DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 8-11 and 21-22 would be allowable if (#1) rewritten to overcome all pending objection(s) and all pending rejection(s) set forth in this Office action; and (#2) rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Priority Status
Foreign priority benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) is acknowledged.
Amendment to The Specification
The Amendment to The Specification with respect to [0001] filed 3 December 2024 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Preliminary Amended Claim(s) 1-11, 13-14, and 16-22 is/are examined in this office 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 .
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.
Judicial Exception 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-11, 13-14, and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. (See MPEP § 2106.)
STEP 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes for Claim(s) 1, 3-11, 13-14, and 17-22.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, because Claim(s) 13 recite(s) the following limitation(s):
“dividing …area into a plurality of… sub-areas” – (This/These step(s) is/are considered a Mathematical Concept. See MPEP § 2106.04 (a)(2) I.)
“determining a … direction of each of the plurality of … sub-areas …” – (This/These step(s) is/are considered at least one of observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper and therefore a Mental Process. See MPEP § 2106.04 (a)(2) III.)
“determining … paths …” – (This/These step(s) is/are considered at least one of observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper and therefore a Mental Process. See MPEP § 2106.04 (a)(2) III.)
“determining … path …” – (This/These step(s) is/are considered at least one of observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper and therefore a Mental Process. See MPEP § 2106.04 (a)(2) III.)
STEP 2A PRONG TWO asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, Claim 1 does not recite any additional elements.
No, Claim(s) 13 recite(s) the following additional element(s): “a processor”; and “a memory for storing a computer program”.
No, Claim(s) 14 recite(s) the following additional element(s): “A non-transitory computer storage medium”.
The above limitations are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic computer hardware and/or functions of collecting and/or processing data. These generic limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (e.g., “a processor” from Claim 13; “a memory for storing a computer program” from Claim 13; and “A non-transitory computer storage medium” from Claim 14). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, Claim(s) 1, 13 and 14 is/are directed to the abstract idea.
Additionally, The Examiner refers to The Berkheimer Memorandum1 for submitting more evidence into the prosecution regarding what subject matter is/are well known in the technology. The Berkheimer Memorandum specifies The Examiner shall show one or more of the follow items:
“A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (1).
“A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (2).
“A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (3).
“A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (4).
In this particular case, The Examiner provides “A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)” as required by Section III:
“Client-Server and network communication is well-known in the art of computers and networking.” (US 20050021745 A1, [0052])
“The electronic control unit 23 comprises a microprocessor including a central processing unit (CPU), a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an A/D converter, and an input/output interface, all not shown, but well-known in the art.” (US 4741163)
“As is well-known in the art, software is stored on a computer-readable storage medium (including compact disc, computer diskette, and computer memory, etc.) with code, or instructions, which, when read and executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform a process or task.” (US 20120226548 A1, [0020])
Claim(s) 1 and 14 contain the same limitations as Claim 13; therefore, Step 1, Step 2A Prong 1 and Step 2A Prong Two for Claim(s) 1 and 14 is/are analyzed in like manner.
STEP 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No for Claim(s) 1, 13 and 14. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, Claim(s) 1, 13 and 14 is/are ineligible.
Dependent Claim(s) 3-11, and 17-22 are also ineligible because they do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In summary, Claim(s) 1, 3-11, 13-14, and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The Examiner points out that Claim(s) 2 and 16 satisfy the §101 requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(B) or (pre-AIA ) Second Paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(B):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 13 and 16-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(B) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 13 recite(s) two distinct embodiments such as an apparatus (i.e., “An electronic device”) in line 1; and “a method” in line 4. In accordance with MPEP § 2173.05(p) II which states “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” In other words, a single claim must be drawn to either a product or process (but not both) and because a potential competitor of Applicant would not know whether possession alone of the claimed structure constituted infringement, or alternatively, if the execution of the recited method steps constituted infringement; therefore, the claim(s) is/are indefinite.
Claim(s) 16-22 is/are rejected based on dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 13-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by CN 112148813 B with English translation (hereafter “D1”).
Claim(s) 1 and 14 is/are directed to the same invention as Claim 13. Additionally, Claim(s) 1 and 14 also repeat the same subject matter as Claim 13; therefore, Claim(s) 1 and 14 is/are rejected in like manner.
Claim 2 repeats the same subject matter as Claim 16; therefore, Claim 2 is rejected in like manner.
Claim 3 repeats the same subject matter as Claim 17; therefore, Claim 3 is rejected in like manner.
Claim 4 repeats the same subject matter as Claim 18; therefore, Claim 4 is rejected in like manner.
Claim 5 repeats the same subject matter as Claim 19; therefore, Claim 5 is rejected in like manner.
Claim 6 repeats the same subject matter as Claim 20; therefore, Claim 6 is rejected in like manner.
As to Claim 7, D12 discloses:
connecting the starting points and the ending points of the different convex sub-areas to obtain a plurality of candidate mower moving paths (see at least Fig. 2-3 with associated text); and
selecting an optimal mower moving path from the plurality of candidate mower moving paths as the mower moving path (see at least Fig. 2-3 with associated text).
As to Claim 13, D1 discloses An electronic device (e.g. “electronic hardware” – see text, “It will be further appreciated by those skilled in the art that various exemplary units and algorithm steps described in connection with the embodiments disclosed herein can be implemented in electronic hardware.”), comprising:
a processor (“The steps of the method or algorithm described in connection with the embodiments disclosed herein may be implemented directly with hardware, software modules executed by a processor, or a combination thereof.”); and
a memory (e.g., “random access memory (RAM), a memory, a read only memory (ROM), an electrically programmable ROM, an electrically erasable programmable ROM, a register, a hard disk, a removable disk, a CD-ROM, or any other form of storage medium known in the art”) for storing a computer program (e.g., “software modules”), wherein the processor is configured to call and run the computer program stored in the memory to perform a method for determining a mower path, comprising (“The steps of the method or algorithm described in connection with the embodiments disclosed herein may be implemented directly with hardware, software modules executed by a processor, or a combination thereof. The software module may be placed in a random access memory (RAM), a memory, a read only memory (ROM), an electrically programmable ROM, an electrically erasable programmable ROM, a register, a hard disk, a removable disk, a CD-ROM, or any other form of storage medium known in the art.”):
dividing a target mowing area into a plurality of convex sub-areas (see at least Abstract – “S2, automatically dividing the electronic map of the mowing area into multiple mowing sub-regions”);
determining a main extension direction of each of the plurality of convex sub-areas as a mowing direction (see at least Fig. 2-3 and “Referring to FIG. 3, the boundary length of the mowing sub-area 1 is 70 % of the total mowing area boundary length, the boundary length of the mowing sub-area 2 is 10 % of the total mowing area boundary length, and the boundary length of the mowing sub-area 3 is 20 % of the total mowing area boundary length, The number of times that 1 appears in the mowing polling order 1211131131 is 7, the number of times that 2 appears is 1, and the number of times that 3 appears is 2. That is, the larger the length of the boundary corresponding to the mowing sub-area is, the more the mowing polling sequence occurs. It can be understood that the mowing polling order 1211131131 in this embodiment contains only 10 cycles, and more cycles can be set according to mowing requirements.” In other words, the mower’s heading is based by which sub-area needs more attention in accordance with a polling sequence. Additionally, Fig. 2. demonstrates arrows within sub-area as a mowing direction along the boundaries for one sub-area and Fig. 3. demonstrates the points that connect together which reflect the boundaries of each sub-area.);
determining mowing paths of the plurality of convex sub-areas based on the respective mowing directions of the plurality of convex sub-areas (“Referring to FIG. 3, the boundary length of the mowing sub-area 1 is 70 % of the total mowing area boundary length, the boundary length of the mowing sub-area 2 is 10 % of the total mowing area boundary length, and the boundary length of the mowing sub-area 3 is 20 % of the total mowing area boundary length, The number of times that 1 appears in the mowing polling order 1211131131 is 7, the number of times that 2 appears is 1, and the number of times that 3 appears is 2. That is, the larger the length of the boundary corresponding to the mowing sub-area is, the more the mowing polling sequence occurs. It can be understood that the mowing polling order 1211131131 in this embodiment contains only 10 cycles, and more cycles can be set according to mowing requirements”; and “S31, when each mowing period starts, the mowing machine travels to the selected mowing sub-area along the boundary of the mowing area electronic map, and mowing randomly from the mowing sub-area. Further, in the random mower partitioning method according to the present invention, the step S31 comprises: when each mowing period starts, the mowing machine travels to the middle point of the corresponding boundary of the mowing sub-area along the boundary of the mowing area electronic map according to the course information and mileage information corresponding to the mowing sub-area, and mowing randomly from the middle point of the corresponding boundary of the mowing sub-area.”); and
determining the mower path in the target mowing area based on the mowing paths of the plurality of convex sub-areas (see at least Fig. 2-3 and “S31, when each mowing period starts, the mowing machine travels to the selected mowing sub-area along the boundary of the mowing area electronic map, and mowing randomly from the mowing sub-area. Further, in the random mower partitioning method according to the present invention, the step S31 comprises: when each mowing period starts, the mowing machine travels to the middle point of the corresponding boundary of the mowing sub-area along the boundary of the mowing area electronic map according to the course information and mileage information corresponding to the mowing sub-area, and mowing randomly from the middle point of the corresponding boundary of the mowing sub-area.”).
As to Claim 16, D1 discloses:
control a mower provided with a positioning device to move (see Abstract, Fig. 1-3 with associated text) and
obtain a plurality of mower positioning positions of the mower (see Abstract, Fig. 1-3 with associated text); and
determine an area surrounding the plurality of mower positioning positions as the target mowing area (see Abstract, Fig. 1-3 with associated text).
As to Claim 17, D1 discloses wherein the processor is configured to:
determine an obstacle area in the target mowing area (see at least Fig. 1 with associated text – “Referring to FIG. 1, the grass cutter of this embodiment is a random grass cutter, the grass cutter of the random grass cutter does not depend on the preset path to cut the grass during the grass cutting process, but moves along the straight line, when meeting the boundary or obstacle, the course is adjusted”); and
divide the target mowing area into the plurality of convex sub-areas based on a boundary of the obstacle area and an outer boundary of the target mowing area (see at least Abstract, Fig. 1-3 with associated text).
As to Claim 18, D1 discloses wherein the processor is configured to:
determine an envelope rectangle of each of the plurality of convex sub-areas (see at least Fig. 3 with associated text); and
determine a long side direction of the envelope rectangle as the mowing direction (see at least Fig. 2-3 with associated text).
As to Claim 19, D1 discloses wherein the processor is configured to:
determine a mower moving path among the plurality of convex sub-areas (see at least Fig. 2-3 with associated text); and
connect the mowing paths of the plurality of convex sub-areas with the mower moving path to obtain the mower path in the target mowing area (see at least Fig. 2-3 with associated text).
As to Claim 20, D1 discloses wherein the processor is configured to:
determine a starting point and an ending point of a mowing path of each of the plurality of convex sub-areas (see at least Fig. 2-3 with associated text); and
connect starting points and ending points of different convex sub-areas to obtain the mower moving path (see at least Fig. 2-3 with associated text).
Communications via The Internet and Authorization
MPEP § 502.03 II, “Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence and response will be placed in the appropriate patent application by the examiner. except for correspondence that only sets up an interview time, all correspondence between the office and the applicant including applicant’s representative must be placed in the appropriate patent application. If an email contains any information beyond scheduling an interview, such as an interview agenda, it must be placed in the application. THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION MAY BE SUBMITTED VIA EFS-WEB, MAIL, OR FAX. It cannot be submitted by email.”
Contact Information
Primary Examiner Calvin Cheung’s contact information is listed at the bottom, and he is typically reached MONDAY-THURSDAY, 0700-1700 ET. If attempts to reach the primary by telephone are unsuccessful, the primary’s supervisor, HELAL ALGAHAIM, is available at telephone number (571) 270-5227.
Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice for scheduling an examiner interview that will be performed over telephone or video conferencing (using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool).
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CALVIN CHEUNG/
Direct Office Number (571) 270-7041
Email and Fax send to Calvin.Cheung@USPTO.GOV
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
1 See https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF