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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 1/5/2025 and 8/1/2025 have been acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 10/4/2023.
Title Objections
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Status of Application
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claims 1 and 10 are the independent claims.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
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
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"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that certain claims contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f). Each such limitation will be discussed in turn as follows:
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112(f)
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, (f) 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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-19 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “determining” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-19 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-19 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-19 all recite repeatedly determining (S100) a position of the robotic mower (2) by means of a positioning unit (8). In the specification, the corresponding structure states “a Real-Time Kinematic, RTK, unit, a Global Positioning System, GPS, unit, or a Differential Global Navigation Satellite Systems, DGNSS, unit or any suitable combination thereof” [Specification ¶ 0028].
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Specification Objections
The specification has typos that need to be corrected.
For example, in paragraph 0028 it states “a Real-Time Kinematic, RTK, unit, a Global Positioning System, GPS, unit, or a Differential Global Navigation Satellite Systems, DGNSS, unit or any suitable combination thereof” and what is singled out “units” and further there appears to be too many commas? Further is a Global Positioning System different than a GPS and if so, what is the difference? When the Office reads through this, it appears to be a machine translation and extra commas were added in. These specification errors, as stated above need to be corrected.
This Office strongly suggests going through the entire specification, as the machine translation was not good, and looking for similar errors as the above listed errors, as the above list was exemplary in nature and by no means exhaustive. Appropriate action is required.
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 7 and 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 states “with a fixed frequency of 8 to 12 Hz, preferably with a fixed frequency of 10 Hz” and the metes and bounds of this limitation are unclear, thus indefinite. First, what is preferably mean? Do the claims require 10 HZ or not? As currently presented, only positively citing the actual required metes and bounds is proper and desires do not carry patentable weight. Further is the frequency moving between 8-12, or is any possible frequency between 8-12 Hz? Is this a translation error? The claims state fixed, yet state having a range is unclear, as this might change, thus not be fixed. As currently presented, Claim 7 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. The Office is going to interpret this as any single fixed frequency. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 16 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 7.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Regarding Claim 19, the preamble recites a “A computer program (18) comprising computer program code, the computer program
Code…". In light of the instant specification on ¶ 0048, the program appears to comprise software elements. None of the comprising elements of the claimed system appear to be physical components. Therefore the “program” of Claim 19 is computer software per se and is not a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter" as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP 2106.03 I.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 10, 12-14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Juel (United States Patent Publication 2022/0124973).
With respect to Claim 10: Juel discloses “A robotic mower (2) for performing navigating within a work area (4)” [Juel, ¶ 0002, 0042 with Figures 1 and 3 (robotic lawn mowers)];
“wherein the work area (4) is limited by a boundary (6)” [Juel, ¶ 0048 with Figure 5 (The robotic tool may also comprise a magnetic field sensor 39 configured to detect a magnetic field emitted by a boundary wire (not shown) defining the perimeter of the work area 12. A boundary wire may be used for defining the boundaries of the area 12 to be treated, or to otherwise provide a reference to assist the robotic tool 14 to navigate)];
“the robotic mower (2) comprising a positioning unit (8)” [Juel, ¶ 0050 with Figure 5 (The navigation system 34 further comprises a positioning device 42 configured as a GNSS signal receiver connected to a GNSS antenna 44. The positioning device 42 is configured to receive a GNSS positioning signal from the navigation satellites 17a-d (FIG. 1), and to receive an RTK correction signal from the base station 16. Based on the received signals, the positioning device 42 determines the robotic tool's position in relation to the boundary 13 (FIG. 1))];
“a dead reckoning sensor (10)” [Juel, ¶ 0046 with Figure 5 (the navigation system 34 comprises a dead reckoning device 36, which comprises one or several inertial navigation sensors 38 such as an accelerometer and/or a gyroscope. The dead reckoning device 36 allows the robotic tool 14 to keep track of its movement within the area 12 to be treated)];
“a controller (12) comprising a processor (14) and a memory (16)” [Juel, ¶ 0024-0025 and 0044 (a central processing device executing instructions stored on a memory)];
“the memory (16) comprising instructions which when executed by the processer (14) causes the mower to” [Juel, ¶ 0024-0025 and 0044 (a central processing device executing instructions stored on a memory)];
“repeatedly determine a position of the robotic mower (2) by means of the positioning unit (8)” [Juel, ¶ 0052 with Figure 5 (While the robotic tool 14 navigates within the work area 12, the positioning device 42 (FIG. 3) continuously keeps track of the positioning status, including the current position P and current heading H, of the robotic tool)];
“navigate the robotic mower (2) within the work area (4) based on the determined position” [Juel, ¶ 0052-0054 with Figure 5 (While the robotic tool 14 navigates within the work area 12, the positioning device 42 (FIG. 3) continuously keeps track of the positioning status, including the current position P and current heading H, of the robotic tool)];
“determine that a new position of the robotic mower (2) cannot be accurately obtained” [Juel, ¶ 0052-0054 with Figure 5 (the positioning device 42 may become unable to determine the present position P. This may be the case, for example, when GNSS reception is shadowed by a tree, such that the positioning signals of an insufficient number of navigation satellites 17a-d can be received)];
“determine a position uncertainty distance (R) based on the positions obtained by the positioning unit (8) and the dead reckoning sensor (10)” [Juel, ¶ 0056-0061, 0072 with Figure 5 (the positioning device 42 may become unable to determine the present position P. This may be the case, for example, when GNSS reception is shadowed by a tree, such that the positioning signals of an insufficient number of navigation satellites 17a-d can be received. This may pose a problem because, if the robotic tool 14 is unable to determine that it is within the work area, present safety standards require it to stop. However, thanks to having determined a maximum dead reckoning navigation distance, the robotic tool 14 may be allowed to continue operating until it has reached the maximum dead reckoning navigation distance)];
“calculate a distance (D) to the closest boundary (6)” [Juel, ¶ 0053, 0056-0061, 0072 with Figure 5 (the positioning device 42 may become unable to determine the present position P. This may be the case, for example, when GNSS reception is shadowed by a tree, such that the positioning signals of an insufficient number of navigation satellites 17a-d can be received. This may pose a problem because, if the robotic tool 14 is unable to determine that it is within the work area, present safety standards require it to stop. However, thanks to having determined a maximum dead reckoning navigation distance, the robotic tool 14 may be allowed to continue operating until it has reached the maximum dead reckoning navigation distance)];
“determine a navigation margin as the difference between the distance (D) to the closest boundary (6) and the position uncertainty distance (R)” [Juel, ¶ 0053, 0056-0061 with Figure 5 (the positioning device 42 may become unable to determine the present position P. This may be the case, for example, when GNSS reception is shadowed by a tree, such that the positioning signals of an insufficient number of navigation satellites 17a-d can be received. This may pose a problem because, if the robotic tool 14 is unable to determine that it is within the work area, present safety standards require it to stop. However, thanks to having determined a maximum dead reckoning navigation distance, the robotic tool 14 may be allowed to continue operating until it has reached the maximum dead reckoning navigation distance)];
“and execute a safety operation if the navigation margin equals a predetermined value” [Juel, ¶ 0004, 0056-0062, 0072 with Figure 5 (there are several different alternatives for determining the distance value, and for executing the safety operation)].
With respect to Claim 12: Juel discloses “The robotic mower (2) according to claim 10, wherein the robotic mower (2) is further configured to execute the safety operation according to any one of stopping the robotic mower (2) to move, stopping the robotic mower (2) to move more than a robotic mower (2) length outside the boundary, and reversing or turning the robotic mower (2) for navigating the robotic mower (2) in the direction from the boundary ( 6) or any combination thereof” [Juel, ¶ 0004, 0019, and 0062 with Figure 5 (the safety operation may be to stop the robotic tool 14, or to perform any other safety operation as suggested herein)].
With respect to Claim 13: Juel discloses “The robotic mower (2) according to claim 10, wherein the distance (D) to the closest boundary (6) is the distance between the position determined by the positioning unit (8) and any one of the substantially closest point on the closest boundary (6), the substantially closest point on the closest boundary (6) in the mowing direction of the robotic mower (2), and the substantially closest point on the closest boundary (6) that the robotic mower (2) risks traversing based on a preplanned trajectory or any combination thereof” [Juel, ¶ 0056-0062 with Figure 5 (estimating a boundary distance value indicative of a distance (D1, D2, D3) from the robotic tool (14) to the boundary (13))].
With respect to Claim 14: Juel discloses “The robotic mower (2) according to claim 10, wherein the positioning unit (8) is any one of a Real-Time Kinematic, RTK, positioning unit, a Global Positioning System, GPS, positioning unit and a Differential Global Navigation Satellite Systems, DGNSS, positioning unit or any combination thereof” [Juel, ¶ 0050 with Figure 5 (The navigation system 34 further comprises a positioning device 42 configured as a GNSS signal receiver connected to a GNSS antenna 44. The positioning device 42 is configured to receive a GNSS positioning signal from the navigation satellites 17a-d (FIG. 1), and to receive an RTK correction signal from the base station 16. Based on the received signals, the positioning device 42 determines the robotic tool's position in relation to the boundary 13 (FIG. 1))].
With respect to Claims 1 and 3-5: all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in Claims 10 and 12-14. The mowing apparatus taught/disclosed in Claims 10 and 12-14 can clearly perform the method of Claims 1 and 3-5. Therefore Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 19: Juel discloses “A computer program (18) comprising computer program code, the computer program code being adapted, if executed by the processor (14) of the controller (12), to implement the method according to claim 1” [Juel, ¶ 0050 with Figures 1 and 3 (Their functionalities may be implemented by hardware, firmware, and/or software in any suitable combination; by way of example, their functions may be partly realized as software within the controller 26)].
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 6-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Juel (United States Patent Publication 2022/0124973).
With respect to Claim 15: While Juel discloses “The robotic mower (2) according to claim 10, wherein the robotic mower (2) is further configured to: repeatedly determine, with a time interval, a position of a RTK base station (22) with a positioning unit provided in the RTK base station (22)” [Juel, ¶ 0004, 0051 and 0070-0072 with Figure 9 (A GNSS signal receiver 60 is configured to receive a GNSS positioning signal from the satellites 17a-d (FIG. 1), and a correction signal transmitter 62 is configured to transmit an RTK correction signal to the robotic tool 14)];
Juel does not specifically state between 5-15 seconds.
First, Juel discloses the Invention except for limitation of “between 5-15 seconds”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to choose any workable range of time for location determination, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges, such as between 5-15 seconds, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Second, It is the Office's stance that selection of a range of between 5-15 seconds for repeatedly determining location, without any explanation of any well-known benefit or a new and unexpected result of choosing between 5-15 seconds, 4-14 seconds, or 2-25 seconds is a mere design choice. Determining locations on repeatedly over time is well known (see Juel) and systems continuously determining locations are also known; further by differentiating the claimed subject matter by an art known feature without reciting a new and unexpected result would be an clear and obvious design choice and involves only routine skill in the art. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of choosing any time range for repeatedly determining location and it would have been obvious and the design choice would have produced predictable results.
With respect to Claim 16: Juel discloses “The robotic mower (2) according to claim 10, wherein the robotic mower (2) is further configured to: determine the positions of the robotic mower (2) with the positioning unit (8) and the dead reckoning sensor (10) with a fixed frequency of 8 to 12 Hz, preferably with a fixed frequency of 10 Hz.” [Juel, ¶ 0056-0063 and 0070-0072 with Figures 5 and 9 (method then repeats from the start)].
First, Juel discloses the Invention except for limitation of “frequency of 8 to 12 Hz”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to choose any workable frequency for determining position, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges, such as between a “frequency of 8 to 12 Hz”, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Second, It is the Office's stance that selection of a frequency of 8 to 12 Hz for repeatedly determining location, without any explanation of any well-known benefit or a new and unexpected result of choosing frequency of 8 to 12 Hz , 9 to 23 HZ or any other possible range is a mere design choice. Determining locations on repeatedly over time is well known (see Juel) and systems continuously determining locations are also known; further by differentiating the claimed subject matter by an art known feature without reciting a new and unexpected result would be an clear and obvious design choice and involves only routine skill in the art. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of choosing any time frequency for repeatedly determining location and it would have been obvious and the design choice would have produced predictable results.
With respect to Claims 6-7: all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in Claims 15-16. The mowing apparatus taught/disclosed in Claims 15-16 can clearly perform the method of Claims 6-7. Therefore Claims 6-7 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 17-18 are 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.
Claims 2 and 8-9 are 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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c