DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 21 January 2025 and 4 September 2026 are being considered by the examiner.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0390953).
For claim 1, He discloses a route planning method, comprising: obtaining gradient data and height data corresponding to a mowing area (see paras. 0075, 0070); drawing a contour map corresponding to the mowing area based on the gradient data and the height data (see para. 0055); generating, a mowing route corresponding to the mowing robot based on the contour map and [[a]] position information of the mowing robot (see para. 0070); and controlling the mowing robot to perform mowing operations based on the mowing route (see para. 0049).
He does not explicitly disclose responding to a mowing trigger. However, He discloses the use of an automatic lawn mower (see para. 0040). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that a mowing trigger equivalent would need to be sent to the automatic mower as an activation signal to the mower to start the mowing process based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve an autonomous robot, a moving path planning method and apparatus therefor, and a storage medium, to improve a work coverage ratio of the autonomous robot in a full-coverage mode (see para. 0005).
Referring to claim 2, He further discloses wherein the drawing the contour map corresponding to the mowing area based on the gradient data and the height data comprises: determining a gradient and a slope direction corresponding to a plurality of mowing points in the mowing area based on the gradient data and the height data of the mowing area (see paras. 0051-0053); drawing the contour map corresponding to the mowing area based on the height data of the mowing area, and the gradient and the slope direction corresponding to the plurality of mowing points (see paras. 0054-0057).
Claims 8 and 15 define subject matter and elements that are substantially similar to the subject matter and elements claimed in claim 1. Accordingly, claims 8 and 15 are rejected based on the citations and reasoning applied above for claim 1.
Claims 9 and 16 define subject matter and elements that are substantially similar to the subject matter and elements claimed in claim 2. Accordingly, claims 9 and 16 are rejected based on the citations and reasoning applied above for claim 2.
With regards to claim 19, He further teaches detecting an absolute height of the mowing robot in real-time when the mowing robot performs the mowing operations (see para. 0037); determining whether a current mowing area is a forward-direction upward slope based on the absolute height of the mowing robot (see para. 0043); recording a plurality non-forward upward slope areas in the mowing area (see para. 0043).
He does not explicitly disclose an altitude. However, He discloses an absolute height (see para. 0037). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that an absolute height is equivalent to an altitude based on the motivation to improve an autonomous robot, a moving path planning method and apparatus therefor, and a storage medium, to improve a work coverage ratio of the autonomous robot in a full-coverage mode (see para. 0005).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 10-14, 17, 18 and 20 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.
Conclusion
Examiner would like to point out that any reference/citation to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way. The entire cited reference, as well as any secondary teaching reference(s), are to be included in considerations of relevant disclosure relating to the claimed invention. Applicant is herein considered to have implicit knowledge of all cited teachings of the prior art of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
