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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 8, 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,349,629 in view of 2021/0007281. The claims of the patent teach most of the limitation but generating, sending and displaying a message of blade data. However, Smith teaches all the limitations as will be discussed in detail above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the steps above in order to yield the predictable result of sharpening a mower’s blade.
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 1-3, 5-7, 15-17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process without significantly more.
Re claims 1, 15, the claims recite the abstract ideas of “determine a task…, and generate a message….”. These limitations fall within the abstract idea of mental processes since the limitations can be perform in the human mind. These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the other limitations of receiving the data, sending and displaying the message of the data do not constitute integration to a practical application, as they merely recite an equivalent to "apply it" with the judicial exception, merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception input (MPEP 2106.04 (d) I). Similarly, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations of receiving the data, sending and displaying a message of the data, are well-understood, routine, and conventional (MPEP 2106.05 I A).
Re claims 2-3, 5-7, 16-17, 19, the claims add recitations that are construed under BRI, as further abstract ideas/mental processes.
Re claims 4, 18, 20, it is noted that claims 4, 18 and 20 have not been rejected under 35 USC 101. The claims recite the limitations of “performing the task…comprises sharpening the blade” and ““performing the task…comprises repairing the blade”. These limitations integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application for the blades.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 depends on claim 7, and recite the same limitations as claim 7. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7-9, 11, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith US 2021/0007281 A1.
Re claims 1, 7-8, 11, 14-15, Smith discloses a robot system, comprising:
at least one sensor [Abstract, “at least one a sensor to sense the lawn mower”];
at least one task arm [“[t]he robot may also include at least one of a task tool, a task arm”];
at least one processor configured to:
receive blade data, the blade data associated with a blade of a lawn mower; determine a task of a plurality of tasks associated with the blade of the lawn mower based on the blade data [¶136, “it is to be understood that the robot 1 may be controlled by at least one of wirelessly, by the owner, by a device (as shown in FIG. 0.4), by cable(s), by cord(s), by voice command(s), by sound (s), by light(s), by visualization, by sensors, by cameras, by artificial intelligence, by machine learning, by object recognition, by spatial recognition, by behavior based architecture that is used to implement the control system, by data transmission and/or manually for the purpose(s) of completing autonomous tasks and/or determined tasks and/or directed tasks such as, but not limited to sharpening lawn mower blade(s) and/or lawn mower blade(s) cutting edge(s)”];
generate a message comprising data associated with the task of the plurality of tasks associated with the blade; and send the message comprising the data associated with the task of the plurality of tasks associated with the blade to at least one computing device, wherein the at least one computing device is configured to display the message via a display of the at least one computing device [¶81, “wherein robot 1 includes a display 7a. Display 7a may be an LCD and/or other display component which may display items such as (but not limited to) messages from the robot's findings, the number of blade(s) sharpened”]; and
control the at least one task arm to perform the task of the plurality of tasks associated with the blade [¶85, “[m]obile task arm 16 may be configured to articulate, raise, lower, spin, start and/or stop at any height, elevate, descend, be spring-loaded, be controlled by a user, be controlled by one or more sensors”, ¶ 112-113, “FIG. 9A-9O, various task tip and/or task arm configurations in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure are shown…FIG. 9A shows a lawn mower blade cutting edge sharpening task tip 63“].
Re claims 2, 5, 9, 16, determine the sharpness of the blade using at least one of: a pressure gauge, a sensor, a calibration device, a pneumatic device, a sonar pulse, and/or any combination thereof [¶144, “it is determined how dull and/or how much sharpening needs to occur to achieve the optimal, predetermined sharpness of that lawn mower blade cutting edge through optical alignment of sensors and/or cameras and/or calculations, all of which is done through at least one of camera(s) 4, sensor(s) 2, machine learning, object recognition, spatial recognition, learned behavior, preprogramming, tactile feel 85, computer programming, microprocessor, and/or owner device direction and/or owner manual direction”].
Re claim 5, wherein the blade data comprises a sharpness of the blade, and wherein, when determining the task of a plurality of tasks associated with the blade based on the blade data, the at least one processor is configured to: determine the task of a plurality of tasks associated with the blade based on the sharpness of the blade [¶144, “ through at least one of camera(s) 4, sensor(s) 2, machine learning, object recognition, spatial recognition, learned behavior, preprogramming, tactile feel 85, computer programming, microprocessor, and/or owner device direction and/or owner manual direction, through at least one of a sharpening arm is activated, resulting in the placement and/or engagement of the sharpening task tip(s) onto the dull lawn mower blade cutting edge(s).”].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 10, 12-13, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith US 2021/0007281 A1 in view Driscoll US 2024/0081180 A1 OR Tang CN 114986265 A.
Re claims 3-4, 6, 10, 12-13, 17-20, Smith discloses the invention for claims 1, 8, and 15, as discussed above, but fail to teach determine whether the sharpness of the blade satisfies a threshold value, and control the at least one task arm to sharpen the blade of the lawn mower, based on determining that the sharpness of the blade satisfies the threshold value; and wherein the blade data comprises a status of the blade, and wherein, when determining the task of a plurality of tasks associated with the blade based on the blade data, whether the blade is a defective blade based on the status of the blade; control the at least one task arm to repair the blade based on determining the blade is a defective blade.
However, Discoll teaches a blade wear indicator that activates when determined that the blade wear reaches a threshold level [¶89, “a blade wear indicator 1334 that activates in response to a metric of blade wear reaching a threshold level. The metric of blade wear can include a number of hours of operation, a number(s) of hours within a range(s) of cutting load level, or the like, or a suitable combination of the foregoing. Once the threshold level is reached blade wear indicator 1334 can light up, or otherwise activate as a recommendation to have maintenance performed on a cutting system (e.g., blade(s) sharpened, blade(s) replaced, or the like)”].
Tang teaches analyzing blades by using grinding thresholds (and other parameters) for efficient sharpening of the blade [“obtaining the grinding threshold of the blade, the sharpening threshold combined with the blade index information for parameter analysis and determination, simple, the sharpening times of the blade is limited, beyond the limit will cause the blade cannot be used normally”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to sharpen/repair the blade with the task arm based on determining a status of a threshold value has been satisfied, or determining the blade is defective, as suggested and taught by Driscoll and Tang, in order to yield the predictable result of having limits to efficiently sharpen, and repair a lawn mower blade.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos A. Rivera whose telephone number is (571)270-5697. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -4PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
C. A. R.
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/C. A. RIVERA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights