DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
2. Claims 1-15 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 08/08/2024 has been received and considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Examiner’s Note
5. Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all of part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“movement unit” in claim 1, 6 and 15
“working unit” in claims 1 and 14-15
“control unit” in claims 1, 4-7, and 12-15
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The following are the interpreted corresponding structures found within the specification for some of the above limitations:
“movement unit” – “a pair of left and right casters 28L, 28R, a pair of left and right driving wheels 30L, 30R, and a pair of left and right movement motors 32L, 32R” paragraph [0057]
“working unit” – “working unit 14 comprises a blade 34 and a working motor 36.” Paragraph [0058]
“control unit” – “processor, memory, and the power circuit” paragraph [0054]
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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 non-obviousness.
10. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimamura (US 20160231749) in view of He (US 20190369640) in further view of McCutcheon (US 20220174865).
Regarding Claim 1, Shimamura discloses A working robot used in a working field in which a wire is installed, and configured to move and work based on a wire magnetic field generated around the wire, the working robot comprising: (Shimamura, see at least [0042] wherein a vehicle is working within a predefined area in which a wire is bounding the area. Also see at least [0007] wherein the vehicle traveling within the working area can detect the bounds of the area based on the wire’s magnetic field strength)
a body; a movement unit configured to move the body; (Shimamura, see at least Fig. 6 and [0050] wherein disclosed is a control apparatus for autonomously navigating the vehicle)
a working unit supported by the body; (Shimamura, see at least [0033] “The work unit 16 comprises a rotor and blades attached to the rotor and has a substantially disk-like shape as a whole.”)
a magnetic sensor supported by the body; (Shimamura, see at least [0041] wherein magnetic field strength detectors are installed on the front end of the vehicle)
and a control unit, wherein the control unit is configured to execute a working operation of causing the working unit to work while causing the movement unit to move the body, (Shimamura, see at least [0054] wherein the ECU has a travel controlling unit, and a work control unit that outputs control commands through the work motor driver to the work motor to carry out work using the work unit while concomitantly driving the vehicle.)
the control unit executes, during the working operation: an operation-suspending process of suspending the working operation when a predetermined operation-suspending condition is satisfied; (He, see at least [0394] when signals being communicated with the automatic lawn mower are interrupted, the autonomous lawn mower is switched to a random walking more or a search mode to search for a signal.)
a first magnetic field searching process of causing the movement unit to move the body straight in a first linear direction by a first distance and assessing whether the wire magnetic field is detected by the magnetic sensor after the operation-suspending process; (He, see at least [0394] when signals being communicated with the automatic lawn mower are interrupted, the autonomous lawn mower is switched to a random walking more or a search mode to search for a signal. The autonomous lawn mower can adjust the movement manner and enable to mower to reverse or move a small range. Also see [0449].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Shimamura with the teachings of He to include the technique of suspending a automatic lawn mowers operations when the sensor is not able to communicate and the signals being received are interrupted, and the autonomous mower can enter into a searching mode to search for a signal by moving the mower around, in which could be used by the system of Shimamura. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle as it is traveling within a working area surrounded by a magnetic field boundary wire.
Modified Shimamura does not explicitly disclose and an operation-resuming process of resuming the working operation when the wire magnetic field is detected by the magnetic sensor.
However, McCutcheon discloses and an operation-resuming process of resuming the working operation when the wire magnetic field is detected by the magnetic sensor. (McCutcheon, see at least [0072-0083] wherein an error is detected, the mowers autonomy is passed and once the error is cleared, the autonomy of the mower can resume)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Shimamura with the teachings of McCutcheon to include the technique of suspending an automatic lawn mowers operation when an error occurs and once the error clears, the mower can resume, in which could be used by the system of Shimamura. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle as it is traveling within a working area surrounded by a magnetic field boundary wire.
Regarding Claim 2, Shimamura in view of He in further view of McCutcheon discloses The working robot according to claim 1, (see rejection above)
He further discloses wherein the operation-suspending condition includes that the wire magnetic field becomes undetected by the magnetic sensor. (He, see at least [0394] when signals being communicated with the automatic lawn mower are interrupted, the autonomous lawn mower is switched to a random walking more or a search mode to search for a signal.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Shimamura with the teachings of He to include the technique of suspending a automatic lawn mowers operations when the magnetic sensor is not able to communicate and the signals being received are interrupted, and the autonomous mower can enter into a searching mode to search for a signal, in which could be used by the system of Shimamura. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle as it is traveling within a working area surrounded by a magnetic field boundary wire.
Regarding Claim 3, Shimamura in view of He in further view of McCutcheon discloses The working robot according to claim 1, (see rejection above)
Shimamura further discloses wherein the magnetic sensor comprises a plurality of magnetic sensors, the operation-suspending condition includes that the wire magnetic field becomes undetected by a predetermined number or more of magnetic sensors among the plurality of magnetic sensors, and the predetermined number is greater than a half of a total of the plurality of magnetic sensors. (Shimamura, see at least [0040-0041] wherein magnetic field detectors can determine if a magnetic field is being detected and the magnitude of the magnetic field. ** no magnitude, no detection)
However, Shimamura in view of He does not specifically disclose the further limitation “and the predetermined number is greater than a half of a total of the plurality of magnetic sensors”.
Shimamura in view of He discloses the claimed invention except for having the “and the predetermined number is greater than a half of a total of the plurality of magnetic sensors” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have robot move in a second linear direction in which is the same as the first distance, since it has been held to be with in the general skill of a worker in the art to select desired travel direction and to select the desired distance based on suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 4, Shimamura in view of He in further view of McCutcheon discloses The working robot according to claim 1, (see rejection above)
Shimamura further discloses wherein the wire magnetic field includes a wire magnetic signal generated by applying a predetermined electrical signal to the wire, the control unit has a signal model of the wire magnetic signal stored therein in advance, and when a magnetic signal observed by the magnetic sensor matches or resembles the signal model of the wire magnetic signal, the control unit assesses that the wire magnetic field is detected by the magnetic sensor. (Shimamura, see at least [0060] wherein magnetic field strength is stored, in which is used a threshold to determine if magnetic field is being detected based on the intensity strength.)
Regarding Claim 5, Shimamura in view of He in further view of McCutcheon discloses The working robot according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to (see rejection above)
He further discloses determine a direction in which the body moved before the working operation is suspended and set an opposite direction from the determined direction as the first linear direction in the first magnetic field searching process. (He, see at least [0394] when signals being communicated with the automatic lawn mower are interrupted, the autonomous lawn mower is switched to a random walking more or a search mode to search for a signal. The autonomous lawn mower can adjust the movement manner and enable to mower to reverse or move a small range. Also see [0449]. ** adjusting the movement manner, considering previous movement is essential. (EX, robot reversing a movement direction, considering the previous moving direction))
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Shimamura with the teachings of He to include the technique of suspending an automatic lawn mowers operations when the magnetic sensor is not able to communicate and the signals being received are interrupted, and the autonomous mower can enter into a searching mode to search for a signal and reversing a movement direction of the automatic lawn mower to search for a signal, in which could be used by the system of Shimamura. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle as it is traveling within a working area surrounded by a magnetic field boundary wire.
Regarding Claim 6, Shimamura in view of He in further view of McCutcheon discloses The working robot according to claim 1,
He further discloses wherein after the first magnetic field searching process, the control unit is configured to further execute a second magnetic field searching process of causing the movement unit to move the body straight in a second linear direction opposite to the first linear direction by a second distance and assessing whether the wire magnetic field is detected by the magnetic sensor. (He, see at least [0394] when signals being communicated with the automatic lawn mower are interrupted, the autonomous lawn mower is switched to a random walking more or a search mode to search for a signal. The autonomous lawn mower can adjust the movement manner and enable to mower to reverse or move a small range. Also see [0449]. ** It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have robot move continuously to search for a signal and continue to move around until a signal is found.)
However, He does not specifically disclose the further limitation “move the body straight in a second linear direction opposite to the first linear direction by a second distance.”.
He discloses the claimed invention except for having the “wherein the second distance is the same as the first distance” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have robot move in a second linear direction in which is the same as the first distance, since it has been held to be with in the general skill of a worker in the art to select desired travel direction/opposite direction based on it suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 7, Shimamura in view of He in further view of McCutcheon discloses The working robot according to claim 6, (see rejection above)
He further discloses wherein when the wire magnetic field is detected in the first magnetic field searching process, the control unit does not execute the second magnetic field searching process, and when the wire magnetic field is not detected in the first magnetic field searching process, the control unit executes the second magnetic field searching process. (He, see at least [0394] when signals being communicated with the automatic lawn mower are interrupted, the autonomous lawn mower is switched to a random walking more or a search mode to search for a signal. The autonomous lawn mower can adjust the movement manner and enable to mower to reverse or move a small range. Also see [0447-0449]. ** Examiner notes, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine if communication is interrupted, a searching process would continue to occur and to change directions to try and continue to search for a signal.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Shimamura with the teachings of He to include the technique of suspending an automatic lawn mowers operations when the magnetic sensor is not able to communicate and the signals being received are interrupted, and the autonomous mower can enter into a searching mode to search for a signal and continue to move around in different movements to try and reestablish the lost signal, in which could be used by the system of Shimamura. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle as it is traveling within a working area surrounded by a magnetic field boundary wire.
Regarding Claim 8, Shimamura in view of He in further view of McCutcheon discloses The working robot according to claim 6, (see rejection above)
However, Shimamura in view of He does not specifically disclose the further limitation “wherein the second distance is the same as the first distance”.
Shimamura in view of He discloses the claimed invention except for having the “wherein the second distance is the same as the first distance” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have robot move in a second linear direction in which is the same as the first distance, since it has been held to be with in the general skill of a worker in the art to select desired travel direction and to select the desired distance based on suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 9, Shimamura in view of He in further view of McCutcheon discloses The working robot according to claim 6, (see rejection above)
However, Shimamura in view of He does not specifically disclose the further limitation “wherein the second distance is less than the first distance”.
Shimamura in view of He discloses the claimed invention except for having the “wherein the second distance is less than the first distance” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have robot move in a second linear direction in which is the same as the first distance, since it has been held to be with in the general skill of a worker in the art to select desired travel direction and to select the desired distance based on suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 10, Shimamura in view of He in further view of McCutcheon discloses The working robot according to claim 1, (see rejection above)
However, Shimamura in view of He does not specifically disclose the further limitation “wherein the first distance is less than or equal to 1000 mm.”.
Shimamura in view of He discloses the claimed invention except for having the “wherein the first distance is less than or equal to 1000 mm.” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have robot move in a second linear direction in which is the same as the first distance, since it has been held to be with in the general skill of a worker in the art to select desired travel direction and to select the desired distance based on suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 11, Shimamura in view of He in further view of McCutcheon discloses The working robot according to claim 1, (see rejection above)
However, Shimamura in view of He does not specifically disclose the further limitation “wherein the first distance is less than or equal to a total length of the working robot”.
Shimamura in view of He discloses the claimed invention except for having the “wherein the first distance is less than or equal to a total length of the working robot.” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have robot move in a second linear direction in which is the same as the first distance, since it has been held to be with in the general skill of a worker in the art to select desired travel direction and to select the desired distance based on suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 12, Shimamura in view of He in further view of McCutcheon discloses The working robot according to claim 1, (see rejection above)
He further discloses wherein the control unit is configured to further execute an informing process of informing via an informing interface that an abnormality has occurred, and when a predetermined time elapses without the operation-resuming process being executed after the first magnetic field searching process has finished, the control unit executes the informing process. (He, see at least [0150] wherein information such as the quality of the signal is indicated to a user in real time)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Shimamura with the teachings of He to include the technique of suspending an automatic lawn mowers operations when the magnetic sensor is not able to communicate and the signals being received are interrupted, and the autonomous mower can enter into a searching mode to search for a signal and the quality of the signal is indicated to a user in real time, in which could be used by the system of Shimamura. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle as it is traveling within a working area surrounded by a magnetic field boundary wire.
Regarding Claim 13, Shimamura in view of He in further view of McCutcheon discloses The working robot according to claim 6, (see rejection above)
He further discloses wherein the control unit is configured to further execute an informing process of informing via an informing interface that an abnormality has occurred, and when a predetermined time elapses without the operation-resuming process being executed after the second magnetic field searching process has finished, the control unit executes the informing process. (He, see at least [0150] wherein information such as the quality of the signal is indicated to a user in real time)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Shimamura with the teachings of He to include the technique of suspending an automatic lawn mowers operations when the magnetic sensor is not able to communicate and the signals being received are interrupted, and the autonomous mower can enter into a searching mode to search for a signal and the quality of the signal is indicated to a user in real time, in which could be used by the system of Shimamura. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle as it is traveling within a working area surrounded by a magnetic field boundary wire.
Regarding Claim 14, Shimamura in view of He in further view of McCutcheon discloses The working robot according to claim 1, (see rejection above)
wherein the working unit comprises a blade configured to mow a lawn, and the working robot functions as an autonomous mobile robotic mower. (Shimamura, see at least [0128] and [0033] wherein the working unit comprises blades to cut grass.)
As per claim 15, the claim is directed towards the working robot according to claim 1, in which recites similar limitations as claims 2-14. The cited portions of Shimamura and He used in the rejection of claims 2-14 teach the same system limitations of claim 15. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claims 2-14 as outlined above.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200383265– The present disclosure related to a robotic working tool 100 comprising a controller 110 and at least a first and at least a second magnetic sensor arranged to sense a magnetic signal. The controller 110 is configured to detect a first magnetic signal; determine a signal strength of the detected first magnetic signal; determine if the signal strength of the detected magnetic signal is above or below a threshold value, and if the signal strength is above the threshold value, accept signal detection input for the first magnetic signal from a first set of sensors, and if the signal strength is below the threshold value, accept signal detection input for the first magnetic signal from a second set of sensors, wherein the second set of sensors is a subset of the first set. The disclosure also relates to a method for use in the robotic working tool and a computer readable medium for carrying computer instructions that when loaded into a controller of a robotic working tool, cause the robotic working tool to operate according to a method.
US 20230071262– A robotic mower and a path planning method, system and device are provided and the method includes controlling the robotic mower to exit a charging station, controlling the robotic mower to find a boundary wire or guide wire, where the boundary wire is pre-laid on the edge of the working area of the robotic mower, and the guidance line is pre-laid in the working area of the robotic mower, controlling the robotic mower to follow the boundary wire or guide wire to move until it reaches the predetermined position. With the disclosure, tracks generated when the robotic mower exit the charging station along a fixed path can be avoided, and the damage to the lawn or vegetation can be reduced.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI whose telephone number is (571) 272-2052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 8AM-5PM.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664