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
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments/Remarks filed 6/30/2026. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 10-15, 18-25 is/are pending.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 of the most recent Office action have been removed due to Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 10-15, 18-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim(s) 1, and similarly claims 14-15, the limitation(s) “the autonomous working apparatus adapted to perform at least one working task in a working area, the working area includes at least a first working area and a second working area, and the autonomous working apparatus is configured to be transported from the first working area to the second working area by a transport vehicle” (emphasis added) that is/are not described in sufficient detail in the specification as filed such that that one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably conclude that the inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. This limitation describes that the “autonomous working apparatus” is transported by the “transport vehicle” from a “first working area” to a “second working area”, where the two working areas are comprised by a “working area” that the “autonomous working apparatus…perform[s]…one working task”. However, the application as filed does not describe that the “transport vehicle” is located inside a “first working area” of the “working area”, as claimed. Rather, the specification describes that the “transport vehicle” is located outside of the working area [0048, 0051]. Similarly, the specification describes that the “preset parking position” (which can be the position of the “transport vehicle”) is located outside of the working area [0047-0048, 0052, 0053, 0056, 0067]. Thus, the limitation(s) constitute(s) new matter.
Dependent claims inherit rejections of the claims they depend upon.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 10-15, 18-25 is/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.
Regarding claim(s) 1, and similarly claims 14-15, the term “dynamically” of the limitation "dynamically plan a planned path…and controlling the autonomous working apparatus to travel along the planned path to the preset position" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term " dynamically " is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, the specification describes that “the autonomous working apparatus autonomously travels to the preset position” [0033]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an autonomous vehicle plans its path, but the specifications does not explain what the limitation “dynamically” means in regards to the path planning, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be apprised of the scope of the limitation. Stated another way, how would the limitation "dynamically plan a planned path…and controlling the autonomous working apparatus to travel along the planned path to the preset position" differ from a limitation "". Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Dependent claims inherit rejections of the claims they depend upon.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMELIA VORCE whose telephone number is (313) 446-4917. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9AM-6PM, Central Time.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/AMELIA VORCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights