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 .
Introduction
Claims 1-12 are currently pending in this application and are subject to examination herein.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria Step 1
Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework considers whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention – method/process, machine/apparatus, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to a method. Accordingly, the independent claims is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria Step 2A
Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework considers whether claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea (Prong 1) and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Prong 2).
Step 2A Prong 1
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 update issued by the USPTO as now incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Specifically, independent claim 1 recites the following, with abstract ideas emphasized in bold type. (Additional elements are italicized and analyzed in Prong 2):
Claim 1. A collaborative operation method for multiple mowing robots, comprising:
acquiring, by sensors, state data of a mowing robot, environment and operation region data, and task execution data, and sending the state data of the mowing robot, environment and operation region data, and task execution data to a computer;
wherein the state data comprises:
an electric capacity or an oil capacity, a blade wearing state, a usage duration, a present position and a present speed;
the environment and operation region data comprises:
positions and boundaries of workplaces, a type, a density and a growing state of a lawn, terrain information, and a weather condition; and
the task execution data comprises:
task completion time, an energy consumption record and a mowing quality feedback;
establishing, by the computer, according to the environment and operation region data, the state data of the mowing robot, state data of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), starting point information of the mowing robot, and starting point information of the UAV, a complete map information of the workplaces with a traveling-salesman path method,
wherein the complete map information of the workplaces comprises:
information of an obstacle; and
the complete map information of the workplaces is used to determine an assignment result for the UAV and the mowing robot;
performing, by the computer, multi-region segmentation according to the complete map information of the workplaces;
determining, by the computer, costs of different tasks according to segmented regions, the state data of the mowing robot and the task execution data, and determining, by the computer, an optimal cost solution with a Hungarian algorithm;
sending, by the computer, the optimal cost solution to the mowing robot; and
performing, by the mowing robot, in response to an unmanned mode, a collaborative operation according to the optimal cost solution; and
performing, by the mowing robot, in response to a manned mode, a corresponding collaborative operation according to a comparison result between the optimal cost solution and a historical assignment result.
The above limitation(s) in bold type constitute “a mental process” because it is/they are an observation/evaluation/judgment/analysis that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper) and a “mathematical calculation” because it is an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number.
In regards to the mental process or mathematical calculations recited by
“establishing, by the computer, according to the environment and operation region data, the state data of the mowing robot, state data of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), starting point information of the mowing robot, and starting point information of the UAV, a complete map information of the workplaces with a traveling-salesman path method; . . . ” “performing, by the computer, multi-region segmentation according to the complete map information of the workplaces;” and “determining, by the computer, costs of different tasks according to segmented regions, the state data of the mowing robot and the task execution data, and determining, by the computer, an optimal cost solution with a Hungarian algorithm;” a person can complete the establishing, the multi-region segmentation and the determining steps in their mind or using pen and paper
performing, by the computer, multi-region segmentation according to the complete map information of the workplaces; and determining, by the computer, costs of different tasks according to segmented regions, the state data of the mowing robot and the task execution data, and determining, by the computer, an optimal cost solution with a Hungarian algorithm; this relates to a series of mathematical operations being performed to clean the data, such as addition, subtraction, division, or normalization operations.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
For the following reasons, the above-identified additional limitations, which are indicated in the italicized portions, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of
performing, by the mowing robot, in response to an unmanned mode, a collaborative operation according to the optimal cost solution; and
performing, by the mowing robot, in response to a manned mode, a corresponding collaborative operation according to a comparison result between the optimal cost solution and a historical assignment result;
these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea amounting to merely instructions for implementation equivalent to “apply it” without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitations of:
acquiring, by sensors, state data of a mowing robot, environment and operation region data, and task execution data, and sending the state data of the mowing robot, environment and operation region data, and task execution data to a computer [with listed limitations on the data gathered]; and
sending, by the computer, the optimal cost solution to the mowing robot;
these additional limitations merely add insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering and data outputting) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2). Therefore, taken either alone or in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
For these reasons, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, claim 1 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 reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of:
performing, by the mowing robot, in response to an unmanned mode, a collaborative operation according to the optimal cost solution; and
performing, by the mowing robot, in response to a manned mode, a corresponding collaborative operation according to a comparison result between the optimal cost solution and a historical assignment result,
these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea amounting to merely instructions for implementation equivalent to “apply it” without significantly more (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitations of
acquiring, by sensors, state data of a mowing robot, environment and operation region data, and task execution data, and sending the state data of the mowing robot, environment and operation region data, and task execution data to a computer [with listed limitations on the data gathered]; and sending, by the computer, the optimal cost solution to the mowing robot;
these additional limitations have been reevaluated, and it has been determined that such limitations are well understood, routine, and conventional as they merely consist of data gathering and data outputting which are recited at a high level of generality. See OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); or buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Thus, claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims 2 through 13 do not provide additional elements or a practical application to become eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-4 and 7-9 merely add additional math limitations to the establishing and cost calculating steps. Thus, none of claims 1-12 amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Each of Claims 6 and 10-12 recite “wherein the memory is a computer-readable storage medium.” The terms “memory” and “computer-readable storage medium” as used in these claims are synonyms and the term “computer-readable storage medium” fails to further limit the “memory” of the claims from which they depend. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Pat. Nos. 11,510,361 to Matus et al.; 12,414,500 to Holgersson et al.; 12,277,521 to Kawai et al.; 10,791,684 to He et al.; 12,197,203 to Holgerson et al.; 12,045,647 to Dalfra; and U.S. Pat. Pub. Nos. 2016/0157422 to Kohler et al.; and 2019/0230850 Johnson et al. relate to systems and methods for monitoring and controlling multiple gardening/mowing robots. European Pat. Pub. No. EP 3135441 A1 to Krohne et al. relates to a method of fulfilling tasks by a swarm of modularized robots. U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0301536 to Baggs et al.; and Int’l. Pat. Pub. No. WO 2016/165793 A1 to Viel relate to methods and systems for monitoring and controlling ground-/surface-based robots and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). U.S. Pat. No. 11,161,246 to Liu et al. relates to a robot path planning method using optimal cost estimation algorithms. U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0113927 to Englard et al. relates to a method for controlling an autonomous vehicle using cost maps. U.S. Pat. No. 11,044,842 to Graf Plessen relates to a method for path planning for area coverage. Int’l. Pat. Pub. No. WO 2022/132022 A1 to Jonsson et al. relate to robots, systems and methods for coordinated processing of concrete surfaces. Chaimowicz, et al., Aerial Shepherds: Coordination among UAVs and Swarms of Robots, Distributed Autonomous Robotic Systems 6. Springer Japan, 2007. pp. 243-252. (Year: 2007) discloses systems and methods for using UAVs to monitor, control and coordinate ground-based robots.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAUDE J BROWN whose telephone number is (571)270-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8AM-5PM.
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, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at (571) 272-8971. 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.
/CLAUDE J BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights