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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-7 and 14-20 are directed to apparatus and claims 8-13 are directed to a method.
As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites adjust an off path error tolerance corresponding to the grass mowing vehicle to generate a path plan for the grass mowing vehicle at the worksite.
Claims 8 and 14 recites adjusting an off path error tolerance corresponding to the grass mowing.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind such as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes.
Thus the claims recite an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 recites a plurality of ground engaging traction elements, one or more cutting units and control system and automatically control the grass mowing vehicle based, at least, on the adjusted off path error tolerance.
Claim 8 recites automatically controlling one or more controllable subsystems of the grass mowing vehicle at a worksite based, at least, on the adjusted off path error tolerance.
Claim 14 recites one or more processors and automatically control the grass mowing vehicle at a worksite based, at least, on the adjusted off path error tolerance.
The limitations of plurality of ground engaging traction elements, one or more cutting units are insignificant extrasolution activity.
The limitations of the control system, and one or more processors are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea.
The limitations of automatically control the grass mowing vehicle based, at least, on the adjusted off path error tolerance and automatically controlling one or more controllable subsystems of the grass mowing vehicle at a worksite based, at least, on the adjusted off path error tolerance merely amounts to apply it.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As stated above, the limitations of plurality of ground engaging traction elements, one or more cutting units are insignificant extrasolution activity. EP3761142A1 to Scapin discloses the grass mowing vehicles with engage traction elements and one or more cutting units as well understood conventional and routine ( see paragraph 0002).
As stated above, the limitations of the control system, and one or more processors are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
As stated above the limitations of automatically control the grass mowing vehicle based, at least, on the adjusted off path error tolerance and automatically controlling one or more controllable subsystems of the grass mowing vehicle at a worksite based, at least, on the adjusted off path error tolerance merely amounts to apply it. The step of controlling grass mowing vehicle or one or more controllable subsystems “based on” merely amounts to “apply it”. The reciting of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution (i.e. controlling grass mowing vehicle or one or more controllable subsystems) to an identified problem (i.e. the adjusted off path error tolerance) with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result (i.e. what aspects are controlled or how the grass mowing vehicle or controllable subsystems are affected by the abstract idea) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Referring to claims 2 and 15, the limitation of adjust the off path error tolerance corresponding to the grass mowing vehicle by adjusting from a first off path error tolerance to a second off path error tolerance by prescribing a value of an operating setting associated with the second off path error tolerance merely narrows the previous cited abstract idea. The limitation of automatically control the grass mowing vehicle based on the prescribed value of the operating setting merely amounts to apply it. The step of controlling grass mowing vehicle or one or more controllable subsystems “based on” merely amounts to “apply it”. The reciting of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution (i.e. controlling grass mowing vehicle) to an identified problem (i.e. the prescribed value of the operating setting) with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result (i.e. what aspects are controlled or how the grass mowing vehicle or controllable subsystems are affected by the abstract idea) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Similar to claims 1 and 14, this recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Referring to claims 3 and 16, the limitation of identify the prescribed value of the operating setting as being associated with the second off path error tolerance by accessing an off path error tolerance relationship defining a relationship between values of off path error tolerance and values of the operating setting merely narrows the previous cited abstract idea. Similar to claims 1 and 14, this recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Referring to claims 4 and 17, the limitation of the operational setting is travel velocity merely narrows the previous cited abstract idea. Similar to claims 1 and 14, this recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Referring to claims 5 ,11 and 18, the limitation of obtain worksite data indicative of a boundary of a mowing area of the worksite and indicative of a boundary of a non-mowing area of the worksite and obtain vehicle data indicative of dimensions of the grass mowing vehicle amounts to mere data gathering. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The limitations of identify a problem area of the worksite based, at least, on the worksite data, the vehicle data, and the off path error tolerance corresponding to the grass mowing vehicle; and adjust the off path error tolerance corresponding to the grass mowing vehicle to generate a path plan for the grass mowing vehicle at the worksite based, at least, on the identified problem area, the path plan including a cutting pass providing cutting coverage for the problem area under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind such as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea. Similar to claims 1 ,8, and 14, this recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Referring to claims 6 ,12, 19, the limitations of perception sensors, detecting with the sensors and obtain a path plan for the grass mowing vehicle Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The limitations of identify an upcoming intersection corresponding to the non-mowing area based, at least, on the sensor data and the path plan; adjust the off path error tolerance corresponding to the grass mowing vehicle to avoid the upcoming intersection under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind such as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea. Similar to claims 1 , 8 and 14, this recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Referring to claims 7, 13 and 20, the limitation of controlling one or more a steering subsystem of the grass mowing vehicle or a propulsion subsystem of the grass mowing vehicle based, at least, on the adjusted off path error. merely amounts to apply it. The step of controlling steering subsystem or propulsion subsystem “based on” merely amounts to “apply it”. The reciting of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution (i.e. steering subsystem or propulsion subsystem) to an identified problem (i.e. the adjusted off path error) with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result (i.e. what aspects are controlled or how the grass mowing vehicle or controllable subsystems are affected by the abstract idea) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Similar to claim 1,8 and 14, this recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Referring to claim 9, the limitation adjusting from a first off path error tolerance to a second off path error tolerance by prescribing a value of an operating setting associated with the second off path error tolerance under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind such as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. The limitation of automatically controlling the one or more controllable subsystems of the grass mowing vehicle based on the prescribed operating setting merely amounts to apply it. The step of controlling grass mowing vehicle or one or more controllable subsystems “based on” merely amounts to “apply it”. The reciting of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution (i.e. controllable subsystems) to an identified problem (i.e. the prescribed value of the operating setting) with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result (i.e. what aspects are controlled or how the grass mowing vehicle or controllable subsystems are affected by the abstract idea) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Similar to claim 8, this recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Referring to claim 10, the limitation of accessing an off path error tolerance relationship, the off path error tolerance relationship defining a relationship between values of off path error tolerance and values of the operational setting; and identifying the prescribed value of the operational setting based on the off path error tolerance relationship under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind such as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea. Similar to claim 8, this recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by EP3761141A2 to Scapin.
Referring to claim 1 and 14, Scapin discloses a grass mowing vehicle (2) comprising: a plurality of ground engaging traction elements (see paragraph 0029) moveable to carry the grass mowing vehicle across a worksite; one or more cutting units configured to cut grass at the worksite (see paragraph 0034); and a control system (20) configured to: adjust an off path error tolerance corresponding to the grass mowing vehicle to generate a path plan for the grass mowing vehicle at the worksite ( different areas have different tolerance thresholds, see paragraph 0064,0067); and automatically control the grass mowing vehicle based, at least, on the adjusted off path error tolerance (see paragraph 0037).
Referring to claims 2, 9 and 15, Scapin discloses the control system is configured to adjust the off path error tolerance corresponding to the grass mowing vehicle by adjusting from a first off path error tolerance to a second off path error tolerance by prescribing a value of an operating setting associated with the second off path error tolerance, and wherein the control system is configured to automatically control the grass mowing vehicle based on the prescribed value of the operating setting ( see paragraph 0037 each area has its own tolerance threshold and mowing is done according to each threshold).
Referring to claim 3 ,10 and 16, Scapin discloses the control system is configured to identify the prescribed value of the operating setting as being associated with the second off path error tolerance by accessing an off path error tolerance relationship defining a relationship between values of off path error tolerance and values of the operating setting (see paragraph0037 control unit controls movement or arrest of moving device).
Referring to claims 4 and 17, Scapin the operational setting is travel velocity (see paragraph 0088).
Referring to claims 5 ,11 and 18, Scapin the control system is configured to: obtain worksite data indicative of a boundary of a mowing area of the worksite and indicative of a boundary of a non-mowing area of the worksite; obtain vehicle data indicative of dimensions of the grass mowing vehicle; identify a problem area of the worksite based, at least, on the worksite data, the vehicle data, and the off path error tolerance corresponding to the grass mowing vehicle; and adjust the off path error tolerance corresponding to the grass mowing vehicle to generate a path plan for the grass mowing vehicle at the worksite based, at least, on the identified problem area, the path plan including a cutting pass providing cutting coverage for the problem area (Figure 2, paragraph 0040 identify problem areas such area 11a around swimming pool 40 or flower bed 85 and adjust the threshold tolerance as need).
Referring to claims 6 ,12 and 19, Scapin discloses one or more perception sensors (see sensors in paragraph 0054) configured to detect a non-mowing area of the worksite and generate sensor data indicative of the non-mowing area, wherein the control system is configured to:obtain a path plan for the grass mowing vehicle; identify an upcoming intersection corresponding to the non-mowing area based, at least, on the sensor data and the path plan; adjust the off path error tolerance corresponding to the grass mowing vehicle to avoid the upcoming intersection ( see figure 2, area around flower bed has different threshold tolerance).
Referring to claim 7,13 and 20, Scapin discloses the control system is configured to automatically control the grass mowing vehicle based, at least, on the adjusted off path error tolerance by automatically controlling one or more of a steering subsystem of the grass mowing vehicle or a propulsion subsystem of the grass mowing vehicle based, at least, on the adjusted off path error tolerance ( see paragraph 0037 controls movement and see paragraph 0070, orientation can be controlled.)
Referring to claim 8, Scapin discloses a method performed by a grass mowing vehicle, the method comprising: adjusting an off path error tolerance corresponding to the grass mowing ( different areas have different tolerance thresholds, see paragraph 0064,0067);automatically controlling one or more controllable subsystems of the grass mowing vehicle at a worksite based, at least, on the adjusted off path error tolerance (see paragraph 0037).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIOVANNA WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)272-7027. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am- 5 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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/Giovanna Wright/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights