DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 9/20/2024.
Claims 4-7 and 9 have been amended.
No claims have been added.
No claims have been cancelled.
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 9/20/2024 has been received and considered.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haneda et al (US 20190320580, hereinafter “Haneda”) in view of Kulkarni et al (US 2021006404, hereinafter “Kulkarni”) and Chae (US 20200019180, hereinafter “Chae”).
Regarding Claim 1, Haneda teaches:
An autonomous lawnmower, comprising: a lawnmower body (Haneda ¶ 0021 lines 1-9 “In the present embodiment, the work machine 100 executes various types of works. Examples of the works may include pruning, lawn mowing, grass mowing, […] The work machine 100 may be a travelling body having an autonomous travel function. Thereby, the work machine 100 for example can travel by automatic operation by a computer mounted on the work machine 100,”)
that performs a […] lawn-mowing operation while autonomously traveling on vegetation; (Haneda ¶ 0058 “In the present embodiment, the lawn mower 230 has an autonomous travel function. The lawn mower 230 cuts lawn grasses while it is running autonomously in the garden 30. To cut lawn grasses (which may be sometimes referred to as lawn mowing) may be one example of a work of the lawn mower 230, and lawn grasses may be one example of a work target of the lawn mower 230. Lawn grasses may be one example of plants growing in the garden 30,” teaching operation of lawnmowing while traveling on lawn grasses in a garden)
a backward imager oriented backward in a traveling direction of the lawnmower body; (Haneda ¶ 0157 “ In the present embodiment, the image-capturing unit 660 captures an image of the space around the lawn mower 230. […] The image-capturing unit 660 may capture an image of lawn grasses cut by the lawn mower 230. […] The image-capturing unit 660 may have a plurality of image sensors. The image-capturing unit 660 may be a 360-degree angle camera,” teaching a 360 degree imaging system that captures images of grasses cut by the mower, i.e. behind the mower, shown to be on the vehicle in Fig. 6)
PNG
media_image1.png
483
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a storage that stores content of the predetermined lawn-mowing operation performed by the lawnmower body; (Haneda ¶ 0150 lines 1-3 “The work machine information storage section 510 stores information about a specification of the lawn mower 230. The,” the very generally claimed “content” being interpreted according to the specification ¶ 0044 to be operational content including parameters for operating the lawnmower, and ¶ 0027 lines x-x “the judging section 142 judges the state of the cutting section 120 based on an image captured by an image-capturing section 130. For example, the judging section 142 receives, as an input, data of an image to be a target of judgment, and outputs, as a result of judgment, a parameter indicating the state of the cutting section 120,” teaching a parameter indicating the state of the current cutting operation)
and a controller that controls drive of the lawnmower body (Haneda ¶ 0155 “In the present embodiment, inside the housing 602 or above the housing 602, the lawn mower 230 includes […] a control unit 680. […] The control unit 680 may be one example of a judging section, information processing device or control device,”)
and instructs […] on the vegetation […] depending on an imaging result of the backward imager. (Haneda ¶ 0040 “In the present embodiment, the control section 144 controls the work machine 100. The control section 144 may control the work machine 100 based on a result of judgment by the judging section 142. For example, the control section 144 controls the work machine 100 according to the state of the cutting section 120. In one embodiment, the control section 144 controls travel of the work machine 100 according to the state of the cutting section 120. For example, the control section 144 controls at least one of the travel speed, travel direction and travel route of the work machine 100 according to the state of the cutting section 120. In another embodiment, the control section 140 controls work of the work machine 100 according to the state of the cutting section 120. For example, the control section 144 controls the cutting strength of the cutting section 120 by adjusting the rotational speed of a cutting blade or the like according to the state of the cutting section 120,” teaching control (instructions) for the mowing operation (on the vegetation) based on the imaging results)
Haneda does not teach:
[…] predetermined [lawn-mowing operation…]
[…] rework […]
[...] at an imaged location […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Haneda, Kulkarni teaches:
[…] predetermined [lawn-mowing operation…] at an imaged location […] (Kulkarni ¶ 0005 lines 7-9 “The processor is configured to generate a path to drive the electronic device within the area,” teaching a predetermined route, and ¶ 0184-0186 “It is possible that in certain regions of the lawn the localization error could be large enough such that there is unmowed regions which the electronic device 210 is unaware of. […] In other embodiments, the outside source could be a camera or other sensors on the electronic device 210 which can identify unmowed regions. For example, in step 802, the electronic device 210 traverses the area. The electronic device can be an automatic lawn mower, which traverses a yard and trims the grass of the lawn. After the electronic device 210 finishes traversing the lawn, in step 804, […] a sensor on the electronic device 210 can inspect the lawn to identify any unmowed regions. For example, as shown in the lawn 808a, the electronic device 210 travels along the path 802a. The area 804a is the unmowed region which can be identified by […] the electronic device 210 itself. Thereafter, in step 806, the electronic device 210 modifies its path to include a denser path in the designated area due to localization accuracy loss in the designated areas. For instance, if there is unmowed region near location (x.sub.0, y.sub.0) then the electronic device 210 may perform an extra spiral or an extra back and forth motion in such areas to cover the unmowed region. For instance, as shown in the lawn 808b, the electronic device 210 travels along the path 802b. The path 802b is modified version of the path 802a since the path 802b includes an extra pass as indicated in the area 806a,” further teaching a predetermined route that is modified based on imaging results to mow over unmowed regions at imaged locations)
Haneda and Kulkarni are considered analogous because they both relate to autonomous lawn mowing devices which visually monitor the lawn state. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operation of the work machine based to mow a lawn of Haneda which is generally described without reference to a particular base routing method and then modifying the operation based on the quality of the mowing as judged based on imaging results of the mowed area with the addition of Kulkarni’s generated path within the mowing area which is modified by analogous imaging results to mow over unmowed areas. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated according to MPEP 2143(I)(C), the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Here Haneda’s base device (lawn mowing work machine which mows in an area and modifies operation based on imaging results of the mowed area) can apply the comparable technique (generating a path to drive within an area and modifying the path to mow over unmowed areas) of Kulkarni’s lawn mowing electronic device in the same way by one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve predictable results (completely mowing a lawn), as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The combination of Haneda and Kulkarni does not teach:
[…] rework […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Haneda and Kulkarni, Chae teaches:
[…] rework [at an imaged location…] (Chae ¶ 0258 lines 1-7 “A method for operating a robot cleaner according to an embodiment of the present invention may include: capturing an image (S610); determining whether cleaning of an already cleaned area is completed by using an image of a rear area of the robot cleaner (S630); if the cleaning is not completed, controlling a driving unit and a cleaning unit to reclean an area where the cleaning is not completed (S650);” teaching a robot cleaner, analogously similar in operation to a robot lawnmower, using an image of a rear area of the cleaner to determine whether work is complete and re-do the work if it is not completed)
Haneda, Chae, and Kulkarni are considered analogous because they all relate to autonomous working vehicles which use cameras to determine the state of completed work and change the vehicle function based on the imaging results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controlling of vehicle speed, travel direction, travel route, and work of the work machine based on imaging of the lawn cutting section of Haneda and the modification of a predetermined path to include previously missed work areas based on imaging of the lawn of Kulkarni with the simple addition of Chae’s rework of an affected work area based on imaging that shows the work is not completed, with Chae’s cleaning operation and cleaning completion of the cleaned area being directly analogous to Haneda’s lawn mowing operation and quality of the grass in the cut area, and Chae’s recleaning modifying Kulkarni’s path modification to include unmowed areas in order to additionally include areas identified (per Haneda’s mow quality determination) to be of insufficient quality. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated according to MPEP 2143(I)(G) by the advantage of worked areas becoming cleaner as described in Chae ¶ 0308, understood here to be analogous to an increase in mowing quality in the context of Haneda.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Haneda, Kulkarni, and Chae teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Haneda further teaches:
wherein the storage stores the imaged location during the predetermined lawn-mowing operation, the imaged location being located backward of the lawnmower body in the traveling direction, (Haneda ¶ 0024 “In the present embodiment, the image-capturing section 130 captures an image of the space around the work machine 100. For example, the image-capturing section 130 captures an image of a work target cut by the cutting section 120. The image-capturing section 130 may capture an image of a work target just cut while the work machine 100 is working. […] The image-capturing section 130 may transmit, to the judging section 142 and in association with each other, data of an image of a work target and positional information indicating a position where the image of the work target was captured,” describing storing a location associated with the captured image of the work target just cut, established previously in Haneda ¶ 0157 and Fig. 6 to be behind the robot)
and the controller changes operational content of the predetermined lawn-mowing operation to operational content of lawn-mowing operation on the vegetation […] (Haneda ¶ 0040 as previously described)
Haneda does not teach:
[…] at the imaged location during the rework.
Within the same field of endeavor as Haneda, Kulkarni teaches:
[…] at the imaged location during the rework. (Kulkarni ¶ 0184-0186 as described previously teaching routing to regions at imaged locations, as modified by Chae’s teaching of recleaning)
Haneda and Kulkarni are considered analogous because they both relate to autonomous lawn mowing devices which visually monitor the lawn state. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operation of the work machine based to mow a lawn of Haneda which is generally described without reference to a particular base routing method and then modifying the operation based on the quality of the mowing as judged based on imaging results of the mowed area with the addition of Kulkarni’s generated path within the mowing area which is modified by analogous imaging results to mow over unmowed areas. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated according to MPEP 2143(I)(C), the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Here Haneda’s base device (lawn mowing work machine which mows in an area and modifies operation based on imaging results of the mowed area) can apply the comparable technique (generating a path to drive within an area and modifying the path to mow over unmowed areas) of Kulkarni’s lawn mowing electronic device in the same way by one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve predictable results (completely mowing a lawn), as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Haneda, Kulkarni, and Chae teaches the elements of Claim 2 as described above. Haneda further teaches:
wherein the controller increases a rotation speed of a blade part of the lawnmower body for the rework from a rotation speed of the blade part of the lawnmower body for the predetermined lawn-mowing operation. (Haneda ¶ 0045 lines 1-11 “Also, according to the present embodiment, an image-capturing section 130 can capture an image of a work target immediately after work while the work machine 100 is travelling. Thereby, the state of the work target immediately after work can be fed back to the work of the work machine 100. For example, if the work quality does not satisfy a predetermined criterion, the control section […] increase the work strength, and so on in order to improve the work quality. For example, the work strength can be increased by increasing the rotational speed of a cutting blade,” teaching increasing the rotation speed of the blade based on the imaging results, as applies to the previously established recleaning of Chae)
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Haneda, Kulkarni, and Chae teaches the elements of Claim 2 as described above. Haneda further teaches:
wherein the controller changes a traveling direction of the lawnmower body during the predetermined lawn-mowing operation to a traveling direction of the lawnmower body during the rework. (Haneda ¶ 0040 lines 4-11 “For example, the control section 144 controls the work machine 100 according to the state of the cutting section 120. In one embodiment, the control section 144 controls travel of the work machine 100 according to the state of the cutting section 120. For example, the control section 144 controls at least one of the […] travel direction […] of the work machine 100 according to the state of the cutting section 120,” teaching control of travel direction based on the imaging results, as applies to the previously established recleaning of Chae)
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Haneda, Kulkarni, and Chae teaches the elements of Claim 2 as described above. Haneda does not teach:
wherein the controller issues an abnormal notification based on the imaging result and, when the abnormal notification persists for a predetermined interval or longer in the traveling direction of the lawnmower body during the predetermined lawn-mowing operation, the controller causes the lawnmower body to move, during the rework, in the same direction as the traveling direction of the lawnmower body in the predetermined lawn-mowing operation.
Within the same field of endeavor as Haneda, Kulkarni teaches:
wherein the controller issues an abnormal notification based on the imaging result (Kulkarni ¶ 0185 lines 4-7 “After the electronic device 210 finishes traversing the lawn, in step 804, […] a sensor on the electronic device 210 can inspect the lawn to identify any unmowed regions,” teaching an abnormal notification as interpreted according to the present specification ¶ 0053 “The abnormal notifications may not necessarily be limited to explicit notifications to external terminals but may include information indicating the determination that rework is necessary,” identification of unmowed regions being analogous to a determination that rework is necessary in view of Chae and Haneda)
and, when the abnormal notification persists for a predetermined interval or longer in the traveling direction of the lawnmower body during the predetermined lawn-mowing operation, the controller causes the lawnmower body to move, during the rework, in the same direction as the traveling direction of the lawnmower body in the predetermined lawn-mowing operation.
(Kulkarni ¶ 0186 “Thereafter, in step 806, the electronic device 210 modifies its path to include a denser path in the designated area due to localization accuracy loss in the designated areas. For instance, if there is unmowed region near location (x.sub.0, y.sub.0) then the electronic device 210 may perform […] an extra back and forth motion in such areas to cover the unmowed region. For instance, as shown in the lawn 808b, the electronic device 210 travels along the path 802b. The path 802b is modified version of the path 802a since the path 802b includes an extra pass as indicated in the area 806a,” teaching modified routing in the same direction as the original path in a long area as illustrated clearly in Fig. 8B, as modified by Chae’s teaching of recleaning,)
PNG
media_image2.png
472
641
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Haneda and Kulkarni are considered analogous because they both relate to autonomous lawn mowing devices which visually monitor the lawn state. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operation of the work machine based to mow a lawn of Haneda which is generally described without reference to a particular base routing method and then modifying the operation based on the quality of the mowing as judged based on imaging results of the mowed area with the addition of Kulkarni’s generated path within the mowing area which is modified by analogous imaging results to mow over unmowed areas. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated according to MPEP 2143(I)(C), the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Here Haneda’s base device (lawn mowing work machine which mows in an area and modifies operation based on imaging results of the mowed area) can apply the comparable technique (generating a path to drive within an area and modifying the path to mow over unmowed areas) of Kulkarni’s lawn mowing electronic device in the same way by one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve predictable results (completely mowing a lawn), as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Haneda, Kulkarni, and Chae teaches the elements of Claim 2 as described above. Haneda does not teach:
wherein, when there are a plurality of rework spots for which the rework is instructed, the controller determines a sequence of operations on the plurality of rework spots, based on the imaged location or the imaging result.
Within the same field of endeavor as Haneda, Kulkarni teaches:
wherein, when there are a plurality of rework spots for which the rework is instructed, the controller determines a sequence of operations on the plurality of rework spots, based on the imaged location or the imaging result. (Kulkarni ¶ 0152 “According to embodiments of the present disclosure, the electronic device 210 identifies the shortest possible path (the minimum path length) to go from the current electronic device position (end position 602b) to the start position 602a while visiting all the unmowed areas 604a, 604b. and 604c. That is, after the electronic device 210 arrives at the end position 602b and identifies the unmowed areas 604a, 604b. and 604c. Then, the electronic device 210 identifies and travels the shortest path between its current location and its docking/home location while visiting each of the identified unmowed areas 604a, 604b. and 604c. […] By generating an efficient path strategy, the mowing time can be reduced which can increase the battery life of the electronic device and the anchors 204,” teaching a generation of a path, the path exhibiting a sequence of operations, between unmowed areas, the mowing of unmowed areas as previously established being analogous to a rework based on grass cutting quality)
Haneda and Kulkarni are considered analogous because they both relate to autonomous lawn mowing devices which visually monitor the lawn state. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operation of the work machine based to mow a lawn of Haneda which is generally described without reference to a particular base routing method and then modifying the operation based on the quality of the mowing as judged based on imaging results of the mowed area with the addition of Kulkarni’s generated path within the mowing area which is modified by analogous imaging results to mow over unmowed areas. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated according to MPEP 2143(I)(C), the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Here Haneda’s base device (lawn mowing work machine which mows in an area and modifies operation based on imaging results of the mowed area) can apply the comparable technique (generating a path to drive within an area and modifying the path to mow over unmowed areas) of Kulkarni’s lawn mowing electronic device in the same way by one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve predictable results (completely mowing a lawn), as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and as further motivated according to MPEP 2143(I)(G) by a favorable reduction in mowing time to result in increased battery life as described in Kulkarni ¶ 0152.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Haneda, Kulkarni, and Chae teaches the elements of Claim 7 as described above. Haneda does not teach:
wherein, when there are a plurality of rework spots for which the rework is instructed, the controller determines a sequence of operations on the plurality of rework spots, based on the imaged location or the imaging result.
Within the same field of endeavor as Haneda, Kulkarni teaches:
wherein the controller determines the sequence of operations on the plurality of rework spots, based on comparison of the imaging result of each of the plurality of rework spots, (Kulkarni ¶ 0171 “The following is an example of MDP formulation to solve the problem of identifying the order in which to visit the unmowed regions[…] The function could also be a function of quality Q.sub.k associated with an action u.sub.k, which indicates how likely is it that the unmowed region k will likely still be obstructed and unavailable for mowing. For instance, g(x.sub.k,u.sub.k,w.sub.k)=(||u.sub.k−k.sub.k||.sub.2).sup.Qk, which indicates the less likely an unmowed region will be available for mowing, the higher the cost of visiting this unmowed region for another mowing attempt,” and ¶ 0184 basing identification of unmowed areas on image results together teaching rework path routing based on cost determination involving the imaging results)
Haneda and Kulkarni are considered analogous because they both relate to autonomous lawn mowing devices which visually monitor the lawn state. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operation of the work machine based to mow a lawn of Haneda which is generally described without reference to a particular base routing method and then modifying the operation based on the quality of the mowing as judged based on imaging results of the mowed area with the addition of Kulkarni’s generated path within the mowing area which is modified by analogous imaging results to mow over unmowed areas. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated according to MPEP 2143(I)(C), the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Here Haneda’s base device (lawn mowing work machine which mows in an area and modifies operation based on imaging results of the mowed area) can apply the comparable technique (generating a path to drive within an area and modifying the path to mow over unmowed areas) of Kulkarni’s lawn mowing electronic device in the same way by one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve predictable results (completely mowing a lawn), as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and as further motivated according to MPEP 2143(I)(G) by a favorable reduction in mowing time to result in increased battery life as described in Kulkarni ¶ 0152.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haneda in view of Kulkarni, Chae, and Becke et al (US 20190075724, hereinafter “Chae”).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Haneda, Kulkarni, and Chae teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Haneda further teaches:
wherein the controller notifies a predetermined external terminal […] based on the imaging result. (Kulkarni ¶ 0005 lines 7-9 “The image analyzing section 320 may output a result of analysis of image data to the […] transmitting section 340. […] if at least one of the state parameter, the control parameter […] satisfies a predetermined condition, the image analyzing section 320 generates a message to notify the user terminal 20 of such a fact. The image analyzing section 320 outputs the above-mentioned message to the transmitting section 340,”)
Haneda does not teach:
[…] when detecting that an amount of grass discharged from the lawnmower body exceeds a threshold, […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Haneda, Becke teaches:
[…] when detecting that an amount of grass discharged from the lawnmower body exceeds a threshold, […] (Becke ¶ 0094 lines 1-19 “In one embodiment, the lawn mower 10 includes a sensor 50, 52, 54 that is configured to measure an attribute of the grass being cut. […] In one embodiment, the attribute of the grass being cut includes the density of the flow of cut grass. In one embodiment, the density of the cut grass is measured, using a grass chute discharge sensor 52, as the cut grass is discharged from the mower deck 64 or through a cut grass collection system (to the cut grass collection compartment) […] That is, higher blade motor currents are generally associated with more density of the cut grass and more difficult cutting conditions,” teaching detection of a density (amount) of grass being cut, and ¶ 0111 “In one embodiment, […] the grass chute flow sensor 52, […] may use a range of sensor technologies including, but not limited to, mechanical, optical, chromatic, laser, radio frequency, capacitive, inductive, ultrasound or other type of sensors as would be appreciated by one skilled in the art as long as they are configured to measure the increased cutting load and provide that information as an input to the one or more processors 32 of the vehicle control module 306,” teaches an association between the grass flow chute sensor and increased cutting load, as well as transmitting the measure of increased cutting load and the use of various technologies for sensing the grass chute flow)
Haneda and Becke are considered analogous because they both relate to self-monitoring lawn mowing devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operation of the work machine to mow a lawn, monitor the performance based on imaging of the cut grass, and to notify a user terminal of when a parameter satisfies a predetermined condition of Haneda with the addition of Becke’s monitoring of discharge grass in order to determine increased cutting load, with an increase in cutting load being an obvious parameter to notify using Haneda’s predetermined parameter conditions. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated according to MPEP 2143(I)(G) by making a user more aware of difficult cutting condition per Becke ¶ 0094, and further motivated as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by being able to consolidate the additional grass chute flow sensor 52 of Becke with the existing 360-degree camera of Haneda, eliminating an additional sensor by the use of the existing camera while retaining the sensing advantage of Becke.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, particularly Haneda, does not teach the element of “wherein the controller increases a traveling speed of the lawnmower body for the rework from a traveling speed of the lawnmower body for the predetermined lawn-mowing operation.” Haneda ¶ 0040 teaches a modification of the traveling speed of the work machine based on the image results of the quality of the cutting, but specifically teaches away from the claimed increase in speed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/848,915 in view of Chae, according to the following map of the claim elements. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Double Patenting Claim Element Map
Claim Number18/848,916
Claim Element 18/848,916
Claim Element
18/848,915
Chae US 20200019180 Element
1
An autonomous lawnmower, comprising: a lawnmower body that performs a predetermined lawn-mowing operation while autonomously traveling on vegetation;
An autonomous lawnmower, comprising: a lawnmower body that performs a lawn-mowing operation while autonomously traveling;
Chae ¶ 0261 "Referring to FIG. 7A, the processor of the robot cleaner 51 may control the driving unit 250 and the cleaning unit 260 to perform cleaning while moving the robot cleaner 51 along the traveling route 790" teaching a predetermined route
1
a backward imager oriented backward in a traveling direction of the lawnmower body;
and a backward imager oriented backward in the traveling direction of the lawnmower body,
N/A
1
a storage that stores content of the predetermined lawn-mowing operation performed by the lawnmower body; and a controller that controls drive of the lawnmower body
a controller that controls the lawnmower body, based on operational content recorded;
Chae ¶ 0221 "If the map is updated by the map generation unit 5220 during traveling, the control unit 5200 transmits the updated information to the air cleaner 300 through the communication unit, so that the maps stored in the air cleaner and the robot cleaner 51 are the same," teaching storage of routing information (operation content)
1
and instructs rework on the vegetation
N/A
Chae ¶ 0258 as described in the 103 rejection
1
at an imaged location depending on an imaging result of the backward imager.
wherein when a backward imaging result detected by the backward imager is within a predetermined range of conditions, the controller determines the operational content,
N/A
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the autonomous lawnmower of Claim 1 of US Patent Application No. 18/848,915 to include the predetermined traveling route, storage of the traveling route, and re-cleaning operation of Chae such that the lawnmower performs an analogous rework operation on vegetation viewed by the backward imager. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated according to MPEP 2143(I)(G) by the advantage of worked areas becoming cleaner as described in Chae ¶ 0308, understood here to be analogous to an increase in mowing quality in the context of 18/848,915.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY E GLADE whose telephone number is (703)756-1502. The examiner can normally be reached 4-5-9 7:30-16:30.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/ZACHARY E. F. GLADE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights