DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-10 are pending and addressed below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/28/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Non-English documents have been considered in as much as the drawings and translated portions provided therein (See MPEP 609).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because fig. 5 appears to be unclear. For example, but not limit to, in the legend, it is not clear what represent the lawn grid, charging base, and robot. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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:
First obtaining module, second obtaining module, first processing module in claim 7.
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.
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 § 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 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes and/or mathematical concepts without significantly more.
With respect to claim 7:
Claim 7 recites:
A robot pathfinding apparatus, comprising:
a first obtaining module configured to obtain a position of a robot and a position of a charging base in a grid map;
a second obtaining module configured to obtain a shortest path, the shortest path being from the position of the robot to the position of the charging base; and
a first processing module configured to:
determine candidate transfer stations from the position of the robot to the position of the charging base if the shortest path passes through obstacles;
determine a first target transfer station corresponding to the position of the robot and a second target transfer station corresponding to the position of the charging base from the candidate transfer stations;
obtain all candidate transfer paths from the first target transfer station to the second target transfer station;
take the candidate path that is shortest and does not pass through obstacles as a target transfer path; and
determine a target path from the position of the robot to the position of the charging base according to a path from the position of the robot to the first target transfer station, the target transfer path, and a path from the second target transfer station to the position of the charging base.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
Claim 7 recites A robot pathfinding apparatus. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim limitations in claim 7:
configured to obtain a position of a robot and a position of a charging base in a grid map;
configured to obtain a shortest path, the shortest path being from the position of the robot to the position of the charging base; and
configured to:
determine candidate transfer stations from the position of the robot to the position of the charging base if the shortest path passes through obstacles;
determine a first target transfer station corresponding to the position of the robot and a second target transfer station corresponding to the position of the charging base from the candidate transfer stations;
obtain all candidate transfer paths from the first target transfer station to the second target transfer station;
take the candidate path that is shortest and does not pass through obstacles as a target transfer path; and
determine a target path from the position of the robot to the position of the charging base according to a path from the position of the robot to the first target transfer station, the target transfer path, and a path from the second target transfer station to the position of the charging base;
are judicial exception of mental processes that can be performed by human mind and/or with pen and paper. For example, a human can observe a lawn area with a robot and charging base, and mentally think and visualize the claimed processes.
Step 2A Prong Two evaluations – Practical Application – No
Claims 7 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
Claim 7 recites additional elements “A robot pathfinding apparatus, comprising: a first obtaining module … a second obtaining module … a first processing module”. “A robot pathfinding apparatus, comprising: a first obtaining module … a second obtaining module … a first processing module” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determine, obtain, and take steps. The generically recited “A robot pathfinding apparatus, comprising: a first obtaining module … a second obtaining module … a first processing module” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental processes and/or math concepts using a generic or general-purpose processor and to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
Claim 7 is evaluated as to whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements “A robot pathfinding apparatus, comprising: a first obtaining module … a second obtaining module … a first processing module” in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, there is no insignificant extra-solution activity.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
With respect to claims 1-6, 8-10,
Similar to the analysis of claim 7. Step 1: These claims are either apparatus claims or method claims. Step 2A, Prong One: the recited limitations of these claims are mental processes that can be performed by human mind and/or with pen and paper. Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B: there are no additional elements that are integrated into a practical application and sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIANG (CN-113238549-A a reference in IDS 19/28/2024, provided translation cited) in view of LAI (CN-109947100-A reference in IDS 19/28/2024, provided translation cited) and Mandel-Senft et al. (US 20230158910).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, JIANG teaches:
A robot pathfinding apparatus, comprising:
a first obtaining module configured to obtain a position of a robot and a position of a destination in a grid map;
a second obtaining module configured to obtain a shortest path, the shortest path being from the position of the robot to the position of the destination; and
a first processing module configured to:
determine candidate transfer stations from the position of the robot to the position of destination if the shortest path passes through obstacles;
(at least figs. 1-2 [0004]-[0045] discuss robot, chip storing program code, direct line/path from current position to end, if there is obstacle in the way, then determine intermediate nodes);
JIANG does not explicitly teach:
determine a first target transfer station corresponding to the position of the robot and a second target transfer station corresponding to the position of the destination from the candidate transfer stations;
However, LAI teaches:
determine a first target transfer station corresponding to the position of the robot and a second target transfer station corresponding to the position of the destination from the candidate transfer stations;
(at least figs. 1-5 [0004]-[0164] discussed initial position, first node, target position, second node) for path planning ([0004]-[0164])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of JIANG with determine a first target transfer station corresponding to the position of the robot and a second target transfer station corresponding to the position of the destination from the candidate transfer stations; as taught by LAI for path planning.
Further, JIANG does not explicitly teach:
destination includes charging base;
obtain all candidate transfer paths from the first target transfer station to the second target transfer station;
take the candidate path that is shortest and does not pass through obstacles as a target transfer path; and
determine a target path from the position of the robot to the position of the charging base according to a path from the position of the robot to the first target transfer station, the target transfer path, and a path from the second target transfer station to the position of the charging base;
However, Mandel-Senft et al. teaches:
destination includes charging base;
obtain all candidate transfer paths from the first target transfer station to the second target transfer station;
take the candidate path that is shortest and does not pass through obstacles as a target transfer path; and
determine a target path from the position of the robot to the position of the charging base according to a path from the position of the robot to the first target transfer station, the target transfer path, and a path from the second target transfer station to the position of the charging base;
(at least figs. 1-6 [0003]-[0032] discussed autonomous vehicle, charging station, shortest path, in particular [0019] [0027]) for being time-efficient ([0003]-[0032]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of JIANG with destination includes charging base; obtain all candidate transfer paths from the first target transfer station to the second target transfer station; take the candidate path that is shortest and does not pass through obstacles as a target transfer path; and determine a target path from the position of the robot to the position of the charging base according to a path from the position of the robot to the first target transfer station, the target transfer path, and a path from the second target transfer station to the position of the charging base; as taught by Mandel-Senft et al. for being time-efficient.
Regarding claim 2, JIANG in view of LAI and Mandel-Senft et al. teaches:
As applied to claim 1, destination includes charging base;
JIANG teaches:
wherein before the step of determining candidate transfer stations from the position of the robot to the position of the destination if the shortest path passes through obstacles, the method further comprises the steps of:
determining whether the shortest path passes through obstacles; and
determining that the shortest path is the target path from the position of the robot to the position of the destination if the shortest path does not pass through obstacles (at least figs. 1-2 [0004]-[0045] discuss robot, chip storing program code, direct line/path from current position to end, if there is obstacle in the way, then determine intermediate nodes);
Regarding claim 5, JIANG does not explicitly teach:
wherein all the candidate transfer paths comprise: a straight path from the first target transfer station to the second target transfer station and a path from the first target transfer station to the second target transfer station through at least one other candidate transfer station, wherein the other candidate transfer station refers to a given candidate transfer station other than either the first target transfer station or the second target transfer station among the candidate transfer stations
However, Mandel-Senft et al. teaches:
wherein all the candidate transfer paths comprise: a straight path from the first target transfer station to the second target transfer station and a path from the first target transfer station to the second target transfer station through at least one other candidate transfer station, wherein the other candidate transfer station refers to a given candidate transfer station other than either the first target transfer station or the second target transfer station among the candidate transfer stations
(at least figs. 1-6 [0003]-[0032] discussed autonomous vehicle, charging station, shortest path, in particular [0019] [0027]) for being time-efficient ([0003]-[0032]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of JIANG with wherein all the candidate transfer paths comprise: a straight path from the first target transfer station to the second target transfer station and a path from the first target transfer station to the second target transfer station through at least one other candidate transfer station, wherein the other candidate transfer station refers to a given candidate transfer station other than either the first target transfer station or the second target transfer station among the candidate transfer stations; as taught by Mandel-Senft et al. for being time-efficient.
Regarding claim 6, JIANG does not explicitly teach:
wherein the step of determining a first target transfer station corresponding to the position of the robot and a second target transfer station corresponding to the position of the charging base from the candidate transfer stations comprises:
determining a first movement path from the position of the robot to each of the candidate transfer stations, and taking the candidate transfer station corresponding to the first movement path that is shortest and does not pass through obstacles as the first target transfer station; and
determining a second movement path from the position of the charging base to each of the candidate transfer stations, and taking the candidate transfer station corresponding to the second movement path that is shortest and does not pass through obstacles as the second target transfer station
However, LAI teaches:
wherein the step of determining a first target transfer station corresponding to the position of the robot and a second target transfer station corresponding to the position of the charging base from the candidate transfer stations comprises:
determining a first movement path from the position of the robot to each of the candidate transfer stations, and taking the candidate transfer station corresponding to the first movement path that is shortest and does not pass through obstacles as the first target transfer station; and
determining a second movement path from the position of the charging base to each of the candidate transfer stations, and taking the candidate transfer station corresponding to the second movement path that is shortest and does not pass through obstacles as the second target transfer station
(at least figs. 1-5 [0004]-[0164] discussed initial position, first node, target position, second node) for path planning ([0004]-[0164])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of JIANG with wherein the step of determining a first target transfer station corresponding to the position of the robot and a second target transfer station corresponding to the position of the charging base from the candidate transfer stations comprises: determining a first movement path from the position of the robot to each of the candidate transfer stations, and taking the candidate transfer station corresponding to the first movement path that is shortest and does not pass through obstacles as the first target transfer station; and determining a second movement path from the position of the charging base to each of the candidate transfer stations, and taking the candidate transfer station corresponding to the second movement path that is shortest and does not pass through obstacles as the second target transfer station; as taught by LAI for path planning.
Regarding claim 8, the cited portions and rationale in rejection to claim 2 read on this claim.
Regarding claim 9, the cited portions and rationale in rejections to claims 1 and 7 read on this claim.
Regarding claim 10, the cited portions and rationale in rejections to claims 1 and 7 read on this claim.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIANG (CN-113238549-A a reference in IDS 19/28/2024, provided translation cited) in view of LAI (CN-109947100-A reference in IDS 19/28/2024, provided translation cited) and Mandel-Senft et al. (US 20230158910) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of INGVALSON et al. (US 20200267896).
Regarding claim 3, JIANG does not explicitly teach:
wherein before the step of obtaining a position of a robot and a position of a charging base in a grid map, the method further comprises the steps of:
obtaining a work path of the robot in a lawn area, wherein the charging base is located on the work path; and
building the grid map according to the work path;
However, INGVALSON et al. teaches:
(at least figs. 4-6A [0076]-[0081] in particular discussed “an x-y grid may be superimposed over the work area 400 with an initial position (e.g., origin at coordinate 0,0) at work area vertex 451. The initial position may be a location of the system base station 220 used to house and re-charge the mower when not in use, the base station typically being located in or near the work region”) to identify efficient mower routes ([0076]-[0081])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of JIANG with wherein before the step of obtaining a position of a robot and a position of a charging base in a grid map, the method further comprises the steps of: obtaining a work path of the robot in a lawn area, wherein the charging base is located on the work path; and building the grid map according to the work path; as taught by INGVALSON et al. to identify efficient mower routes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO LONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
BAO LONG T. NGUYEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3664
/BAO LONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656