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 .
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, working unit, height adjustment unit, in claim(s) 1 (first instance), input unit in Claim 2 (first instance), body input unit in Claim 11 (first instance).
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 movement unit, working unit, height adjustment unit will be interpreted as motors as described in par. 0055-0057 of applicant’s specification, or equivalents thereof.
The input unit and body input unit will be interpreted as switches as described in par. 0051 of applicant’s specification, or 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 § 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1-8, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamura et al (US 20170280623, hereinafter Yamamura).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamamura teaches:
1. A working robot (see at least " The utility vehicle of the present invention can be embodied in the form of various types of utility vehicle and particularly as an autonomously navigating utility vehicle as a lawn mower for lawn or grass mowing work. " in par. 0024) , comprising:
a robot body (see at least "A body 12 of the vehicle 10 " in par. 0025) ;
a movement unit configured to move the robot body (see at least " Two electric motors (hereinafter called “drive motors”) 26 are attached to the chassis 12a of the vehicle 10 at a rear end of the blade 20. The drive motors 26 are connected to the left and right rear wheels 16 and rotate normally (drive the vehicle 10 to run forward) or reversely (drive the vehicle 10 to run backward) independently on the left and right, with the front wheels 14 as non-driven (free) wheels and the rear wheels 16 as driven wheels. " in par. 0027) ;
a working unit supported by the robot body (see at least " A work unit, e.g., a mower blade (rotary blade) 20, is attached near the middle of the chassis 12a of the vehicle 10, and an electric motor (hereinafter called “work motor”) 22 is installed above it. The blade 20 is connected to the electric motor 22 to be driven to rotate by the electric motor 22. " in par. 0026) ;
a height adjustment unit configured to change a height level of the working unit relative to the robot body (see at least " Moreover, as shown in FIG. 1, the blade 20 is provided with a blade height adjustment motor 100 for vertically adjusting the height of the blade 20 from ground surface GR. " in par. 0062); and
a control unit, wherein the control unit is configured to execute an autonomous operation (see at least " Based on the inputted data, the ECU 44 controls operation of the vehicle 10 by supplying current to the drive motor 26 from the battery 32 and by sending commands thereto through the I/O 44b. An external device (e.g., smartphone) 100 operable by the user can be made connectable to the ECU 44 as indicated by imaginary lines in FIG. 3. " in par. 0038) including:
a working process of causing the working unit to work while moving the robot body by the movement unit (see at least " In work mode, the vehicle 10 works (mows lawn or grass) while autonomously navigating in the working area AR. " in par. 0056) ; and
a height adjustment process of causing the height adjustment unit to adjust the height level of the working unit relative to the robot body in multiple steps (see at least " The reasoning in this embodiment is to assume that the lawn in the working area AR grew to the higher level by the time the main switch 64 was first turned ON in spring. Specifically, a situation in which actual lawn height is 60 mm and inputted user's set mowing height is 30 mm is taken as a premise, and the lawn mowing work in such a situation is assumed to be that of working for 3 days, 1 day and 2 days, for example, while successively lowering height in steps of 5 mm, 10 mm or the like to complete lowering to the set mowing height in 12 days. " in par. 0072 and “The lowering in small increments of 5 mm, for instance, is for cutting grass into fine pieces that immediately drop between and become buried among the individual lawn grass plants. In other words, it is to avoid cutting of large segments that become left to rot after dropping.” In par. 0073) , and
the working robot is configured to be switched between a first state in which the control unit executes the height adjustment process during the autonomous operation and a second state in which the control unit does not execute the height adjustment process during the autonomous operation. (see at least " Next, in S102, lawn mowing is performed at the set mowing height inputted by the user (30 mm) (i.e., the desired mowing height is set to 30 mm and the height of the blade 20 from the ground surface GR is also regulated to 30 mm), whereafter the program goes to S104 to determine whether load while working is great, namely, above a predetermined value. " in par. 0085 and “When the result in S104 is NO, the program returns to S102, and when YES, goes to S106 to raise mowing height by 10 mm. Namely, the desired mowing height is set to 40 mm and height of the blade 20 from the ground surface GR is also regulated to 40 mm.” in par. 0087)
Regarding Claim 2, Yamamura teaches:
2. The working robot according to claim 1, further comprising an input unit configured to receive an input from a user, wherein the control unit is configured to execute the height adjustment process based on an input value input to the input unit (see at least " a desired mowing height setting unit (or setting means) 44a2" in par. 0068) .
Regarding Claim 3, Yamamura teaches:
3. A working robot (see at least "The utility vehicle of the present invention can be embodied in the form of various types of utility vehicle and particularly as an autonomously navigating utility vehicle as a lawn mower for lawn or grass mowing work. " in par. 0024), comprising:
a robot body (see at least " A body 12 of the vehicle 10 " in par. 0025);
a movement unit configured to move the robot body (see at least " Two electric motors (hereinafter called “drive motors”) 26 are attached to the chassis 12a of the vehicle 10 at a rear end of the blade 20. The drive motors 26 are connected to the left and right rear wheels 16 and rotate normally (drive the vehicle 10 to run forward) or reversely (drive the vehicle 10 to run backward) independently on the left and right, with the front wheels 14 as non-driven (free) wheels and the rear wheels 16 as driven wheels. " in par. 0027);
a working unit supported by the robot body (see at least " A work unit, e.g., a mower blade (rotary blade) 20, is attached near the middle of the chassis 12a of the vehicle 10, and an electric motor (hereinafter called “work motor”) 22 is installed above it. The blade 20 is connected to the electric motor 22 to be driven to rotate by the electric motor 22. " in par. 0026);
a height adjustment unit configured to change a height level of the working unit relative to the robot body (see at least " Moreover, as shown in FIG. 1, the blade 20 is provided with a blade height adjustment motor 100 for vertically adjusting the height of the blade 20 from ground surface GR. " in par. 0062);
an input unit configured to receive an input from a user (see at least " a desired mowing height setting unit (or setting means) 44a2" in par. 0068); and
a control unit, wherein the control unit is configured to execute an autonomous operation (see at least " Based on the inputted data, the ECU 44 controls operation of the vehicle 10 by supplying current to the drive motor 26 from the battery 32 and by sending commands thereto through the I/O 44b. An external device (e.g., smartphone) 100 operable by the user can be made connectable to the ECU 44 as indicated by imaginary lines in FIG. 3. " in par. 0038) including:
a working process of causing the working unit to work while moving the robot body by the movement unit (see at least " In work mode, the vehicle 10 works (mows lawn or grass) while autonomously navigating in the working area AR. " in par. 0056); and
a height adjustment process of causing the height adjustment unit to adjust the height level of the working unit relative to the robot body in multiple steps (see at least " The reasoning in this embodiment is to assume that the lawn in the working area AR grew to the higher level by the time the main switch 64 was first turned ON in spring. Specifically, a situation in which actual lawn height is 60 mm and inputted user's set mowing height is 30 mm is taken as a premise, and the lawn mowing work in such a situation is assumed to be that of working for 3 days, 1 day and 2 days, for example, while successively lowering height in steps of 5 mm, 10 mm or the like to complete lowering to the set mowing height in 12 days. " in par. 0072 and “The lowering in small increments of 5 mm, for instance, is for cutting grass into fine pieces that immediately drop between and become buried among the individual lawn grass plants. In other words, it is to avoid cutting of large segments that become left to rot after dropping.” In par. 0073), and
the control unit is configured to execute the height adjustment process based on an input value input to the input unit. (see at least " Next, in S102, lawn mowing is performed at the set mowing height inputted by the user (30 mm) (i.e., the desired mowing height is set to 30 mm and the height of the blade 20 from the ground surface GR is also regulated to 30 mm), whereafter the program goes to S104 to determine whether load while working is great, namely, above a predetermined value. " in par. 0085 and “When the result in S104 is NO, the program returns to S102, and when YES, goes to S106 to raise mowing height by 10 mm. Namely, the desired mowing height is set to 40 mm and height of the blade 20 from the ground surface GR is also regulated to 40 mm.” in par. 0087)
Regarding Claim 4, Yamamura teaches:
4. The working robot according to claim 2, wherein
the height adjustment process includes:
a first height adjustment process of causing the height adjustment unit to set the height level of the working unit relative to the robot body to an initial height level (see at least "Next, in S12, work is performed at the highest mowing height, namely, is carried out at a higher level (e.g., 60 mm) than the set mowing height inputted by the user (e.g., 30 mm). In other words, a desired mowing height of 60 mm, namely, one higher than the set mowing height, is set and height of the blade 20 from ground surface GR is also regulated to 60 mm." in par. 0071) ; and
a second height adjustment process of causing the height adjustment unit to change the height level of the working unit relative to the robot body from the initial height level to a target height level (see at least "Next, in S36, it is again determined whether the set mowing height has not yet been reached, and when the result is YES, the program returns to S18 to repeat the foregoing processing. When the result in S36 is NO, the program goes to S38, in which the set mowing height is maintained. In other words, the desired mowing height is set to the set mowing height and the height of the blade 20 from the ground surface GR is also regulated to the set mowing height." in par. 0081) , and
the input value includes at least one of the initial height level and the target height level. (see at least "Next, in S12, work is performed at the highest mowing height, namely, is carried out at a higher level (e.g., 60 mm) than the set mowing height inputted by the user (e.g., 30 mm). In other words, a desired mowing height of 60 mm, namely, one higher than the set mowing height, is set and height of the blade 20 from ground surface GR is also regulated to 60 mm." in par. 0071)
Regarding Claim 5, Yamamura teaches:
5. The working robot according to claim 4, wherein
the control unit is configured to execute the second height adjustment process in multiple steps such that the height level of the working unit relative to the robot body is changed in multiple steps from the initial height level to the target height level (see at least "Next, in S14, it is determined whether work was performed for three days, and when the result is NO, the program returns to S12 to continue the aforesaid work. The repetition of the processing from S12 to S14 results in completion of three days' work as planned." in par. 0075) , and
each time a step included in the multiple steps of the second height adjustment process is completed, the control unit executes the working process until a predetermined condition is satisfied and then starts a next step of the second height adjustment process. (see at least " When the result in S14 becomes YES upon completion of three days' work, the program goes to S16 to determine whether the set mowing height established by the user has not yet been reached. In the first program loop, which starts from a height of 60 mm, this determination is of course YES, but if it should become NO after a number of program loops, the remaining processing steps are skipped." in par. 0076)
Regarding Claim 6, Yamamura teaches:
6. The working robot according to claim 5, wherein
in each step of the second height adjustment process, the control unit causes the height adjustment unit to change the height level of the working unit relative to the robot body by a predetermined distance. (see at least " When the result in S16 is YES, the program goes to S18, in which, as mentioned earlier, mowing height is lowered by 5 mm. In other words, the desired mowing height is set at 55 mm and height of the blade 20 from ground surface GR is also regulated to 55 mm. Next, in S20 and S22, one day's work is performed at the mowing height lowered by 5 mm." in par. 0077)
Regarding Claim 7, Yamamura teaches:
7. The working robot according to claim 5, wherein
the control unit is configured to acquire a working field area, and
the predetermined condition includes a condition based on the working field area (see at least " The reasoning in this embodiment is to assume that the lawn in the working area AR grew to the higher level by the time the main switch 64 was first turned ON in spring. Specifically, a situation in which actual lawn height is 60 mm and inputted user's set mowing height is 30 mm is taken as a premise, and the lawn mowing work in such a situation is assumed to be that of working for 3 days, 1 day and 2 days, for example, while successively lowering height in steps of 5 mm, 10 mm or the like to complete lowering to the set mowing height in 12 days." in par. 0072).
Regarding Claim 8, Yamamura teaches:
8. The working robot according to claim 7, wherein
the predetermined condition includes a condition that a duration during which the working unit works after a step included in the multiple steps of the second height adjustment process is completed exceeds a working duration threshold determined based on the working field area. (see at least "Next, in S14, it is determined whether work was performed for three days, and when the result is NO, the program returns to S12 to continue the aforesaid work. The repetition of the processing from S12 to S14 results in completion of three days' work as planned." in par. 0075)
Regarding Claim 10, Yamamura teaches:
10. The working robot according to claim 4, wherein
the working unit comprises a blade configured to mow a lawn (see at least " A work unit, e.g., a mower blade (rotary blade) 20, is attached near the middle of the chassis 12a of the vehicle 10, and an electric motor (hereinafter called “work motor”) 22 is installed above it. The blade 20 is connected to the electric motor 22 to be driven to rotate by the electric motor 22. " in par. 0026),
the target height level is lower than the initial height level, and in the second height adjustment process, the control unit causes the height adjustment unit to lower the height level of the working unit relative to the robot body from the initial height level to the target height level. (see at least "Next, in S12, work is performed at the highest mowing height, namely, is carried out at a higher level (e.g., 60 mm) than the set mowing height inputted by the user (e.g., 30 mm). In other words, a desired mowing height of 60 mm, namely, one higher than the set mowing height, is set and height of the blade 20 from ground surface GR is also regulated to 60 mm." in par. 0071)
Regarding Claim 11, Yamamura teaches:
11. The working robot according to claim 2, wherein
the input unit includes a body input unit disposed in the robot body (see at least " The vehicle 10 is equipped with a main switch 56 and an emergency stop switch 60 both operable by the user. " in par. 0036).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamura et al (US 20170280623, hereinafter Yamamura) in view of Holgersson et al (US 20180253096, hereinafter Holgersson).
Regarding Claim 9, Yamamura teaches:
9. The working robot according to claim 8, wherein
Yamamura does not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Holgersson does teach:
the control unit stores a threshold table in which a duration threshold is assigned to each of a plurality of area ranges, and when the control unit acquires the working field area, the control unit determines, by referring to the threshold table, a duration threshold assigned to the area range in which the working field area is included as the working duration threshold. (see at least " The method illustrated by FIG. 6 may further comprise identifying respective boundaries on the virtual map of at least one of the determined elevated workload areas, at least one of the determined reduced workload areas, or both 550. The method may further comprise scheduling an operational route, time-schedule, and/or task-schedule for the robotic vehicle based, at least in part, on the virtual map 560. As shown in FIG. 6, the method may further comprise operating the robotic vehicle to remain within the respective identified boundaries on the virtual map in accordance with the scheduled operational route, time-schedule, and/or task-schedule for the robotic vehicle 570. " in par. 0061 and “In some embodiments, the robotic vehicle comprises a mower and the methods may further comprise adjusting a cutting deck height of the mower based at least in part on the actual location of the mower and the virtual map. For example, the method may comprise increasing the cutting deck height when the mower is or will be located in one of the elevated workload areas identified on the virtual map. Similarly, the cutting deck height can be lowered based, at least in part, on the actual location of the mower and the virtual map.” In par. 0063)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robot taught by Yamamura to incorporate the teachings of Holgersson wherein the robot lawn mower follows a schedule to operate in a plurality of areas based on their workload levels. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Holgersson would be to more efficiently schedule the robot mowing operation and ensure it has sufficient charge for high workload areas (see par. 0063)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable 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 closest prior art comes from Yamamura and Holgersson but the prior art does not appear to teach “the control unit causes the height adjustment unit to change the height level of the working unit relative to the robot body when the working robot is located at the charging station, whereas the control unit does not cause the height adjustment unit to change the height level of the working unit relative to the robot body when the working robot is not located at the charging station.” in combination with all of the other limitations in the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN M KATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2776. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs. 8:00-6:00.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. 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.
/DYLAN M KATZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3657