of Wu, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Brown does not teach but Wu teaches:
The method according to claim 2, wherein the determining the target path within the ineffective area comprises: determining the target path according to at least one of a path that has been walked along, a walking direction of the lawn mower, a path that has not been walked along., (“Control the lawn mower to perform an automatic mowing task in a first target area in a preset automatic mode. […] Look for untraveled areas, eventually achieving full coverage.” (Wu: Description) Wu further mentions “The automatic mode can walk back and forth in the shape of a "bow", and judge that it has walked by recording the walking coordinates The trajectories that have passed, the walking range is limited by the boundary signal line, the trajectories that have been traveled are avoided within the range, and the areas that have not been traveled are searched for, and finally full coverage is achieved.” (Wu: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Brown with these above aforementioned teachings from Wu in order to create a smart mowing control method, setting method and apparatus, and electronic device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Brown’s vision-based guidance system and method for lawn mowing devices with Wu’s mower control method in order to control a lawn mower to pass/walk within a target area. Combining Brown and Wu would thus provide “a lawn mower control method, which can clear the area that needs to be mowed in the automatic mode.” (Wu: Description)
Regarding Claim 4:
Brown in view of Wu, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Brown further teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the lawn mower comprises a second sensor, and the second sensor is a contact sensor; the controlling the lawn mower to pass within the ineffective area comprises: when it is identified based on the second sensor that an obstacle that the lawn mower is not capable of passing through exists in the ineffective area, controlling the lawn mower to bypass the obstacle., (See (Brown: Col. 1 – lines 48-67, Col. 3 – lines 34-42, Col. 5 – lines 30-40, and Col. 8 – lines 51-65))
Regarding Claim 5:
Brown in view of Wu, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Brown further teaches:
[…] the target path is parallel to a mowing path at a peripheral position of the ineffective area., (See (Brown: Col. 1-2 – lines 48-11 and Col. 8 – lines 7-65, FIG. 1-5))
Brown does not teach but Wu teaches:
The method according to claim 2, wherein the lawn mower is further configured to record a mowing path while performing mowing;, (“In the embodiment of the present invention, the lawn mower has two working modes, one is an automatic mode, and the other is a manual mode; wherein the automatic mode is used to automatically mow the grass in the first target area, and the lawn mower in the automatic mode […] The above path planning may be in the shape of a "bow".” (Wu: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Brown with these above aforementioned teachings from Wu in order to create a smart mowing control method, setting method and apparatus, and electronic device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Brown’s vision-based guidance system and method for lawn mowing devices with Wu’s mower control method in order to control a lawn mower to pass/walk within a target area. Combining Brown and Wu would thus provide “a lawn mower control method, which can clear the area that needs to be mowed in the automatic mode.” (Wu: Description)
Regarding Claim 10:
Brown in view of Wu, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Brown further teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises at least one of the following steps: when it is determined according to the first position information that the ineffective area is located in a mowed area,, (See (Brown: Col. 1-2 – lines 48-11 and Col. 8 – lines 7-65))
Brown does not teach but Wu teaches:
[…] controlling the lawn mower to walk to the ineffective area again and perform supplemental mowing; and when it is determined according to the first position information that the ineffective area is located in a current avoidance area, controlling the lawn mower to walk to an initial obstacle avoidance position of the ineffective area again and perform supplemental mowing., (“Preferably, the controlling the mower to perform the automatic mowing task in the first target area according to the boundary information of the boundary signal line according to the received preset frequency signal includes: […] Using the boundary signal line as a limited walking range, controlling the lawn mower to work within the walking range” (Wu: Description) Wu further mentions “Control the lawn mower to perform an automatic mowing task in a first target area in a preset automatic mode. […] Look for untraveled areas, eventually achieving full coverage.” (Wu: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Brown with these above aforementioned teachings from Wu in order to create a smart mowing control method, setting method and apparatus, and electronic device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Brown’s vision-based guidance system and method for lawn mowing devices with Wu’s mower control method in order to control a lawn mower to pass/walk within a target area. Combining Brown and Wu would thus provide “a lawn mower control method, which can clear the area that needs to be mowed in the automatic mode.” (Wu: Description)
Regarding Claim 15:
Brown teaches:
A lawn mower, comprising:, (See (Brown: Col. 1-2 – lines 13-11))
a first sensor, wherein the first sensor is a non-contact sensor, and the non-contact sensor is used to distinguish between a grass area and a non-grass area; a control component, wherein the control component is connected to the walking component, the mowing component and the first sensor, respectively, and the control component is configured to: control the lawn mower to avoid, based on information sensed by the first sensor, the non-grass area to walk;, (See (Brown: Col. 1-2 – lines 13-11 and Col. 5-6 – lines 55-40))
receive first position information of an ineffective area;, (See (Brown: Col. 2-3 – lines 51-8, Col. 3 – lines 34-42, and Col. 7 – lines 12-38))
wherein the ineffective area is used to indicate that the lawn mower no longer avoids the non-grass area to walk based on the information sensed by the first sensor;, (See (Brown: Col. 8 – lines 7-65))
Brown does not teach but Wu teaches:
a walking component; a mowing component;, (“The above-mentioned lawnmower can be a multi-wheel (such as 4 driving wheels) walkable lawnmower, and the lower part of the lawnmower has a rotating blade to cut the stem or leaf of the grass. […] Look for untraveled areas, eventually achieving full coverage.” (Wu: Description))
when it is determined according to the first position information that the lawn mower walks to the ineffective area, control the lawn mower to pass within the ineffective area., (“Control the lawn mower to perform an automatic mowing task in a first target area in a preset automatic mode. […] Look for untraveled areas, eventually achieving full coverage.” (Wu: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Brown with these above aforementioned teachings from Wu in order to create a smart mowing control method, setting method and apparatus, and electronic device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Brown’s vision-based guidance system and method for lawn mowing devices with Wu’s mower control method in order to control a lawn mower to pass/walk within a target area. Combining Brown and Wu would thus provide “a lawn mower control method, which can clear the area that needs to be mowed in the automatic mode.” (Wu: Description)
Regarding Claim 23:
Brown in view of Wu, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Brown further teaches:
[…] controlling the lawn mower to avoid, based on the information sensed by the first sensor, the non-grass area to walk., (See (Brown: Col. 1-2 – lines 13-11))
Brown does not teach but Wu teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein when it is determined that the lawn mower has left the ineffective area,, (“Control the lawn mower to perform an automatic mowing task in a first target area in a preset automatic mode. […] Look for untraveled areas, eventually achieving full coverage.” (Wu: Description) Wu further mentions “Preferably, after the lawn mower completes the automatic mowing task of the first target area in the automatic mode, the method further includes: […] If there are missing areas in the working area, the user can judge the uncut area independently, and the user can switch the lawn mower to manual mode.” (Wu: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Brown with these above aforementioned teachings from Wu in order to create a smart mowing control method, setting method and apparatus, and electronic device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Brown’s vision-based guidance system and method for lawn mowing devices with Wu’s mower control method in order to control a lawn mower to pass/walk within a target area. Combining Brown and Wu would thus provide “a lawn mower control method, which can clear the area that needs to be mowed in the automatic mode.” (Wu: Description)
Regarding Claim 24:
Brown in view of Wu, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Brown further teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the ineffective area is an area identified as the non-grass area by the first sensor of the lawn mower., (See (Brown: Col. 1-2 – lines 13-11))
Regarding Claim 25:
Brown in view of Wu, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 15. Brown further teaches:
[…] control the lawn mower to avoid, based on the information sensed by the first sensor, the non-grass area to walk., (See (Brown: Col. 1-2 – lines 13-11))
Brown does not teach but Wu teaches:
The lawn mower according to claim 15, wherein the control component is further configured to: when it is determined that the lawn mower has left the ineffective area,, (“Control the lawn mower to perform an automatic mowing task in a first target area in a preset automatic mode. […] Look for untraveled areas, eventually achieving full coverage.” (Wu: Description) Wu further mentions “Preferably, after the lawn mower completes the automatic mowing task of the first target area in the automatic mode, the method further includes: […] If there are missing areas in the working area, the user can judge the uncut area independently, and the user can switch the lawn mower to manual mode.” (Wu: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Brown with these above aforementioned teachings from Wu in order to create a smart mowing control method, setting method and apparatus, and electronic device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Brown’s vision-based guidance system and method for lawn mowing devices with Wu’s mower control method in order to control a lawn mower to pass/walk within a target area. Combining Brown and Wu would thus provide “a lawn mower control method, which can clear the area that needs to be mowed in the automatic mode.” (Wu: Description)
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US Pat No. 11,582,903) in view of Wu (CN 115840447 A) in further view of Wang (CN 115793631 A).
Regarding Claim 8:
Brown in view of Wu, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Brown in view of Wu does not teach but Wang teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: displaying a mowed area and a path blank area on a terminal device for selection by an operator during a mowing process; wherein the path blank area indicates an area not passed by the lawn mower., (“After determining the first location information of the self-mobile device, the first fixed-point marking area can be marked in the environmental map according to the first location information, that is, the first fixed-point marking area can be displayed in the environmental map according to the first location information. […] The size of the marked frame can be determined in the environment map; when the user selects the cancel command, the current marked frame is canceled and a new marked frame can be selected again.” (Wang: Description, FIG. 4) Wang further mentions “At this time, the user clicks the "set point" button, and at the same time, a marker frame with a size of 1m*1m and a marker point 1 located in the center of the marker frame are generated in the garden map. […] Users can pay attention to mowing task information and lawn mower information in real time on their mobile phones.” (Wang: Description, FIG. 4))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Brown in view of Wu with these above aforementioned teachings from Wang in order to create a user-friendly mowing control method, setting method and apparatus, and electronic device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Brown’s vision-based guidance system and method for lawn mowing devices with Wang’s work control method and device of a mower in order to display and adjust a selection box of a target area to enable a user to control a lawn mower within the target area. Combining Brown and Wang would thus provide “a working control method of a lawnmower.” (Wang: Description)
Regarding Claim 9:
Brown in view of Wu, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 8. Brown in view of Wu does not teach but Wang teaches:
The method according to claim 8, wherein the method further comprises: determining a boundary of the path blank area, and displaying the boundary of the path blank area on the terminal device for selection by the operator., (“After determining the first location information of the self-mobile device, the first fixed-point marking area can be marked in the environmental map according to the first location information, that is, the first fixed-point marking area can be displayed in the environmental map according to the first location information. […] The size of the marked frame can be determined in the environment map; when the user selects the cancel command, the current marked frame is canceled and a new marked frame can be selected again.” (Wang: Description, FIG. 4))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Brown in view of Wu with these above aforementioned teachings from Wang in order to create a user-friendly mowing control method, setting method and apparatus, and electronic device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Brown’s vision-based guidance system and method for lawn mowing devices with Wang’s work control method and device of a mower in order to display and adjust a selection box of a target area to enable a user to control a lawn mower within the target area. Combining Brown and Wang would thus provide “a working control method of a lawnmower.” (Wang: Description)
Claims 16 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US Pat No. 11,582,903) in view of Wu (CN 115840447 A) in further view of Hiramatsu (CN 114995427 A).
Regarding Claim 16:
Brown teaches:
A setting apparatus, wherein the apparatus is applied to a terminal device communicating with a lawn mower, wherein the lawn mower comprises a first sensor, the first sensor is a non-contact sensor, and the non-contact sensor is used to distinguish between a grass area and a non-grass area, and the apparatus comprises: at least one processor and a memory; wherein the memory has computer execution instructions stored therein; the at least one processor executes the computer execution instructions stored in the memory to enable the at least one processor to:, (See (Brown: Col. 1-2 – lines 13-11 and Col. 6-7 – lines 21-11))
Brown does not teach but Wu teaches:
to enable the lawn mower to, when walking to any ineffective area, pass within the ineffective area., (“Control the lawn mower to perform an automatic mowing task in a first target area in a preset automatic mode. […] Look for untraveled areas, eventually achieving full coverage.” (Wu: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Brown with these above aforementioned teachings from Wu in order to create a smart mowing control method, setting method and apparatus, and electronic device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Brown’s vision-based guidance system and method for lawn mowing devices with Wu’s mower control method in order to control a lawn mower to pass/walk within a target area. Combining Brown and Wu would thus provide “a lawn mower control method, which can clear the area that needs to be mowed in the automatic mode.” (Wu: Description)
Brown in view of Wu does not teach but Hiramatsu teaches:
display a map of a target area and a first adding control on a display interface of the terminal device in response to an ineffective area setting instruction for the target area triggered by a user through the terminal device; wherein the first adding control is used to add an ineffective area to the map of the target area; wherein the ineffective area is used to indicate that the lawn mower no longer avoids the non-grass area to walk based on information sensed by the first sensor; display at least one added ineffective area on the map of the target area in response to a trigger event for the first adding control triggered by the user through the terminal device,, (“In addition, for example, a map may be displayed on the display screen 37 of the wireless communication terminal 46, and the operator may designate a plurality of points on the map, thereby designating the position and shape of the following polygon as the position and shape of the field 90, […] The location and shape of the field 90 .” (Hiramatsu: Description) Hiramatsu further mentions “The obstacle outer circumference setting unit 34 sets: the outer circumference area of the obstacle arranged in the field where the tractor 1 autonomously travels. […] The travel route created by the autonomous travel route generation unit 147 is stored in the storage unit 32 .” (Hiramatsu: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Brown in view of Wu with these above aforementioned teachings from Hiramatsu in order to create an effective mowing control method, setting method and apparatus, and electronic device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Brown’s vision-based guidance system and method for lawn mowing devices with Hiramatsu’s autonomous travel route generation system in order to display a map of a target area to enable a user to control a lawn mower within the target area. Combining Brown and Hiramatsu would thus provide “an autonomous travel route generation system capable of preventing a wide range of Parts that alternate between worked places and unworked places are generated.” (Hiramatsu: Description)
Regarding Claim 21:
Brown in view of Wu, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Brown in view of Wu does not teach but Hiramatsu teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the ineffective area is set up by a terminal device communicating with the lawn mower on a map of a target area., (“In addition, for example, a map may be displayed on the display screen 37 of the wireless communication terminal 46, and the operator may designate a plurality of points on the map, thereby designating the position and shape of the following polygon as the position and shape of the field 90, […] The location and shape of the field 90 .” (Hiramatsu: Description) Hiramatsu further mentions “The obstacle outer circumference setting unit 34 sets: the outer circumference area of the obstacle arranged in the field where the tractor 1 autonomously travels. […] The travel route created by the autonomous travel route generation unit 147 is stored in the storage unit 32 .” (Hiramatsu: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Brown in view of Wu with these above aforementioned teachings from Hiramatsu in order to create an effective mowing control method, setting method and apparatus, and electronic device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Brown’s vision-based guidance system and method for lawn mowing devices with Hiramatsu’s autonomous travel route generation system in order to display a map of a target area to enable a user to control a lawn mower within the target area. Combining Brown and Hiramatsu would thus provide “an autonomous travel route generation system capable of preventing a wide range of Parts that alternate between worked places and unworked places are generated.” (Hiramatsu: Description)
Regarding Claim 22:
Brown in view of Wu, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 21. Brown in view of Wu does not teach but Hiramatsu teaches:
The method according to claim 21, wherein the ineffective area is added to the map of the target area though a first adding control on a display interface of the terminal device., (“In addition, for example, a map may be displayed on the display screen 37 of the wireless communication terminal 46, and the operator may designate a plurality of points on the map, thereby designating the position and shape of the following polygon as the position and shape of the field 90, […] The location and shape of the field 90 .” (Hiramatsu: Description) Hiramatsu further mentions “The obstacle outer circumference setting unit 34 sets: the outer circumference area of the obstacle arranged in the field where the tractor 1 autonomously travels. […] The travel route created by the autonomous travel route generation unit 147 is stored in the storage unit 32 .” (Hiramatsu: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Brown in view of Wu with these above aforementioned teachings from Hiramatsu in order to create an effective mowing control method, setting method and apparatus, and electronic device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Brown’s vision-based guidance system and method for lawn mowing devices with Hiramatsu’s autonomous travel route generation system in order to display a map of a target area to enable a user to control a lawn mower within the target area. Combining Brown and Hiramatsu would thus provide “an autonomous travel route generation system capable of preventing a wide range of Parts that alternate between worked places and unworked places are generated.” (Hiramatsu: Description)
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US Pat No. 11,582,903) in view of Wu (CN 115840447 A) in further view of Hiramatsu (CN 114995427 A) in even further view of Wang (CN 115793631 A).
Regarding Claim 17:
Brown in view of Wu in further view of Hiramatsu, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 16. Brown in view of Wu does not teach but Hiramatsu teaches:
[…] to be the ineffective area in response to a trigger event for the completion control triggered by the user through the terminal device., (“In addition, for example, a map may be displayed on the display screen 37 of the wireless communication terminal 46, and the operator may designate a plurality of points on the map, thereby designating the position and shape of the following polygon as the position and shape of the field 90, […] The location and shape of the field 90 .” (Hiramatsu: Description) Hiramatsu further mentions “The obstacle outer circumference setting unit 34 sets: the outer circumference area of the obstacle arranged in the field where the tractor 1 autonomously travels. […] The travel route created by the autonomous travel route generation unit 147 is stored in the storage unit 32 .” (Hiramatsu: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Brown in view of Wu with these above aforementioned teachings from Hiramatsu in order to create an effective mowing control method, setting method and apparatus, and electronic device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Brown’s vision-based guidance system and method for lawn mowing devices with Hiramatsu’s autonomous travel route generation system in order to display a map of a target area to enable a user to control a lawn mower within the target area. Combining Brown and Hiramatsu would thus provide “an autonomous travel route generation system capable of preventing a wide range of Parts that alternate between worked places and unworked places are generated.” (Hiramatsu: Description)
Brown in view of Wu in further view of Hiramatsu does not teach but Wang teaches:
The apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the processor is specifically configured to: display a selection box and a completion control on the map of the target area in response to the trigger event for the first adding control triggered by the user through the terminal device; wherein an operation control is displayed in periphery of the selection box; adjust the selection box and display the adjusted selection box in response to a preset trigger event for the operation control triggered by the user through the terminal device; determine an area corresponding to the adjusted selection box, (“In order to better distinguish the difference between the first fixed-point marked area and other existing areas, the marked frame and the first marked point may be displayed in the environment map based on the first position information after the user issues the first operation instruction, […] The size of the marked frame can be determined in the environment map; when the user selects the cancel command, the current marked frame is canceled and a new marked frame can be selected again.” (Wang: Description, FIG. 4) Wang further mentions “FIG. 8 shows a structural block diagram of a computing device 800 provided according to an embodiment of the present application. […] The processor 820 is connected to the memory 810 through the bus 830, and the database 850 is used for storing data.” (Wang: Description, FIG. 8))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Brown in view of Wu in further view of Hiramatsu with these above aforementioned teachings from Wang in order to create a user-friendly mowing control method, setting method and apparatus, and electronic device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Brown’s vision-based guidance system and method for lawn mowing devices with Wang’s work control method and device of a mower in order to display and adjust a selection box of a target area to enable a user to control a lawn mower within the target area. Combining Brown and Wang would thus provide “a working control method of a lawnmower.” (Wang: Description)
Regarding Claim 19:
Brown in view of Wu in further view of Hiramatsu, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 18. Brown in view of Wu does not teach but Hiramatsu teaches:
The apparatus according to claim 18, wherein the processor is further configured to: display a second adding control on the display interface of the terminal device in response to determining the area corresponding to the adjusted selection box to be the ineffective area triggered by the user through the terminal device;, (“In addition, for example, a map may be displayed on the display screen 37 of the wireless communication terminal 46, and the operator may designate a plurality of points on the map, thereby designating the position and shape of the following polygon as the position and shape of the field 90, […] The location and shape of the field 90 .” (Hiramatsu: Description) Hiramatsu further mentions “The obstacle outer circumference setting unit 34 sets: the outer circumference area of the obstacle arranged in the field where the tractor 1 autonomously travels. […] The travel route created by the autonomous travel route generation unit 147 is stored in the storage unit 32 .” (Hiramatsu: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Brown in view of Wu with these above aforementioned teachings from Hiramatsu in order to create an effective mowing control method, setting method and apparatus, and electronic device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Brown’s vision-based guidance system and method for lawn mowing devices with Hiramatsu’s autonomous travel route generation system in order to display a map of a target area to enable a user to control a lawn mower within the target area. Combining Brown and Hiramatsu would thus provide “an autonomous travel route generation system capable of preventing a wide range of Parts that alternate between worked places and unworked places are generated.” (Hiramatsu: Description)
Brown in view of Wu in further view of Hiramatsu does not teach but Wang teaches:
[…] wherein the second adding control is used for user selection of an adding type; the adding type comprises at least one of an ineffective area, a restricted area, a channel, a map; display the adding type for user selection on the display interface of the terminal device in response to a trigger event for the second adding control triggered by the user through the terminal device., (“Referring to FIG. 4, FIG. 4 shows a schematic diagram of the first fixed-point marking area provided by an embodiment of the present application. […] The size of the marked frame can be determined in the environment map; when the user selects the cancel command, the current marked frame is canceled and a new marked frame can be selected again.” (Wang: Description, FIG. 4))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Brown in view of Wu in further view of Hiramatsu with these above aforementioned teachings from Wang in order to create a user-friendly mowing control method, setting method and apparatus, and electronic device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Brown’s vision-based guidance system and method for lawn mowing devices with Wang’s work control method and device of a mower in order to display and adjust a selection box of a target area to enable a user to control a lawn mower within the target area. Combining Brown and Wang would thus provide “a working control method of a lawnmower.” (Wang: Description)
Comment on the Closest Prior Art References
Claims 6-7 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.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, but would be allowable if the 35 U.S.C. 101 is overcome.
The allowable subject matter in claim 6 includes when a number of times that obstacle avoidance is performed within the ineffective area based on information of the second sensor exceeds a preset value, cancelling the ineffective area that has been set up.
The allowable subject matter in claim 7 includes when the number of times that obstacle avoidance is performed within the ineffective area based on the information of the second sensor exceeds the preset value, controlling the lawn mower to walk towards a preset boundary, and cancelling the ineffective area that has been set up; wherein the preset boundary is a boundary of the ineffective area that is the closest to the lawn mower among boundaries of the ineffective area; or, when the number of times that obstacle avoidance is performed within the ineffective area based on the information of the second sensor exceeds the preset value, controlling the lawn mower to return to an initial obstacle avoidance start point along a path that has been walked along, and cancelling the ineffective area that has been set up.
The allowable subject matter in claim 18 includes displaying a map saving control on the display interface of the terminal device in response to saving the ineffective area triggered by the user through the terminal device and synchronizing a map in which the ineffective area is set up to the lawn mower in response to a trigger event for the map saving control triggered by the user through the terminal device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on July 17th, 2026 with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed on July 17th, 2026 with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, claim 16 recites displaying steps that as drafted, are simple processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
Moreover, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Considering claims 16, the claim recites five additional elements – a processor, a memory, a display interface, a terminal device, and a sensor. All five elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as means to transmit and receive data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor, memory, display interface, terminal device, and sensor. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (See 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection above for further detail)
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, the limitations are taught in the combination of Brown and Wu as has been set forth above, contrary to the Applicant’s assertions. Therefore, the Applicant’s amendments and arguments are insufficient to overcome these prior art rejections.
More specifically, Brown mentions “In practice, […] used to define the geo-fence.” Furthermore, Brown states “An alternative embodiment of the present invention […] the ability to go straight.” Brown further states “Initially, […] to download the perimeter data set.” (Brown: Col. 2-3 – lines 51-8, Col. 3 – lines 34-42, and Col. 7 – lines 12-38) Finally, Brown mentions “At block 1135, […] where an object is detected by processor 720.” See (Brown: Col. 8 – lines 7-65) In doing so, Brown addresses the Applicant’s limitations of “receiving first position information of an ineffective area” and “wherein the ineffective area is used to indicate that the lawn mower no longer avoids the non-grass area to walk based on the information sensed by the first sensor” as set forth in claim 1.
Moreover, Wu mentions “Control the lawn mower to perform an automatic mowing task in a first target area in a preset automatic mode. […] Look for untraveled areas, eventually achieving full coverage.” (Wu: Description) In doing so, Wu addresses the Applicant’s limitation of “when it is determined according to the first position information that the lawn mower walks to the ineffective area, controlling the lawn mower to pass within the ineffective area” as set forth in claim 1.
As a result, the combination of Brown and Wu addresses feature a) receiving first position information of an ineffective area; wherein the ineffective area is used to indicate that the lawn mower no longer avoids the non-grass area to walk based on the information sensed by the first sensor and feature b) when it is determined according to the first position information that the lawn mower walks to the ineffective area, controlling the lawn mower to pass within the ineffective area as set forth by the Applicant in claim 1.
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 extension fee 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 Jeffrey Chalhoub whose telephone number is (571) 272-9754. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights