DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 7/7/2026. In the amendment, claims 1 and 15 have been amended, and claims 8-14 are now canceled. Overall, claims 1-7 and 15-20 are pending in this application.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “task breakpoint” , “second operation” in claims 1 and 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub No. JP 2003345437 A to Iizaka et. al. (Iizaka) in view of Pub No. US 2020/0029496 A1 to Nam et. al. (Nam).
In Reference to Claim 1
Iizaka teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
A mowing method, comprising:
interrupting a mowing task of a mowing robot (1) when an unknown obstacle (43) is detected during a mowing operation of a mowing robot (1) (see at least Iizaka Figs. 1-2, 5 and 12 and paragraphs [0007], [0040] and [0016] “FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 are diagrams showing the configuration of an autonomous traveling robot”, “In addition, although each embodiment mentioned above described the case where this invention was applied to the robot cleaner which performs a cleaning operation, it does not necessarily limit to this, For example, operations other than cleaning, such as lawn mowing and waxing, are performed. It can also be applied to robots” and “When the obstacle is detected, the forward traveling is stopped (step ST107)”), and performing a movement around the unknown obstacle (43) to generate a surrounding trajectory (see at least Iizaka Figs. 5 and 11-12 and paragraphs [0031] “The CPU 21 determines whether or not an unknown obstacle has been detected based on information from the obstacle sensor 3 during zigzag traveling in the work area (step ST306). If it is determined in this determination that an unknown obstacle has been detected, the CPU 21 shifts the robot cleaner to the above-mentioned wall-side traveling mode shown in FIG. 5 and makes the obstacle travel around (step ST307). For example, as shown in FIG. 12, when the CPU 21 detects the obstacle 43 from the information of the obstacle sensor 3 at the position P31 during zigzag traveling in the work area Z12, the vehicle shifts to the wall-side traveling mode and travels around the obstacle 43 ( Step ST108 in FIG. 5)”); obtaining an task breakpoint (P31, P32) on an initial operation route when the mowing task of the mowing robot (1) is interrupted (see at least Iizaka Figs. 5 and 11-12 and paragraphs [0018] and [0031] “Further, the CPU 21 stores the position at which the obstacle is first detected on the left side of the main body as the start position of the side wall travel, that is, the origin of the coordinates, and calculates the travel route thereafter by the position / direction identification unit 331 as needed. It memorize | stores in the path | route memory | storage part 321 (step ST109). This step ST109 constitutes a travel route storage means” and “For example, as shown in FIG. 12, when the CPU 21 detects the obstacle 43 from the information of the obstacle sensor 3 at the position P31 during zigzag traveling in the work area Z12”); determining a remaining operation region (Z12, Z123, Z124, Z124, Z13) in a preset mowing region based on the task breakpoint (P31, P32) and the surrounding trajectory; generating an second operation route (zigzag travel in the work area of # Z12, Z123, Z124, Z124, Z13) corresponding to the remaining operation region (Z12, Z123, Z124, Z124, Z13) based on the task breakpoint (P31, P32) and a preset mowing direction (zigzag travel); and controlling the mowing robot (1) to return to the task breakpoint (P31, P32) from a current position and continue to perform the mowing operation based on the second operation route (zigzag travel in the work area of # Z12, Z123, Z124, Z124, Z13), wherein the second operation route (zigzag travel in the work area of # Z12, Z123, Z124, Z124, Z13) that takes the task breakpoint (P31, P32) as a start point is generated in the remaining operation region (Z12, Z123, Z124, Z124, Z13) based on the preset mowing direction (see at least Iizaka [0002] “the autonomous traveling robot travels in a zigzag manner according to the length of the long side of the work area, the side in the X direction, and the presence of irregularities in the side in the Y direction so that the work can be completed in a short time with little direction rotation”), where the preset mowing direction is a travel direction in which the mowing robot travels to the task breakpoint (P31, P32) along the initial operation route (zigzag travel in the work area of # Z12, Z123, Z124, Z124, Z13) (see at least Iizaka Figs. 5 and 11-13 and paragraphs [0032]-[0033] “When the circular travel is completed (step ST110 in FIG. 5), the CPU 21 returns to the process of step ST301, and newly starts from the travel route in the shape of the work area stored in the travel route storage unit 321 and the travel route around the obstacle 43. The work area is divided (work area dividing means). For example, as shown in FIG. 13, in addition to the above-described division, the new work area is divided into an area Z121 where the work area Z12 has already been cleaned, an area Z122 where the obstacle 43 exists, and an uncleaned area Z123. , Z124, Z125 “ and “Subsequently, the CPU 21 sets the start positions as P31, P32, P33, P34, and P35 for the uncleaned areas Z12, Z123, Z124, Z125, and Z13 of the divided work areas, respectively (step ST302). The order in which each work area is visited is determined (step ST303). For example, the vehicle travels in the working area Z12 → Z123 → Z124 → Z125 → Z13 (travel planning means)”).
Iizaka teaches that the robot (1) can be a mowing device however does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to interrupting a mowing task of a mowing robot (1) when an unknown obstacle (43) is detected during a mowing operation of a mowing robot (1). However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to interrupting a mowing task of a mowing robot when an unknown obstacle is detected during a mowing operation of a mowing robot. For example, Nam teaches to interrupting a mowing task of a mowing robot (100) when an unknown obstacle is detected during a mowing operation of a mowing robot (100). Nam further teaches that performing such step provide safety to the obstacle and to the mowing robot (see at least Nam Figs. 1-3 and 7 and paragraphs 16-17, 21, 39 and 115). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Iizaka to perform the step of interrupting a mowing task of a mowing robot when an unknown obstacle is detected during a mowing operation of a mowing robot as taught by Nam in order to provide safety to the obstacle and to the mowing robot.
In Reference to Claim 3
The mowing method according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the determining the remaining operation region in the preset mowing region based on the task breakpoint (P31, P32) and the surrounding trajectory comprises: determining a region (Z123, Z124, Z125) to be mowed in the preset mowing region based on the surrounding trajectory; determining a completed mowing operation route in the initial operation route based on the task breakpoint (P31, P32) of the initial operation route and a start point (P21) of the initial operation route; and dividing the region to be mowed into the remaining operation region and a completed operation region based on the completed mowing operation route ,wherein the completed operation region (Z121, Z11) is an first operation region corresponding to the completed mowing operation route, and the remaining operation region (Z123, Z124, Z125) is an second operation region in which no operation route exists (see at least Iizaka Figs. 1-2, 5 and 11-13 and paragraphs [0016] and [0030]-[0032]).
In Reference to Claim 4
The mowing method according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the performing the movement around the unknown obstacle to generate the surrounding trajectory comprises:
detecting whether the surrounding trajectory is a closed trajectory (has been completed or not), wherein a start point (P31) and an end point (P31) of the closed trajectory are the same; and modifying the surrounding trajectory based on a preset strategy to obtain a closed trajectory when it is detected that the surrounding trajectory is not a closed trajectory (has not been completed) (see at least Iizaka Figs. 1-2, 5 and 11-13 and paragraphs [0016] and [0030]-[0032]).
In Reference to Claim 5
The mowing method according to claim 4 (see rejection to claim 4 above), wherein the modifying the surrounding trajectory based on a preset strategy to obtain the closed trajectory comprises:
obtaining a shape and an area of the unknown obstacle (43); generating, based on the shape and the area of the unknown obstacle (43), a polygonal region covering the unknown obstacle (43), wherein the polygonal region is a closed region formed by sequentially joining a plurality of line segments, and each of the line segments belongs to a boundary of the polygonal region (boundary of the polygonal region); and generating the closed trajectory based on the boundaries of the polygonal region (see at least Iizaka Figs. 1-2, 5 and 11-13 and paragraphs [0016] and [0030]-[0032]).
In Reference to Claim 6
The mowing method according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), further comprising:
obtaining an edited remaining operation region (one of Z123, Z124, Z125); and updating the second operation route (route of one of Z123, Z124, Z125) based on the edited remaining operation region, wherein the controlling the mowing robot (1) to continue to perform the mowing operation based on the operation route comprises: controlling the mowing robot (1) to continue to perform the mowing operation based on an updated operation route (route of one of Z123, Z124, Z125) (see at least Iizaka Figs. 1-2, 5 and 11-13 and paragraphs [0016] and [0030]-[0032]).
In Reference to Claim 7
The mowing method according to claim 6 (see rejection to claim 6 above), wherein the updating the second operation route based on the edited remaining operation region comprises:
generating a third operation route (route of one of Z123, Z124, Z125) corresponding to an additional operation region (one of Z123, Z124, Z125); and joining the third operation route (route of one of Z123, Z124, Z125) and the second operation route (route of one of Z123, Z124, Z125), to obtain the updated operation route (see at least Iizaka Figs. 1-2, 5 and 11-13 and paragraphs [0016] and [0030]-[0032]).
In Reference to Claim 15
Iizaka teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
A mowing robot, comprising
a memory (23), a processor (21), and a computer program stored on the memory (23) and executable by the processor (21), wherein the processor (21), when executing the program, implements the steps of the mowing method, wherein the mowing method comprises:
interrupting a mowing task of a mowing robot (1) when an unknown obstacle (43) is detected during a mowing operation of a mowing robot (1) (see at least Iizaka Figs. 1-2, 5 and 12 and paragraphs [0007], [0040] and [0016] “FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 are diagrams showing the configuration of an autonomous traveling robot”, “In addition, although each embodiment mentioned above described the case where this invention was applied to the robot cleaner which performs a cleaning operation, it does not necessarily limit to this, For example, operations other than cleaning, such as lawn mowing and waxing, are performed. It can also be applied to robots” and “When the obstacle is detected, the forward traveling is stopped (step ST107)”), and performing a movement around the unknown obstacle (43) to generate a surrounding trajectory (see at least Iizaka Figs. 5 and 11-12 and paragraphs [0031] “The CPU 21 determines whether or not an unknown obstacle has been detected based on information from the obstacle sensor 3 during zigzag traveling in the work area (step ST306). If it is determined in this determination that an unknown obstacle has been detected, the CPU 21 shifts the robot cleaner to the above-mentioned wall-side traveling mode shown in FIG. 5 and makes the obstacle travel around (step ST307). For example, as shown in FIG. 12, when the CPU 21 detects the obstacle 43 from the information of the obstacle sensor 3 at the position P31 during zigzag traveling in the work area Z12, the vehicle shifts to the wall-side traveling mode and travels around the obstacle 43 ( Step ST108 in FIG. 5)”); obtaining an task breakpoint (P31, P32) on an initial operation route when the mowing task of the mowing robot (1) is interrupted (see at least Iizaka Figs. 5 and 11-12 and paragraphs [0018] and [0031] “Further, the CPU 21 stores the position at which the obstacle is first detected on the left side of the main body as the start position of the side wall travel, that is, the origin of the coordinates, and calculates the travel route thereafter by the position / direction identification unit 331 as needed. It memorize | stores in the path | route memory | storage part 321 (step ST109). This step ST109 constitutes a travel route storage means” and “For example, as shown in FIG. 12, when the CPU 21 detects the obstacle 43 from the information of the obstacle sensor 3 at the position P31 during zigzag traveling in the work area Z12”); determining a remaining operation region (Z12, Z123, Z124, Z124, Z13) in a preset mowing region based on the task breakpoint (P31, P32) and the surrounding trajectory; generating an second operation route (zigzag travel in the work area of # Z12, Z123, Z124, Z124, Z13) corresponding to the remaining operation region (Z12, Z123, Z124, Z124, Z13) based on the task breakpoint (P31, P32) and a preset mowing direction (zigzag travel); and controlling the mowing robot (1) to return to the task breakpoint (P31, P32) from a current position and continue to perform the mowing operation based on the second operation route (zigzag travel in the work area of # Z12, Z123, Z124, Z124, Z13), wherein the second operation route (zigzag travel in the work area of # Z12, Z123, Z124, Z124, Z13) that takes the task breakpoint (P31, P32) as a start point is generated in the remaining operation region (Z12, Z123, Z124, Z124, Z13) based on the preset mowing direction (see at least Iizaka [0002] “the autonomous traveling robot travels in a zigzag manner according to the length of the long side of the work area, the side in the X direction, and the presence of irregularities in the side in the Y direction so that the work can be completed in a short time with little direction rotation”), where the preset mowing direction is a travel direction in which the mowing robot travels to the task breakpoint (P31, P32) along the initial operation route (zigzag travel in the work area of # Z12, Z123, Z124, Z124, Z13) (see at least Iizaka Figs. 5 and 11-13 and paragraphs [0032]-[0033] “When the circular travel is completed (step ST110 in FIG. 5), the CPU 21 returns to the process of step ST301, and newly starts from the travel route in the shape of the work area stored in the travel route storage unit 321 and the travel route around the obstacle 43. The work area is divided (work area dividing means). For example, as shown in FIG. 13, in addition to the above-described division, the new work area is divided into an area Z121 where the work area Z12 has already been cleaned, an area Z122 where the obstacle 43 exists, and an uncleaned area Z123. , Z124, Z125 “ and “Subsequently, the CPU 21 sets the start positions as P31, P32, P33, P34, and P35 for the uncleaned areas Z12, Z123, Z124, Z125, and Z13 of the divided work areas, respectively (step ST302). The order in which each work area is visited is determined (step ST303). For example, the vehicle travels in the working area Z12 → Z123 → Z124 → Z125 → Z13 (travel planning means)”).
Iizaka teaches that the robot (1) can be a mowing device however does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to interrupting a mowing task of a mowing robot (1) when an unknown obstacle (43) is detected during a mowing operation of a mowing robot (1). However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to interrupting a mowing task of a mowing robot when an unknown obstacle is detected during a mowing operation of a mowing robot. For example, Nam teaches to interrupting a mowing task of a mowing robot (100) when an unknown obstacle is detected during a mowing operation of a mowing robot (100). Nam further teaches that performing such step provide safety to the obstacle and to the mowing robot (see at least Nam Figs. 1-3 and 7 and paragraphs 16-17, 21, 39 and 115). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Iizaka to perform the step of interrupting a mowing task of a mowing robot when an unknown obstacle is detected during a mowing operation of a mowing robot as taught by Nam in order to provide safety to the obstacle and to the mowing robot.
In Reference to Claim 17
The mowing robot according to claim 15 (see rejection to claim 15 above), wherein the determining the remaining operation region in the preset mowing region based on the task breakpoint (P31, P32) and the surrounding trajectory comprises: determining a region (Z123, Z124, Z125) to be mowed in the preset mowing region based on the surrounding trajectory; determining a completed mowing operation route in the initial operation route based on the task breakpoint (P31, P32) of the initial operation route and a start point (P21) of the initial operation route; and dividing the region to be mowed into the remaining operation region and a completed operation region based on the completed mowing operation route ,wherein the completed operation region (Z121, Z11) is an first operation region corresponding to the completed mowing operation route, and the remaining operation region (Z123, Z124, Z125) is an second operation region in which no operation route exists (see at least Iizaka Figs. 1-2, 5 and 11-13 and paragraphs [0016] and [0030]-[0032]).
In Reference to Claim 18
The mowing robot according to claim 15 (see rejection to claim 15 above), wherein the performing the movement around the unknown obstacle to generate the surrounding trajectory comprises: detecting whether the surrounding trajectory is a closed trajectory (has been completed or not), wherein a start point (P31) and an end point (P31) of the closed trajectory are the same; and modifying the surrounding trajectory based on a preset strategy to obtain a closed trajectory when it is detected that the surrounding trajectory is not a closed trajectory (has not been completed) (see at least Iizaka Figs. 1-2, 5 and 11-13 and paragraphs [0016] and [0030]-[0032]).
In Reference to Claim 19
The mowing robot according to claim 18 (see rejection to claim 18 above), wherein the modifying the surrounding trajectory based on a preset strategy to obtain the closed trajectory comprises: obtaining a shape and an area of the unknown obstacle (43); generating, based on the shape and the area of the unknown obstacle (43), a polygonal region covering the unknown obstacle (43), wherein the polygonal region is a closed region formed by sequentially joining a plurality of line segments, and each of the line segments belongs to a boundary of the polygonal region (boundary of the polygonal region); and generating the closed trajectory based on the boundaries of the polygonal region (see at least Iizaka Figs. 1-2, 5 and 11-13 and paragraphs [0016] and [0030]-[0032]).
In Reference to Claim 20
The mowing robot according to claim 15 (see rejection to claim 15 above), further comprising:
obtaining an edited remaining operation region (one of Z123, Z124, Z125); and updating the second operation route (route of one of Z123, Z124, Z125) based on the edited remaining operation region, wherein the controlling the mowing robot (1) to continue to perform the mowing operation based on the operation route comprises: controlling the mowing robot (1) to continue to perform the mowing operation based on an updated operation route (route of one of Z123, Z124, Z125) (see at least Iizaka Figs. 1-2, 5 and 11-13 and paragraphs [0016] and [0030]-[0032]).
Claim(s) 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizaka in view of Nam and further in view of Pub No. US 2020/0378771 A1 to Beaurepaire (Beaurepaire).
In Reference to Claim 2
Iizaka in view of Nam teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The mowing method according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the obtaining the task breakpoint (P31, P32) on the initial operation route when the mowing task of the mowing robot (1) is interrupted comprises: receiving a task interruption instruction (Nam teaches to receiving a task interruption instruction when object is found); and obtaining the task breakpoint (P31, P32) on the initial operation route based on a timestamp corresponding to the task interruption instruction (see at least Iizaka Figs. 1-2, 5 and 11-12 and paragraphs [0016] and [0030]-[0032]) (see at least Nam Figs. 1-3 and 7 and paragraphs 16-17, 21, 39 and 115).
Iizaka in view of Nam does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to obtaining the task breakpoint (P31, P32) on the initial operation route based on a timestamp corresponding to the task interruption instruction. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtaining the task breakpoint on the initial operation route based on a timestamp corresponding to the task interruption instruction. For example, Beaurepaire teaches to obtaining the task breakpoint (parked/stopped) on the initial operation route based on a timestamp. Beaurepaire further teaches that performing such step provides determination of the vehicle parking/stopping information (see at least Beaurepaire Fig.1 and paragraphs 44). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Iizaka in view of Nam to obtaining the task breakpoint (parked/stopped) on the initial operation route based on a timestamp as taught by Beaurepaire in order to determine of the vehicle parking/stopping information.
In Reference to Claim 16
Iizaka in view of Nam teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The mowing robot according to claim 15 (see rejection to claim 15 above), wherein the obtaining the task breakpoint on the initial operation route when the mowing task of the mowing robot (1) is interrupted comprises: receiving a task interruption instruction (Nam teaches to receiving a task interruption instruction when object is found); and obtaining the task breakpoint (P31, P32) on the initial operation route based on a timestamp corresponding to the task interruption instruction (see at least Iizaka Figs. 1-2, 5 and 11-12 and paragraphs [0016] and [0030]-[0032]) (see at least Nam Figs. 1-3 and 7 and paragraphs 16-17, 21, 39 and 115).
Iizaka in view of Nam does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to obtaining the task breakpoint (P31, P32) on the initial operation route based on a timestamp corresponding to the task interruption instruction. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtaining the task breakpoint on the initial operation route based on a timestamp corresponding to the task interruption instruction. For example, Beaurepaire teaches to obtaining the task breakpoint (parked/stopped) on the initial operation route based on a timestamp. Beaurepaire further teaches that performing such step provides determination of the vehicle parking/stopping information (see at least Beaurepaire Fig.1 and paragraphs 44). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Iizaka in view of Nam to obtaining the task breakpoint (parked/stopped) on the initial operation route based on a timestamp as taught by Beaurepaire in order to determine of the vehicle parking/stopping information.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that “Iizaka has disclosed an autonomous traveling robot, such as a robot cleaner, that first travels around a boundary or obstacle, stores a travel path, determines whether a circumferential travel has been completed, divides a working area based on the stored travel path, and then plans an order in which divided working areas are to be traveled. When an unknown obstacle is detected during a zigzag operation, Iizaka transitions to a wall-following mode, travels around the obstacle, stores the travel path around the obstacle (paragraph 31), and then newly divides the work area and determines an order of traveling through the resulting uncleaned areas. This is materially different from the claimed invention.” however the examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant since Iizaka teaches the claimed subject matter.
The applicant argues that “First, Iizaka does not teach "obtaining a task breakpoint on an initial operation route when the mowing task is interrupted," as required by claim 1. The positions described in Iizaka, such as the position at which the obstacle is first detected and the start positions assigned to newly divided regions, are not a task breakpoint on an initial operation route in the sense of claim 1. They are not used as a coordinate point that distinguishes a completed portion of an initial operation route from an uncompleted portion of the initial operation route. Rather, Iizaka uses the stored travel path or obstacle-position information to re-divide the work area after circumferential travel of the obstacle is completed. Specifically, when Iizaka's robot encounters an obstacle while traveling along a zigzag path, the purpose of switching to the wall-following mode is to record the position of the obstacle, complete the detection of whether an obstacle exists in the unknown area, and divide the new working area into a cleaned working region Z121, an obstacle working region Z122 in which the obstacle exists, and uncleaned regions Z123, Z124, and Z125. As can be seen from FIG. 13, after Iizaka determines the obstacle-related divided regions, Iizaka sets the start positions of the uncleaned regions Z12, Z123, Z124, Z125, and Z13 of the respective divided working areas as P31, P32, P33, P34, and P35, respectively (step ST302), and determines the order in which each working area is to be traveled (step ST303). For example, the patrol order is: working area Z12 - Z123 - Z124 - Z125 - Z13 (patrol plan generation). Accordingly, Iizaka does not disclose the technical solution of the present application. After encountering an obstacle and completing the wall-following mode around the obstacle, Iizaka does not use the interrupted position as the start point of the subsequent working path. Therefore, Iizaka does not disclose "obtaining a task breakpoint on an initial operation route when the mowing task is interrupted," as recited in the present application.” however the examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant since Iizaka does teach the claimed recitation of "obtaining a task breakpoint on an initial operation route when the mowing task is interrupted," as required by claim 1 since while operating the cleaning (which also can be mowing) as taught by Iizaka as shown in Fig. 12 and once object (43) is detected the robot goes around the object (43) from the point (P31) which is the same point as (P32) and divides the cleaned or mowed section and remaining operation region such as Z123 which starts to clean (or mow) at (P32) when performing the cleaning or mowing at Z123 (remaining operation region) therefore Iizaka teaches the claimed recitations.
The applicant argues that “Second, Iizaka also does not determine a remaining operation region in a preset mowing region based on both a task breakpoint on an initial operation route and a surrounding trajectory around an unknown obstacle. Rather, after the robot moves around obstacle 43, Iizaka newly divides the work area into a plurality of divided work regions based on a travel route representing the shape of the work area and a travel route around obstacle 43, and then determines which of the divided work regions remain uncleaned. This approach is materially different from the claimed approach, in which the task breakpoint is used to distinguish a completed operation route from an uncompleted portion of the initial operation route, and the surrounding trajectory is used together with the task breakpoint to determine the remaining operation region in the preset mowing region. Because Iizaka performs a new regional division after the obstacle is encircled, an "uncleaned region" identified by Iizaka, such as uncleaned region Z123 in FIG. 13, may include a portion that has already been cleaned before the obstacle was detected. Iizaka does not exclude such already- cleaned portion based on the task breakpoint on the initial operation route. Therefore, when Iizaka's robot performs cleaning in uncleaned region Z123, the robot may clean at least part of an already-cleaned area again, thereby reducing cleaning efficiency. In contrast, claim 1 determines the remaining operation region based on the task breakpoint and the surrounding trajectory, and generates the second operation route in the remaining operation region with the task breakpoint as the start point. Because the second operation route starts from the task breakpoint and is generated based on the preset mowing direction corresponding to the travel direction along the initial operation route, the mowing robot can continue the mowing operation from the point at which the mowing task was interrupted while maintaining consistency with the mowing direction of the initial operation route. This configuration prevents the mowing robot from repeatedly cutting the same grass in an already-mowed region, and also reduces the likelihood of missed mowing because the new operation route is continuous with the initial operation route in terms of the mowing direction. The claimed route generation therefore provides a more efficient and more reliable continuation of mowing after obstacle avoidance than the re-division and region-order planning approach of Iizaka. Moreover, because the second operation route maintains consistency with the mowing direction of the initial operation route, wheel marks left by the mowing robot across the entire lawn extend in the same direction, thereby improving the aesthetic appearance of the lawn. Furthermore, Iizaka plans separate zigzag routes for multiple divided uncleaned regions. Those separately planned routes are not necessarily continuous with each other, particularly at boundaries between adjacent divided regions. As a result, Iizaka may leave uncleaned strips or gaps at the interfaces between adjacent regions. Claim 1 avoids this problem by generating the second operation route in the remaining operation region from the task breakpoint and based on the preset mowing direction, rather than separately planning discontinuous routes for multiple re- divided regions.” however the examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant since as recited in the claim and the rejection above the Iizaka does teach the claimed recitation since Iizaka goes around the object by when the object is found during cleaning (or mowing) and determines the starting point, and determines the unclean (or unmowed) area after going around the object, which as claimed and applicant’s augments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim since the claim is broad such that Iizaka teaches the claimed recitations and the detail of the applicant’s arguments are not specifically recited in the claims.
The applicant argues that “Accordingly, Iizaka does not teach or suggest the amended limitation that the second operation route taking the task breakpoint as a start point is generated in the remaining operation region based on the preset mowing direction. Iizaka also does not teach or suggest the claimed functional relationship among the task breakpoint, the surrounding trajectory, the remaining operation region, and the second operation route. The rejection therefore remains deficient even in view of Iizaka and Nam. Nam discloses a mobile robot and a method for operating the same. Nam recites that the mobile robot may include a main body, a weight sensing sensor, an obstacle sensing sensor, a blade, and a processor. Nam further discloses that the mobile robot 100 may stop lawn mowing and stop movement when there is an obstacle in the movement direction or when an external force of a predetermined intensity or more is applied to the main body. See Nam, paragraph [0039]. Nam also discloses that the mobile robot 100 may set a toggle switch to an OFF state to stop the lawn mowing work, avoid the obstacle, such as a cat, and move to the charging docking station 350. In particular, the mobile robot 100 may move to the charging docking station 350 along a movement route 530 beyond a position 100A at which the obstacle, such as the cat, has been sensed. See Nam, paragraph [0115]. As can be seen from the solution disclosed in Nam, Nam merely discloses that, when the mobile robot encounters an obstacle, the mobile robot may stop the lawn mowing operation or return to the charging docking station. Further, as described in paragraphs [0122]-[0127] of Nam, when the mobile robot encounters an obstacle and sets the toggle switch to the OFF state, the mobile robot sends information to a user indicating that lawn mowing cannot be performed. If no user instruction is received, the mobile robot returns to the charging docking station. Therefore, Nam does not disclose the distinguishing technical features of the present application. Nam does not teach or suggest moving around an unknown obstacle to generate a surrounding trajectory, determining a remaining operation region based on a task breakpoint and the surrounding trajectory, generating a second operation route based on the task breakpoint and a preset mowing direction, or controlling the mowing robot to return to the task breakpoint and continue the mowing operation based on the second operation route. Nam does not cure these deficiencies. Nam is directed to a mobile robot that may stop driving a blade and stop movement when an external force or an obstacle is sensed. Nam may store information on a stop point of lawn cutting, move to a charging docking station, and later re- localize to the stored stop point when a command to resume lawn cutting is received. Thus, Nam teaches a safety-related stop and a return to a stored stop point. Nam does not teach moving around an unknown obstacle to generate a surrounding trajectory, determining a remaining operation region based on a task breakpoint and the surrounding trajectory, or generating a second operation route based on the task breakpoint and a preset mowing direction. At most, a combination of Iizaka and Nam would suggest stopping a robot or stopping a blade when an obstacle is sensed, storing a stop point, and later returning to that stop point. Such a combination would not result in the claimed invention. The proposed combination still would not provide the claimed relationship among the surrounding trajectory, the task breakpoint, the remaining operation region, and the second operation route. The Examiner's stated safety rationale, even if accepted, explains why a robot might stop upon detecting an obstacle, but it does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Iizaka to generate a second operation route based on a task breakpoint and a preset mowing direction after determining a remaining operation region based on both the task breakpoint and the surrounding trajectory.” however the examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant since the teaching of Nam is to merely to interrupting the mowing operation when the obstacle is detected to prevent the mowing device or the obstacle to be damaged and not to incorporate everything that Nam teaches into the system of Iizaka. And as stated above the applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the claimed recitations.
The applicant argues that “The claimed invention addresses a different technical problem from the mere safety stop of Nam and the region re-division of Iizaka. The claimed invention enables the mowing robot, after dealing with an unknown obstacle, to avoid restarting from the original start point and to avoid repeating a mowing operation in a completed region. This is achieved by using the task breakpoint to distinguish completed and uncompleted portions of the initial operation route, using the surrounding trajectory to define the obstacle-influenced region, determining the remaining operation region, and generating a second operation route for continued mowing. Neither Iizaka nor Nam provides this coordinated solution. The cited references disclose separate concepts: Iizaka discloses a robot that travels around a boundary or obstacle and re-divides a work area, while Nam discloses stopping a lawn-mowing robot and later returning to a stored stop point for safety and charging-related purposes. The references do not provide a teaching, suggestion, or reasoned motivation to combine these concepts in the particular manner claimed.” however the examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant since Iizaka in view of Nam teaches the claimed subject matter as stated in the rejection above. And as stated above teaching of Nam is to merely to interrupt the mowing operation when the obstacle is detected to prevent the mowing device or the obstacle to be damaged further one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pub No. US 2018/0267552 A1 to Artes et. al. (Artes) teaches to determine of the obstacle and going around the obstacle.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON DONGPA LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
/BRANDON D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662 August 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights