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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 16/054,239, filed on 03 August 2018.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
CLAIMS 13 AND 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
CLAIM 13 The scope of the claimed invention is indefinite because the limitation “continuous coordinates formed in a manner that the location navigation module moves for a circle along a border of a working area.” Specifically, it is unclear (a) if Applicant intends to further define the location navigation module as a mobile unit, and (b) what is meant by “moves for a circle along a border.”
CLAIM 15 The scope of the claimed invention is indefinite because it unclear what is meant by the limitation “perform thermal insulation on the automatic moving device.”
CLAIMS 16-18 are rejected because they depend from CLAIM 15.
CLAIM 17 The scope of the claimed invention is indefinite because it is unclear how a closed space can be formed simply by entry of a snow blower into a dock. Specifically, neither a structural feature nor a mechanism for its closure is recited.
CLAIM 19 The scope of the claimed invention is indefinite because it unclear what is meant by the limitation “perform thermal insulation on the automatic moving device.”
CLAIM 20 is rejected because it depends from CLAIM 19.
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.
CLAIMS 15, 17 AND 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawamura et al. (JP 2000228226 A).
CLAIM 15 Kawamura et al. ‘226 (“Kawamura”) shows (Fig. 1a) a dock for parking or energy supplement (12) of an automatic moving device (5), the dock (1) comprising:
a base (the floor, walls, and ceiling);
an outer cover (3) connected on the base; and
a first device configured to heat (per “heated garage”) the automatic moving device entering the dock;
CLAIM 17 wherein a closed space is formed after a snow blower enters the dock;1 and
CLAIM 18 wherein, responsive to the automatic moving device not entering the dock, the outer cover is open, and
responsive to the automatic moving device entering the dock, the outer cover is closed.2
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
CLAIMS 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 19 AND 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borinato et al. (US 2014/0031979 A1) in view of Naylor (US 2009/0101632 A1).
CLAIM 1 Borinato et al. ‘979 (“Borinato”) teaches an automatic moving device (50) comprising:
a working module ([0125]; e.g., “cutting mechanism”), configured to execute a specific work of the automatic moving device;
a moving module (52, 54), configured to drive the automatic moving device to move on a ground;
an energy module (20, 56), configured to provide an energy for the moving module and the working module of the automatic moving device; and
a control module (76, 78), configured to control the working module and the moving module of the automatic moving device.
Borinato fails to teach a first device, as claimed.
Naylor ‘632 (“Naylor”) discloses a device (100) configured to be heated by an electric energy and keep at least a part of an energy module and/or a control module on an automobile at a preset temperature range. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the automatic moving device (Borinato, 50) with addition of a first device (Naylor, 100) to at least a part of the energy module (Borinato, 20) and/or the control module (Borinato, 76, 78). The motivation for making the modification would have been to facilitate use of the automatic moving device in cold weather environments, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 2 In the combination of Borinato and Naylor, the first device (Naylor, 100) is configured to be repeatedly heated by the electric energy and keep at least the part of the energy module (Borinato, 20) and/or the control module (Borinato, 76, 78) at the preset temperature range.
CLAIM 3 In the combination of Borinato and Naylor, the first device (Naylor, 100) comprises an electric heating thermal insulation material (Naylor, 104) at least partially covering one or more of a housing of the automatic moving device (Borinato, “housing surface” [0065]), the energy module (Borinato, 20), or the control module (Borinato, 76, 78) of the automatic moving device.
CLAIM 5 In the combination of Borinato and Naylor, the first device (Naylor, 100) is disposed at a position close to the energy module (Borinato, 20) and the control module (Borinato, 76, 78).
CLAIM 7 In the combination of Borinato and Naylor, the electric heating thermal insulation material (Naylor, 104) is electrified (Naylor, via 106) for heating during energy supplement of the automatic moving device (Borinato, 50) and is used for thermal insulation during working of the automatic moving device.
CLAIM 8 In the combination of Borinato and Naylor, the automatic moving device (Borinato, 50) further comprises a detection module (Borinato, 82), configured to detect an energy value of the energy module and feed information of the energy value back to the control module (Borinato, 76), wherein the control module is further configured to control the automatic moving device to move to a preset site (Borinato, 10) for energy supplement when the energy value detected by the detection module reaches or is lower than a preset value.3
CLAIM 10 In the combination of Borinato and Naylor, the energy module (Borinato, 20) comprises a chargeable battery (Borinato, 58) and/or a photovoltaic battery.
CLAIM 19 The combination of Borinato and Naylor, as applied above to CLAIM 1, teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention. Additionally, Borinato teaches:
a dock (10) for parking or energy supplement of the automatic moving device (50);
a base (the underlying surface of the dock 10, Figs. 1 and 2); and
an outer cover connected on the base (structure enclosing 14 and covering the front end of 50, Fig. 2).4
CLAIMS 4, 6, 9, 11 AND 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borinato et al. (US 2014/0031979 A1) in view of Naylor (US 2009/0101632 A1) as applied to CLAIMS 1 AND 5 above, and further in view of Letsky (US 2014/0180478 A1).
CLAIM 4 The prior art combination applied above to CLAIM 1 fails to teach a location navigation module.
Letsky ‘478 (“Letsky”) discloses an automatic moving device (100) comprising a location navigation module (“satellite navigation” [0024]) configured to provide coordinate data for navigation of the automatic moving device. It would have been an obvious modification for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added a location navigation module (Letsky, [0024]) to the automatic moving device (Borinato, 50). The motivation would have been to include known means for navigating a work area, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 6 The prior art combination applied above to CLAIM 5 fails to teach the first device disposed at a bottom of the energy module and the control module.
Letsky discloses an automatic moving device (100) that includes a heating sub-system (523) positioned beneath its chassis (101)([0042]). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have positioned the first device (Naylor, 100) beneath the energy module (Borinato, 20) and the control module (Borinato, 76, 78), as suggested by Letsky. The motivation would have been to prevent failure of operation of the automatic moving device (Borinato, 50) in cold weather environments, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 9 The prior art combination applied above to CLAIM 1 fails to teach a path comparison unit.
Letsky suggests a path comparison unit configured to compare a path where snow removal has been finished with a preset path (Fig. 9)([0111]), and when the path where the snow removal has been finished and the preset path are consistent, a control module (530) is further configured to control the automatic moving device to move to a preset site (docking station) for energy supplement. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added a path comparison unit to the automatic moving device (Borinato, 50), as suggested by Letsky. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for automating work completion, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 11 The prior art combination applied above to CLAIM 1 fails to teach the control module (Borinato, 76, 78) having functionality to generate a snow removal path according to a map of a preset border.
Letsky discloses an automatic moving device (100) comprising a control module (530) having the functionality to generate a snow removal path according to a map of a preset border, and control the automatic moving device to move along the snow removal path according to coordinate data provided by a location navigation module (540)([0039]-[0041]). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the control module (Borinato, 76, 78) of the prior art system, such that it would have comprised the functionality suggested by Letsky. The motivation for making the modification would have been to provide enhanced control of the location and orientation of the automatic moving device, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 12 The prior art combination applied above to CLAIM 1 fails to teach a location navigation module.
Letsky ‘478 (“Letsky”) discloses an automatic moving device (100) comprising a location navigation module (“satellite navigation” [0024]) configured to provide coordinate data for navigation of the automatic moving device. It would have been an obvious modification for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have detachably mounted a location navigation module (Letsky, [0024]) to the automatic moving device (Borinato, 50). The motivation would have been to include known means, in a removable and replaceable manner, for navigating a work area with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (JP 2000228226 A) in view of Naylor (US 2009/0101632 A1) and Letsky (US 2014/0180478 A1).
CLAIM 16 Kawamura fails to teach expressly a thermal insulation material disposed on an outer side wall or the outer cover or a bottom of the dock.
Naylor ‘632 (“Naylor”) teaches a device (100) configured to be heated by an electric energy (via 114) and discloses its utility in various applications, including wrapped around, laid on, and beneath objects or surfaces ([0018]).
Letsky ‘478 (“Letsky”) discloses an automatic moving system including a heated dock (700, [0072]).
It would have been an obvious modification for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have disposed an electric heating thermal insulation material (Naylor, 100) on an outer side wall or the outer cover or a bottom of the dock (Letsky, [0072]). The motivation for making the modification would have been to mitigate heat loss in cold weather environments, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Examiner’s Comments
Although CLAIM 13 is not rejected under prior art, the examiner withholds the indication of allowable subject matter because, based on Applicant’s intent, it may lack support in the originally filed specification.
Allowable Subject Matter
CLAIM 14 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA MAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-6992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/TARA MAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/tm/
25 June 2026
1 The examiner notes the claimed invention is exclusive of the automatic moving device and the recited snow blower.
2 In Kawamura, the outer cover (3) must be open for the automatic moving device to enter the dock and closed (Fig. 1a) to retain the heat.
3 In paragraph 0065, Borinato teaches “When the power of the power storage unit 56 is reduced to a predetermined threshold value, the first control unit 76 controls the robot 50 to return to the docking station 10 so as to charge the power storage unit 56.”
4 The recitation of “snow removal” in the preamble of CLAIM 19 has been treated as a statement of intended use because the body of the claim defines a structurally complete system, which is not limited in any way by the preamble. See MPEP 2111.02.
Prosecution Insights