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 .
Claims 1-17 are pending.
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: “operation unit”, “traveling unit”, “target detection unit”, “operation mode switching unit”, “obstacle detection unit”, “detection area switching unit”, “form switching unit”, “work unit”, “disinfection unit”, “imaging unit”, “safety monitoring unit”, and “control unit” in claims 1-16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “operation unit”, “target detection unit”, “operation mode switching unit”, “obstacle detection unit”, “detection area switching unit”, “form switching unit”, “work unit”, “imaging unit”, “safety monitoring unit” and “control unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions.
Paragraph [0020] of the specification as filed indicates a “robot arm 102 is an example of an operation unit,” however it is not clear if a robotic arm is the only structure corresponding to the term “operation unit”, or if there are other corresponding structures.
Paragraph [0031] indicates “The hot-water pipe detection sensors 110 are provided as an example of a target detection unit,” and paragraph [0134] lists various other possible embodiments of the target detection unit and further states, with respect to the structure of the target detection unit, “various configurations can be applied as long as the target can be detected by using some method.” The specification does not particularly point out the corresponding structure such that the metes and bounds of the claim are clearly defined.
The operation mode switching unit is functionally described at paragraph [0053], no corresponding structure is disclosed.
Paragraph [0030] indicates “The obstacle detection sensors 109 are provided as an example of an obstacle detection unit for detecting an obstacle present around the robot main body 101.” It is not clear if the obstacle detection sensors are the only structures corresponding to the term “obstacle detection unit”, or if there are other corresponding structures.
The detection area switching unit is functionally described at paragraph [0054], no corresponding structure is disclosed.
The form switching unit is functionally described at paragraphs [0066 and 0069], no corresponding structure is disclosed.
Paragraph [0021] indicates “the harvest tool 103 is provided as an example of a work unit that performs harvesting operation of the crops T” and “The work unit that can be included in the robot arm 102 is not limited to the harvest tool 103, and may be, for example, a tool for performing agricultural work other than a harvesting operation or a tool for performing work other than agricultural work.” This open-ended description does not link a specific structure to the claimed work unit.
Paragraph [0022] indicates “The camera 104 is an example of an imaging unit.” It is not clear if the camera is the only structure corresponding to the imaging unit, or if there are other possible examples of an imaging unit.
The safety monitoring unit is functionally described at paragraph [0052], no corresponding structure is disclosed.
The specification does not provide a description of the structure corresponding to the claimed “control unit”.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vicenti (US Publication No. 2016/0271795).
Vicenti teaches:
Re claim 17. A self-propelled work robot comprising:
at least one processor (controller circuit 190, Fig. 1C);
a robot main body provided with the at least one processor (body 2, Fig 1A);
a traveling device including a wheel and configured to cause the robot main body to travel (wheel modules 108a-b, Fig. 1B); and
at least one memory storing computer program code, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the self-propelled work robot to (memory storage element 195, Fig. 1C; and paragraph [0061]: “The memory storage element 195 further includes behaviors for the robot 100 that cooperate with the modules 198a-198c to perform SLAM techniques. The controller 190 can execute behaviors that implement one of or combinations of the modules and use the data collected by the modules to map the environment and regularly re-localize the robot 100 to the map of the environment. The behaviors include WALL FOLLOWING behavior, COVERAGE behavior, and RE-LOCALIZATION behavior.”):
operate in a plurality of operation modes (paragraph [0061]: “The behaviors include WALL FOLLOWING behavior, COVERAGE behavior, and RE-LOCALIZATION behavior.”);
detect a predetermined target (paragraph [0069: “(iii) upon sensing a bumper sensor event consistent with the geometric contours of the landmark”); and
switch among the operation modes according to a state of the target as detected (paragraph [0075]: “After contacting the landmark, the controller 190 can proceed to WALL FOLLOWING behavior.” Switch from Re-Localization Behavior to Wall Following behavior according to the landmark being detected at the suspected physical location.), wherein
the target extends along a direction in which the robot main body travels with the traveling device (paragraph [0075]: “The robot 100 proceeds to follow the surfaces or edges of the obstacle, wall or structure that triggered the bumper switches 117L and 117R” A wall extends along a direction in which the robot body travels while performing a wall following behavior.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER D PATTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571)272-6919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SPENCER D PATTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656