DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's Amendment and Remarks filed on 6/22/2026 and Election filed on 3/3/2026. This Action is made FINAL.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 11 were canceled.
Claims 14-21 were not elected and withdrawn.
Claims 2, 4-7, 9-10, 12-13 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
(A) Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7, filed “Applicant has amended claim 10 to recite "processor". Accordingly, Applicant respectfully asserts that the claims do not invoke an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Reconsideration is respectfully requested” on 6/22/2026, with respect to Claim Interpretation Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive.
As to point (A), the Claim Interpretation Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) of claim 10 has been withdrawn.
(B) Applicant's arguments filed “Independent Claim 2, as amended, provides a meaningful improvement over existing technology by using a power sensor integrated with the cutter of the lawnmower to monitor the power expended by the cutter during operation. The method recited in Claim 2 analyzes the temporal properties of the power data (such as power spikes or rate of change of power) to automatically distinguish between normal grass cutting conditions and conditions where the cutter has a likelihood to strike debris. When the temporal property of the power meets predetermined criteria, the system automatically identifies the location of the debris and presents the location and a recommendation to the user on a map. The concepts in Claim 2 directly leverage the physical operating characteristics of the lawnmower's cutter to detect debris, resulting in faster response times, better interference resistance, and lower hardware costs compared to traditional methods” on 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to point (B), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner further notes the claim merely determined and indicated a location of debris based on gathered data and failed provides a meaningful improvement over existing technology. The process of gathering data, determining result based and gathered data and outputting the result to the user is well known and common in the field.
(C) Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, filed “Applicant thanks Examiner for the indication that Claims 3-8 and 11-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant has amended independent Claim 2 to include subject matter from dependent Claim 3 and independent Claim 10 to include subject matter from dependent Claim 11. Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the rejections of Claims 2 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 be withdrawn” on 6/22/2026, with respect to Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
As to point (C), the Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of 2 and 9-10 has been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-21 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/3/2026.
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 2, 4-7, 9-10, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis-Step 1
Claims 2, 4-7, 9 are directed to A method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 2, 4-7, 9 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis-Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 2 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for reminder of the 101 rejection. Claim 2 recites:
A method comprising:
obtaining position-referenced sensor data generated by an autonomous robot lawnmower as the autonomous robot lawnmower traverses a mowable area, wherein the position-referenced sensor data comprises power data generated by a power sensor of the autonomous robot lawnmower monitoring power expended by a cutter of the autonomous robot lawnmower;
determining, based on the power data, a temporal property of the power;
determining that the temporal property of the power meets predetermined criteria, thereby identifying a location of debris in the mowable area where the cutter has a likelihood to strike an object; and
presenting, on a user interface of a computing device,
a map representing the mowable area,
a marker on the map at the location, and
a recommendation to check the location for the debris.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a "mental process" and/or “certain methods of organizing human activity” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation by a user or in the human mind. For example, “determining, based on the power data, a temporal property of the power” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally calculation based on gathered data. Furthermore, “determining that the temporal property of the power meets predetermined criteria, thereby identifying a location of debris in the mowable area where the cutter has a likelihood to strike an object” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining location of debris based on gathered data. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis-Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole, integrates the abstract into a partial application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
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”):
A method comprising:
obtaining position-referenced sensor data generated by an autonomous robot lawnmower as the autonomous robot lawnmower traverses a mowable area, wherein the position-referenced sensor data comprises power data generated by a power sensor of the autonomous robot lawnmower monitoring power expended by a cutter of the autonomous robot lawnmower;
determining, based on the power data, a temporal property of the power;
determining that the temporal property of the power meets predetermined criteria, thereby identifying a location of debris in the mowable area where the cutter has a likelihood to strike an object; and
presenting, on a user interface of a computing device,
a map representing the mowable area,
a marker on the map at the location, and
a recommendation to check the location for the debris.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “obtaining position-referenced sensor data generated by an autonomous robot lawnmower as the autonomous robot lawnmower traverses a mowable area, wherein the position-referenced sensor data comprises power data generated by a power sensor of the autonomous robot lawnmower monitoring power expended by a cutter of the autonomous robot lawnmower”, the examiner submits that these limitations are mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05). In particular, “obtaining position-referenced sensor data” indicate pre-solution activity such that it amounts no more than a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process.
Regarding the additional limitations of “presenting, on a user interface of a computing device, a map representing the mowable area, a marker on the map at the location, and a recommendation to check the location for the debris”, the examiner submits that these limitations are mere data outputting in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05). In particular, “presenting, on a user interface of a computing device” indicate post-solution activity such that it amounts no more than a step of outputting data for use in a claimed process.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add no thing that is nor already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2 106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis-Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 2 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation of “obtaining position-referenced sensor data generated by an autonomous robot lawnmower as the autonomous robot lawnmower traverses a mowable area, wherein the position-referenced sensor data comprises power data generated by a power sensor of the autonomous robot lawnmower monitoring power expended by a cutter of the autonomous robot lawnmower” and “presenting, on a user interface of a computing device, a map representing the mowable area, a marker on the map at the location, and a recommendation to check the location for the debris”, the examiner submits that the limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the at least one abstract idea as previously discussed.
Hence the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claim(s) 2 is/are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites “determining that the temporal property of the power” which further narrowing the abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites “the threshold power value is based on an amount of power corresponding to mowing the mowable area with a defined grass height” which further narrowing the abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites “the threshold power value is a defined multiple of an average power expended while mowing” which further narrowing the abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites “determining that the temporal property of the power” which further narrowing the abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites further narrowing limitation on the “obtaining the position-referenced sensor data comprises: receiving sensor data and position data from the autonomous robot lawnmower at a server remote from the autonomous robot lawnmower; and generating the position-referenced sensor data at the server based on the sensor data and the position data” which is merely insignificant extra solution activity and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As per independent claim 10, it recites One or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions that, when executed by a processor device, cause the processor to perform operations having limitations similar to those of claim 2 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per dependent claims 12-13, it recites One or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations having limitations similar to those of claims 4, 7 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2, 4-7, 9-10, 12-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The features “obtaining position-referenced sensor data generated by an autonomous robot lawnmower as the autonomous robot lawnmower traverses a mowable area, wherein the position-referenced sensor data comprises power data generated by a power sensor of the autonomous robot lawnmower monitoring power expended by a cutter of the autonomous robot lawnmower”, “determining, based on the power data, a temporal property of the power”, and “determining that the temporal property of the power meets predetermined criteria, thereby identifying a location of debris in the mowable area where the cutter has a likelihood to strike an object” in claims 2 and 10 when taken in the context of the claims as a whole, were not uncovered in the prior art teachings. In particular, determining the location of the debris is based on the power expended by the cutter of lawnmower is not disclosed in the prior art.
Claims 4-7, 9, 12-13 would be allowable based on the dependence on claims 2 and 10 therefor inheriting the allowable subject matter disclosed in claim 2 and 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Grufman (US20170364090A1) disclosed a method for recording data from at least one sensor of a robotic vehicle responsive to the robotic vehicle transiting a portion of a parcel and determining a confidence score associated with the recorded data for each of a plurality of potential detection events. The confidence score may correspond to a probability that the recorded data corresponds to an object or feature.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENYUAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/W.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
7/13/26
Prosecution Insights