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 .
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.
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 1-2, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chen et al. (US 20200275605 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a mower system comprising:
a mower ([0117], motor 20) including:
a chassis ([0117], see Fig. 5);
a driveline coupled to the chassis and configured to drive a tractive element to propel the mower ([0117], drive motor 24);
a mowing assembly ([0117], cutting blade 22 and deck 21);
an on-board display ([0122], display 50);
and a control system ([0120], control unit 40) configured to:
acquire a plurality of signals regarding operation of the mower ([0131-0132], acquire positional signals);
generate an on-board graphical user interface (GUI) on the on-board display based on the plurality of signals ([0142] and [0248]);
and transmit the plurality of signals to a remote system ([0110], [0189]);
and a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon ([0140] and [0151]) that, upon execution by the remote system, cause the remote system to:
receive the plurality of signals from the mower ([0110], [0189], where signals are received to update the position of the mower on the map);
and generate a remote GUI for display on a remote display based on the plurality of signals to emulate the on-board GUI ([0121]).
Chen does not teach that both of these display interfaces display a GUI generated by the control unit and program executed therein in a single embodiment. The map or path that is displayed is only outputted by one display interface or the other ([0248]). However, it does teach an embodiment where both the mobile terminal and the intelligent lawn mower comprise a display interface ([0248], see Fig. 4A, display interface 50).
A skilled artisan would have been able to have both of these display interfaces display a respective GUI at the same time. This would predictably mirror the GUI on both devices, allowing an operator to examine a displayed map on both the intelligent lawn mower and on the mobile terminal so that they can be informed of the location and path of the intelligent lawn mower even while only near one of the devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to combine the embodiments of Chen to display the map GUI on both display interfaces based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to ensure that a user is informed of the mowing path of the intelligent lawn mower regardless of their location, such as a user without access to a remote terminal but nearby the lawn mower, or a user far away from the lawn mower but with a remote terminal.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Chen teaches wherein: the instructions cause the remote system to:
receive an input from a remote user of the remote system ([0142], where instructions are input through mobile terminal);
and transmit the input to the mower ([0250], communicates with intelligent lawn mower);
the control system is configured to: receive the input from the remote system ([0250], control signal sent to main control unit of the intelligent lawn mower);
and implement an action associated with the input ([0250], where the intelligent lawn mower is controlled to perform mowing according to set mode).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art remains as applied in claim 2. Chen teaches wherein the input includes a command for one or more components of the mower, and wherein the action includes providing the command to the one or more components of the mower ([0250], command for mowing mode parameters of the mower sent to the mower, and action provided to drivetrain to change mowing speed).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art remains as applied in claim 7. Chen teaches wherein the one or more components include at least one of the driveline, the mowing assembly, or the on-board display ([0250], where a change in mowing speed is achieved via a command to the driveline).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art remains as applied in claim 8. Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more components include the on-board display. However, Chen does teach that the remote terminal is configured to update the map and path for the intelligent lawn mower ([0153-0154]). This delineating of the allowable area or path of the mower is done in the preparation for the operation of the intelligent mowing system ([0159], [0168]). Additionally, it is well known to provide the map and path on the on-board display as Chen further teaches that a map interface showing a path of the mower is displayed on the on-board display of the mower ([0248], where “the user can be informed of the actual mowing path of the intelligent lawn mower 20 and the cut area information remotely on the display interface 50 of the intelligent lawn mower 20”). As the path GUI is displayed on both display terminals as per the prior combination of embodiments given in claim 1, a skilled artisan would have been able and motivated to ensure that when the area or path of the mower is updated on the remote terminal, the one or more components that are provided a command include the on-board display in the form of updating the displayed map as it would be nonfunctional to not update the on-board display if the map or path of the mower was being modified via the remote terminal. The displayed map and path would otherwise be out of date, resulting in users being informed of an incorrect path of the mower if the on-board display were not updated.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Chen by updating the on-board display when a new path is created via the remote terminal based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to ensure that the path presented to users relying on the on-board display of the lawn mower is updated with any changes done via the remote terminal. This ensures safety in a situation by preventing a situation where an otherwise unedited map and path would be displayed to a user, which could cause accidents if the lawn mower took an unexpected path towards the user.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art remains as applied in claim 8. Chen teaches wherein the command includes at least one of raising or lowering a mower deck of the mowing assembly, controlling a speed of the driveline, or steering the driveline ([0250], “mowing speed or mowing path”).
Regarding claim 11, the prior art remains as applied in claim 10. Chen teaches wherein in response to implementing the action, the remote system is configured to collect data regarding operation of the mower ([0110], [0131-0132], where data and positional signals are acquired as the mower operates, regardless of whether the speed of the mower changed).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chen as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Furusho et al. (WO 2024034350 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art remains as applied in claim 2. Chen does not teach the limitations of the claim.
In the same field of synchronous on-board display systems for communication with remote devices, Furusho teaches a vehicle system wherein the input includes a chat message, and wherein the action includes displaying the chat message on the on-board display ([0035-0036], where chat messages received from remote devices and a map image are displayed via the on-board vehicle display).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the invention of Chen with this functionality based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to allow a remote user to contact another user via the intelligent lawn mower. This simplifies the operations for the user proximate the lawn mower while still displaying the map, thereby keeping the user out of the path of the mower.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chen as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Okuya et al. (JP 2011147052 A).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art remains as applied in claim 2. Chen does not teach the limitations of the claim.
In the same field of on-board vehicle output devices for communication with a remote device, Okuya teaches a vehicle system wherein the input includes a voice message, and wherein the action includes playing the voice message through a speaker of the mower ([0045], where the audio signal from the other user is output through the vehicle speaker).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the invention of Chen with this functionality based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to allow a remote user to contact another user via the intelligent lawn mower. This simplifies the operations for the user proximate the lawn mower by allowing them to receive information from the remote user while not having to divert their attention to read information from the mower display.
Claims 5-6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chen as applied to claims 2 and 10 above, and further in view of Suffolk et al. (US 20230263093 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art remains as applied in claim 2. Chen does not teach the limitations of the claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Suffolk teaches a lawn mower system wherein the input includes instructions to address an issue indicated by the plurality of signals ([0071], [0081], [0085], where the remote user inputs instructions indicating the obstacle-avoidance mode chosen to be performed). Suffolk further teaches that the action taken from this includes displaying instructions on the mobile device ([0085], where instructions for removing an obstacle are displayed on the mobile device).
A skilled artisan would have been able to implement this teaching so that a remote user is alerted and can provide instructions for how to deal with obstacles in the path of a mower. Further, as the path GUI is also being displayed on the on-board display of the mower as taught from the prior combination of embodiments of Chen, a skilled artisan would have been able and motivated to also ensure that the process incudes displaying the instructions on the on-board display. This way, when a remote user selects a mode of obstacle removal, a user nearby monitoring or operating the mower can be informed exactly of what obstacle needs to be removed in order for the lawn mower to resume operation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Chen with the obstacle removal modes of Suffolk based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to inform a user of an obstacle that is impeding the path of the mower, thereby allowing them to remove it so the mower can continue on its path unimpeded.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art remains as applied in claim 5. Suffolk teaches wherein the instructions include at least one of a video or step-by-step instructions with pictures ([0078], [0085], where a video or photos of the obstacle obstructing the mower’s path are displayed with instructions for its removal).
Regarding claim 12, the prior art remains as applied in claim 10. Chen does not teach the limitations of the claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Suffolk teaches a mower system wherein an on-site user must be present for the control system to implement the action, and wherein the mower includes a sensor configured to determine a presence of the on-site user ([0089-0090], where a mode of obstacle intervention includes a chauffeur function with manual operation, with said sensor being a sensor for detecting whether the user has docked their phone on the mower).
A skilled artisan would have been able to implement said chauffer function of Suffolk into the operations of Chen. This would enable the intelligent lawn mower of Chen to seek out an on-site operator when there is an issue where it would be beneficial for an on-site operator to ensure that ideal operation of the lawn mower is carried out, such as obstacles or terrain conditions such as tall grass.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Chen by including the chauffer function of Suffolk based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to ensure that when situations occur that greatly change or hinder the lawn mower’s ability to successfully mow the grass, such as large obstacle intrusions or an undesirable condition of the grass, the intelligent lawnmower waits for manual control before continuing its operation, thus allowing an on-site operator to deal with the potentially hazardous condition.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mudireddy et al. (WO 2016160758 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Chen teaches wherein the instructions cause the remote system to: receive an input from a remote user of the remote system ([0142], where instructions are input through the mobile terminal).
Chen does not teach that the instructions further cause the remote system to update the remote GUI based on the input without a corresponding update being performed with the on-board GUI on the on-board display.
Pertinent to the problem of the remote monitoring and controlling of equipment without a technician or operator being required to be near the equipment, Mudireddy teaches a mobile, remote display for controlling a field device. The operations for operating this mobile display include updating the remote GUI based on the input without a corresponding update being performed with the on-board GUI on the on-board display ([0040], where after the remote user implements field device settings via the mobile display, an update message is sent to the mobile display).
A skilled artisan would have been able to implement such an update message in the invention of Chen, thus updating a remote user with a confirmation or an error message when they provide instructions to be implemented on the intelligent lawn mower. As this remote instruction is given via the remote device with no input being provided via the on-board display of the mower, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that this update message only be displayed on said remote device. A user nearby the lawn mower was not the one to input the instruction to the lawn mower, thus updating them with an update message for said input is inefficient to do, and would create confusion and uncertainty.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Chen with the displaying of the update message based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to ensure that a remote user is informed of a successful or unsuccessful input to the lawn mower, allowing them to troubleshoot if failure occurs or perform other inputs consequentially if success occurs.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art remains as applied in claim 13. Chen teaches wherein:
the input is a first input ([0142]);
the instructions cause the remote system to receive a second input from the remote user ([0250]);
each of the first input and the second input includes a command for one or more components of the mower ([0250], where a first input is a path command for the wheels of the drivetrain, and a second input is a speed command for the motor of the drivetrain).
Regarding claim 15, the prior art remains as applied in claim 14. Chen teaches wherein the first input causes a physical change with the mower, and the second input causes a parameter or setting change with the mower ([0250], where the mowing path changes the physical location of the mower as it operates, and the mowing speed changes the mowing speed parameter of the mower).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshimatsu (US 20170079210 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Chen does not teach the limitations of the claim.
However, the use of CAN signals in lawn mower systems is well known in the art as in the same field of endeavor, Yoshimatsu teaches a mower system wherein the plurality of signals are controller area network (CAN) signals ([0027], where “a controller area network (CAN) is used as the signal transmitter”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Chen by explicitly having the transmitted signals be CAN signals based on a reasonable expectations of success and motivation to have the system gain the benefits and advantages that are well known in the art to come from using CAN networks and signals, including cost reduction and a higher reliability of the system.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ackerman et al. (US 20210018927 A1) in view of Mudireddy et al. (WO2016160758A1).
Regarding claim 17, Ackerman teaches a mower system comprising:
a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon ([0024], [0125], [0131]) that, upon execution by a remote system, cause the remote system to:
acquire a plurality of controller area network (CAN) signals from a mower ([0029], [0117]);
and generate a remote graphical user interface (GUI) for display on a remote display based on the plurality of CAN signals ([0089], where a user interface mechanism is generated and displayed on the display devices 275; [0038] and [0043], where said user interface is a display) … .
This embodiment of Ackerman does not teach that the signals from the mower are controller area network (CAN) signals. However, using CAN signals and networks in this manner is well known to those in the art as Ackerman teaches an alternate embodiment where some elements of the mobile device and robotic mower can be implemented by a third computing environment that sends signals to remote devices with controller area network (CAN) signals ([0136], where the signals are sent via a logical connection such as a CAN network).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the primary embodiment of Ackerman to have the network explicitly be a CAN network as used in the alternate embodiment of Ackerman based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to have the system gain the benefits and advantages that are well known in the art to come from using CAN networks and signals, including cost reduction and a higher reliability of the system.
Ackerman teaches that the generated user interface has controls for remote control of the mower ([0089]), but does not explicitly teach that this user interface is generated to emulate an on-board GUI displayed by an on-board display of the mower without the remote system having access to the on-board display.
Pertinent to the problem of the remote monitoring and controlling of equipment without a technician or operator being required to be near the equipment, Mudireddy teaches a remote, mobile display for controlling a field device. The GUI for the remote display is generated to emulate an on-board GUI displayed by an on-board display of the device without the remote system having access to the on-board display ([0004], [0030], where the mobile display emulates the field device display (FDD); [0019], where the mobile device only has access to the display features sent from the field device to the mobile device via a request).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the displayed user interface of Ackerman to be an emulation of the on-board display and controls of the mower based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to allow an operator to directly monitor and control the mower even when said operator is not directly near the mower, thus ensuring the safe and optimal operation of said mower even when it is difficult to access directly.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art remains as applied in claim 17. Ackerman teaches wherein the instructions cause the remote system to at least one of: (a) receive a first input from a remote user of the remote system and update the remote GUI based on the first input without a corresponding update being performed with the on-board GUI on the on-board display; or (b) receive a second input from the remote user and provide a command to the mower based on the second input, the command configured to cause one or more components of the mower to perform a physical function, the one or more components including a driveline or a mowing assembly of the mower ([0088-0090], where the operation (b) is performed by the user controlling the driveline of the mower through commands given by the manual, remote operation of the user interface controls, thereby controlling the driveline of the mower as the user commands).
Regarding claim 19, the prior art remains as applied in claim 17. Ackerman teaches the system further comprising the mower ([0023]).
Regarding claim 20, Ackerman teaches a mower system comprising:
a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon ([0024], [0125], [0131]) that, upon execution by a remote system, cause the remote system to:
acquire a plurality of controller area network (CAN) signals from a mower ([0029], [0117]);
generate a remote graphical user interface (GUI) for display on a remote display based on the plurality of CAN signals ([0089], where a user interface mechanism is generated and displayed on the display devices 275; [0038] and [0043], where said user interface is a display) … ;
receive a first input from a remote user of the remote system ([0090], where the first input is to begin the recording of the path);
receive a second input from the remote user ([0090], where the second input is to control the path of the mower);
and provide a command to the mower based on the second input, the command configured to cause one or more components of the mower to perform a physical function ([0088-0090], where the user controls the driveline of the mower through commands given by the manual, remote operation of the user interface controls, thereby controlling the driveline of the mower as the user commands).
This embodiment of Ackerman does not teach that the signals from the mower are controller area network (CAN) signals. However, using CAN signals and networks in this manner is well known to those in the art as Ackerman teaches an alternate embodiment where some elements of the mobile device and robotic mower can be implemented by a third computing environment that sends signals to remote devices with controller area network (CAN) signals ([0136], where the signals are sent via a logical connection such as a CAN network).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the primary embodiment of Ackerman to have the network explicitly be a CAN network as used in the alternate embodiment of Ackerman based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to have the system gain the benefits and advantages that are well known in the art to come from using CAN networks and signals, including cost reduction and a higher reliability of the system.
Ackerman teaches that the generated user interface has controls for remote control of the mower ([0089]), but does not explicitly teach that this user interface is generated to emulate an on-board GUI displayed by an on-board display of the mower without the remote system having access to the on-board display. Ackerman additionally does not teach that system is configured to update the remote GUI based on the first input without a corresponding update being performed with the on-board GUI on the on-board display.
Pertinent to the problem of the remote monitoring and controlling of equipment without a technician or operator being required to be near the equipment, Mudireddy teaches a mobile, remote display for controlling a field device. The GUI for the remote display is generated to emulate an on-board GUI displayed by an on-board display of the mower without the remote system having access to the on-board display ([0004], [0030], where the mobile display emulates the field device display (FDD); [0019], where the mobile device only has access to the display features sent from the field device to the mobile device via a request). Further, Mudireddy teaches that the process includes a step to update the remote GUI based on the first input without a corresponding update being performed with the on-board GUI on the on-board display ([0040], where after the remote user implements field device settings via the mobile display, an update message is sent to the mobile display).
A skilled artisan would have been able to improve the user interface of Ackerman with these teachings, including by displaying an update message after the user instructs the mower to begin recording the path. As this user input and control for this specific operation is being performed via the application launched on the mobile device of Ackerman ([0090]) and not via user input on the mower itself, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to only display the update message to the remote user interface as any on-board interfaces of the lawn mower are not being manipulated or operated for this process, thus displaying the update message on the on-board interfaces is inefficient and can lead to confusion for any nearby users.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the displayed user interface of Ackerman to be an emulation of the on-board display and controls of the mower based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to allow an operator to directly monitor and control the mower even when said operator is not directly near the mower, thus ensuring the safe and optimal operation of said mower even when it is difficult to access directly. Additionally, it would have been obvious to include a displaying of an update message based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to ensure that a remote user is informed when a mower has successfully begun recording the path it will travel, thus ensuring the user does not begin the manual traveling operation before the mower is recording the path.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that “Chen does not teach (a) a mower that includes ‘an on-board display’ and ‘a control system configured to ...generate an on-board graphical user interface (GUI) on the on-board display based on the plurality of signals’”. This is unpersuasive.
Chen teaches that “the intelligent lawn mower … may also include the display interface 50”, and that the control system is configured to generate one of a variety of graphical user interfaces – such as a map, electronic slice, walking path, etc. – on the display interface ([0248]).
Applicant further argues over this claim limitation by contending that “Chen does not teach two separate displays (one on the mower and one remote from the mower) or two separate GUIs (one on the mower and one remote from the mower).” This is not persuasive.
Chen teaches an embodiment of the invention where the display interface is “of the mobile terminal” ([0189]), and that the intelligent lawn mower 20 “may also include the display interface 50” ([0248]). This embodiment is visually depicted in Fig. 4A, where both the intelligent lawn mower 20 and the mobile terminal 60 comprise a display 50.
Further regarding claim 1, applicant argues that “Chen does not teach … ‘a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by the remote system, cause the remote system to . . . generate a remote GUI for display on a remote display based on the plurality of signals to emulate the on-board GUI,’ as recited by claim 1.” This is not persuasive.
Chen teaches that “those skilled in the art” would have understood that the units and modules referred to and performed in its disclosure may be implemented as software “and one or a collection of hardware, such as memory 46” ([0151]). This memory is taught to be “of the control unit 40” ([0247]). The memory 46, as seen in Fig. 6 of Chen, additionally stores an electronically controlled map, comprising a control layer 443, cover layer 441, and work layer 442, which are executed and controlled to display selected GUIs ([0151-0153]). This is equivalent to the remote and on-board displays.
Applicant further argues over this claim limitation, stating that “the Office Action cites to control unit 40 as teaching the claimed ‘control system’ of the ‘mower’ and to Paragraphs [0140] and [0151], which again discusses the control unit 40, as teaching the claimed ‘non-transitory computer readable medium.’ It is unclear to Applicant how the control unit 40 can teach two separate claim elements.” This is not recognized by the examiner as paragraphs [0140] and [0151] are used to refer to the memory 46, not control unit 40, hence why the limitations have different citations in the rejection.
It is additionally noted that, applicant’s arguments rely on the fact that a control unit cannot be used to map these two separate claim elements, but there is no explicit claim language to preclude such an interpretation that a control unit is not equivalent to a computer readable medium. However, it is noted that this interpretation is not relied upon by the examiner.
The examiner further notes that control units are nonfunctional without a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores the instructions executed by the control unit. Therefore, in addition to being taught as previously referred to, it is implicit to the disclosure of Chen that the “data structures, components, libraries, routine programs, … and operational algorithms to perform tasks, convert data types and component states, thereby achieving the technical effects” ([0151]) that are executed and used by the control unit of Chen to perform the disclosed operations are stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium. This necessarily flows from Chen’s disclosure as the control unit is unable to execute software and algorithms if said software and algorithms are not stored and able to be accessed by the control unit.
As an initial matter for claims 17 and 20, the examiner notes the interpretation of the claim limitations, namely how the non-transitory medium is configured to “generate a remote graphical user interface (GUI) for display … to emulate an on-board GUI displayed by an on-board display of the mower without the remote system having access to the on-board display“. Specifically, it is understood that the definition of “emulate” is synonymous with “imitate”, meaning that the remote system merely needs to imitate the on-board GUI to satisfy this emulation.
Additionally, as best interpreted by the examiner, “without the remote system having access to the on-board display” merely requires that the remote system performs this emulation without having physical access to the on-board display. An exemplary remote system would operate by merely receiving signals transmitted from the mower, rather than by directly accessing the on-board display itself. The term “access” is never explicitly defined in Applicant’s specification.
Regarding claims 17 and 20, applicant argues that Ackerman does not teach “a remote graphical user interface (GUI) for display on a remote display" that "emulate[s] an on-board GUI" that is "displayed by an on-board display" as recited in claims 17 and 20, contending that “Ackerman simply teaches to generate a remote control interface.”
This is unpersuasive as one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Ackerman teaches that graphical user interfaces, such as displays and virtual mechanisms on touch sensitive screens ([0038]) are generated and displayed as part of user interfaces ([0043]). These user interfaces are generated remotely as part of the mobile device ([0041]) to allow for remote control over the mower ([0089]). Ackerman also teaches that the mower itself has onboard user interfaces ([0028]], which also includes on-board displays ([0038]). It does not teach that the remote display emulates the on-board display, but Mudireddy is relied upon to cure this deficiency.
Pertaining to this combination of Ackerman in view of Mudireddy, applicant contends that “there is no motivation or reason for the system of Ackerman to ‘emulate an on-board GUI displayed by an on-board display of the mower’ as recited in claims 17 and 20” as “in Ackerman, the user simply controls the operation of the mower through the display device 275 or controls the operation of the mower by directly providing an input to the user interface 214.” This argument is unpersuasive.
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In the case of Ackerman, while the user interface(s) 276 of the remote display device 275 does allow for control of the mower 202, this user interface(s) 276 is not explicitly taught by Ackerman to have all of the same functionality of the user interface(s) 214 that are directly available on the mower. As noted in the rejection, the motivation is “to allow an operator to directly monitor and control the mower even when said operator is not directly near the mower,” and emulating the on-board display(s) as part of the user interface(s) 214 of the robotic mower via user interface(s) 276 of the mobile device ensures that all the functionality and control that a user would be able to apply directly via the mower is extended to the mobile device, certifying that all of the control that is done via the on-board user interface(s) 214 can also be performed remotely via the user interface(s) 276.
Further referring to the rejection of claims 17 and 20, applicant argues that Mudireddy “teaches away from ‘to emulate an on-board GUI displayed by an on-board display of the mower without the remote system having access to the on-board display’” because it “teaches to take control of the field device”. This argument is unpersuasive.
Noting the interpretation of these claim limitations previously established, the remote system of Mudireddy does not have physical access to the field device, much less the on-board display itself. Instead, it receives signals and generates an emulation from said signals ([0033]). Noting the emphasis in the argument presented by applicant, the remote system GUI emulates user controls onto the mobile device to allow the user to control the field device ([0019]). It is noted that controlling the field device is not the same as having access to the on-board display, nor does it require access to the on-board display. Even if it were to be interpreted that having the remote system operating “without … having access to the on-board display” means that that the remote system cannot control the on-board display, Mudireddy does not disclose any control over the on-board display being taken by the remote system. Furthermore, the remote system merely receives signals indicative of what is displayed on the field display device (FDD), such as placement information 203, but doesn’t access the FDD directly, much less control it ([0024]). This mirrors the emulation process in applicant’s disclosure; [0050] of applicant’s disclosure and [0033] of Mudireddy both describe how signals from the vehicle/field device are sent to the remote system, and the remote system processes these signals to generate/update and display the GUI so as to emulate the display on-board the vehicle/field device.
It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the remote system cannot control the device being emulated) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant is recommended to amend the claims to further clarify what is meant by “without the remote system having access to the on-board display as claimed”.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon by the examiner is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Manji et al. (US 20220322601 A1)
Andriolo et al. (US 20210165411 A1)
Doughty et al. (US 20170020064 A1)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK R. BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 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 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.
/JACK ROBERT BREWER/Examiner, Art Unit 3663 /ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663