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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/2/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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:
Claims 8-14: obtaining unit, identifying unit, first generation unit, second generation unit, mowing unit (MCU/single chip microcomputer or software stored thereon [0019])
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 4-7, 18-20 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.
Claims 4 and 18 recite “a mowing trend” in a second instance while the first instance is provided in the independent claim(s). It is unclear if this second instance of this element is the same or distinct from the first instance. For purposes of examination the second instance of “a mowing trend” will be interpreted as being the same as the first instance. Claims 5-7 and 19-20 do not cure the deficiencies and are thus similarly rejected.
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 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 15 recites "a memory" which can be interpreted as transitory waves. Claims 16-20 do not cure the deficiency and are thus similarly rejected.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160174459A1 ("Balutis") in view of US20200275604A1 ("Chen") and CN110879596A ("Li", English machine translation provided).
As per claims 1, 8, and 15 Balutis teaches:
Generating a spiral mowing route corresponding to a first region and generating a square wave-shaped mowing route corresponding to a second region; in response to a mowing trigger request for a robotic lawn mower, performing a mowing operation in the mowing region according to the spiral mowing route and the square wave-shaped mowing route. (Balutis at least the abstract, [0079]: “The movement pattern can be, for example, a spiral pattern, a corn row pattern, zig-zag pattern, etc. A user can select a desired movement pattern for each of the lawn areas and different patterns may be selected for different areas of the same lawn.”) *Examiner’s note: square wave-shaped is interpreted as being at least a zig zag pattern or equivalent.
Balutis does not disclose:
obtaining a preset mowing region; identifying a first region and a second region in the mowing region according to a preset spiral mowing mode, wherein the first region is a spiral mowing region
Chen teaches the aforementioned limitations (Chen at least [0236]: ” the mowable area 54 may also be divided into a plurality of closed sub mowable areas 541, and the sub mowable areas 541 are operated separately. Specifically, when the mowing path generation module 424 detects that the currently acquired mowable area 54 is irregular, and that the first virtual boundary 513 and the second virtual boundary 514 cannot be established, then the mowable area 54 is divided into a plurality of sub mowable areas 541, and the divided sub mowable areas 541 are morphological sections of different shapes and sizes, such as a combination of a rectangle and a semicircle. The sub mowable areas 541 can each generate a first boundary 511 and a second boundary 512, a first virtual boundary 513 and a second virtual boundary 514, and determine the mowing path 53 to control the intelligent lawn mower 20 to work along mowing path ”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Balutis with the aforementioned limitations taught by Chen with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve the efficiency of an intelligent mowing system and reduce the occurrence of a repeat cut (Chen [0008]).
Balutis does not disclose:
generating a square wave-shaped mowing route corresponding to the second region based on a mowing trend corresponding to the spiral mowing route
the first region surrounds the second region
Li teaches the aforementioned limitations (Li at least FIG. 2, FIG. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
622
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Balutis with the aforementioned limitations taught by Li with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to “realize effective traversal of the operation area” (Li).
As per claims 2, 9, and 16 Balutis in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Balutis does not disclose:
the generating the spiral mowing route corresponding to the first region comprises: obtaining a preset mowing direction, and a region information of the mowing region; and generating the spiral mowing route corresponding to the first region based on the mowing direction, the region information, and a region boundary of the first region.
Li teaches the aforementioned limitations (Li at least FIG. 2, FIG. 5, “combined planning algorithm based on model constraint comprises the following steps: firstly, traversing the periphery of the operation area by utilizing spiral type contraction traversal, switching a planning algorithm when the minimum traversal condition is not met, and adopting an optimized linear circulation propulsion covering method for the internal non-traversed area so as to complete the traversal of the whole operation area.”). *Examiner’s note: in both FIGs. 2 and 5 the path starts going clockwise.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Balutis with the aforementioned limitations taught by Li with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 1.
As per claims 3, 10, 17 Balutis in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Balutis does not disclose:
wherein the generating the spiral mowing route corresponding to the first region based on the mowing direction, the region information, and the region boundary of the first region comprises: determining a first turning point based on the mowing direction and the region boundary of the first region; and generating the spiral mowing route corresponding to the first region based on the first turning point, the region information, and the preset mowing direction.
Li teaches the aforementioned limitations (Li at least FIGs 2, 5, “step 2.1: traversing the outermost layer operation area to generate an initial planning path, wherein the number of the circulating points is the number of planning points in the path; step 2.2: generating a new planning point by taking a known point in the planning path as a reference point;”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Balutis with the aforementioned limitations taught by Li with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 1.
As per claims 4, 11, 18 Balutis in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Balutis does not disclose:
wherein the generating the square wave- shaped mowing route corresponding to the second region based on a mowing trend corresponding to the spiral mowing route comprises: outputting a target mowing direction corresponding to the square wave-shaped mowing route based on the mowing trend corresponding to the spiral mowing route and a region boundary of the second region; and generating the square wave-shaped mowing route corresponding to the second region based on the target mowing direction.
Li teaches the aforementioned limitations (Li at least FIGs. 2, 6, “step 3.2: determining the current traversing traveling direction according to the path planning result in the step 2;”). *Examiner’s note: Li FIG. 2 and specification teaches the spiral route being used to cover the working area until the remaining area cannot be covered by the spiral route turning parameters and is taken over by a zig-zag pattern to cover the remaining area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Balutis with the aforementioned limitations taught by Li with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 1.
As per claims 5, 12, 19 Balutis in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Balutis does not disclose:
wherein the outputting the target mowing direction corresponding to the square wave-shaped mowing route based on the mowing trend corresponding to the spiral mowing route and the region boundary of the second region comprises: determining a longest region boundary among the region boundaries of the second region as a target boundary; and outputting the target mowing direction corresponding to the square wave-shaped mowing route based on the mowing trend corresponding to the spiral mowing route and using the target boundary as a reference.
Li teaches the aforementioned limitations (Li at least FIGs. 2, 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Balutis with the aforementioned limitations taught by Li with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 1.
As per claims 6, 13, 20 Balutis in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Balutis does not disclose:
wherein the generating the square wave- shaped mowing route corresponding to the second region based on the target mowing direction comprises: determining a route end point of the spiral mowing route; and determining a second turning point on the region boundary of the second region, and generating the square wave-shaped mowing route corresponding to the second region based on the route end point, the second turning point, and the target mowing direction.
Li teaches the aforementioned limitations (Li at least FIGs 2, 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Balutis with the aforementioned limitations taught by Li with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 1.
As per claims 7, 14 Balutis in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Balutis does not disclose:
wherein the generating the square wave- shaped mowing route corresponding to the second region based on the target mowing direction comprises: determining a route end point of the spiral mowing route; determining a route start point which is located within a preset range from the route end point and is away from the second region; determining a third turning point based on the region boundary of the second region; and generating, based on the route start point, the third turning point, and the target mowing direction, the square wave-shaped mowing route covering at least a part of the spiral mowing route.
Li teaches the aforementioned limitations (Li at least FIG. 2 annotated below). *Examiner’s note: the preset range between the route end point and route start point is at least coincident/zero in the Li embodiment. The zig-zag route start point being away from the second region is interpreted as being at least not in the un-mowed interior and part of the already mowed spiral route region.
PNG
media_image2.png
622
658
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Balutis with the aforementioned limitations taught by Li with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669