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
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on May 7, 2025. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At [0018], “can form a clusters or a set” might be “can form clusters or a set” OR “can form a cluster or a set”.
At [0048], “can be use to illuminate” appears to be intended as “can be used to illuminate”. This occurs twice in the paragraph.
At [0058], “can form a clusters or a set” might be “can form clusters or a set” OR “can form a cluster or a set”.
Appropriate correction 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 1-15 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 1 recites the limitation “the environment”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as in claim 10.
Claims 2-9 are rejected for incorporation of the errors of the base claim by dependency.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the current detected environment”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the current detected environment”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the corresponding light sources”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13-15 are rejected for incorporation of the errors of the base claim by dependency.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the current detected environment”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the current detected environment”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
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, sixth 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) 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;
(B) 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”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “environmental detection system” in claim 1 and “robotic work tool environmental detection system” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al., U.S. Patent 12,235,659 B2 (2025).
As to claim 1, Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. discloses a robotic lawn mower (Column 301, Line 30 – Column 302, Line 43) comprising an environmental detection system that in turn comprises at least one camera arrangement adapted to capture environmental images (Column 12, Lines 16-53)
and a control unit adapted to process the captured images to provide environment data (Column 12, Lines 16-53),
each camera arrangement comprising an image sensor and at least two light sources adapted to emit light towards the environment (Column 145, Line 62 – Column 146, Line 38),
wherein at least two co-operating light sources of said light sources have mutually different optical characteristics that confer mutually different light distribution characteristics (Column 145, Line 62 – Column 146, Line 38).
As to claim 2, Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. discloses the robotic lawn mower according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the optical characteristics comprise at least one of
- main light beam direction,
- degree of light beam collimation, and
- degree of light beam focus or dispersion (Column 166, Lines 44-56, Column 164, Lines 22-60).
As to claim 3, Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. discloses the robotic lawn mower according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the co-operating light sources are constituted by light emitting diodes, LEDs, where at least two of said LEDs are adapted to emit light in at least one of
- the visual spectrum;
- the infrared, IR, spectrum; and
- the near IR spectrum (Column 164, Lines 22-60).
As to claim 4, Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. discloses the robotic lawn mower according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the control unit is adapted to operate one or more light sources, having the same optical characteristics and forming a set of light sources, at a certain time instant, and to switch between at least two co-operating sets of light sources, the sets having mutually different optical characteristics, each set of light sources comprising at least one light source (Column 242, Lines 18-41, Column 146, Line 59 – Column 147, Line 34).
As to claim 5, Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. discloses the robotic lawn mower according to claim 4, and further discloses wherein the control unit is adapted to apply a first algorithm to captured images when a first set of light sources is operational, and to apply a second algorithm, different from the first algorithm, to captured images when a second set of light sources is operational (Column 209, Lines 49-65, Column 274, Line 40 – Column 275, Line 32).
As to claim 6, Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. discloses the robotic lawn mower according to claim 4, and further discloses wherein the control unit is adapted to select a certain set of light sources to operate at a certain time in dependence of the current detected environment (Column 209, Lines 49-65, Column 274, Line 40 – Column 275, Line 32).
As to claim 7, Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. discloses the robotic lawn mower according to claim 4, and further discloses wherein the control unit is adapted to select a certain set of light sources to operate for every picture frame, such that control unit is adapted to change which set of light sources that is operating for each picture frame (Column 209, Lines 49-65, Column 274, Line 40 – Column 275, Line 32).
As to claim 8, Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. discloses the robotic lawn mower according to claim 4, and further discloses wherein the control unit is adapted to control the input current of the set of light sources that is operating at the moment in dependence of the current detected environment, such that an emitted light intensity can be controlled in dependence of the current detected environment (Column 184, Lines 27-47, Column 238, Lines 16-39).
As to claim 10, Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. discloses a method for controlling a camera arrangement used in a robotic work tool environmental detection system for capturing environmental images, the method comprising
operating at least two co-operating sets of light sources one at a time (Column 145, Line 62 – Column 146, Line 38); and
capturing environmental images (Column 12, Lines 16-53);
where each co-operating set of light sources comprises at least one light source used for emitting light towards an environment, and where the corresponding light sources comprised in at least two different co-operating sets of light sources have mutually different optical characteristics that confer mutually different light distribution characteristics (Column 145, Line 62 – Column 146, Line 38).
As to claim 11, Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. discloses the method according to claim 10, and further discloses wherein the optical characteristics comprise at least one of
- main light beam direction,
- degree of light beam collimation, and
- degree of light beam focus or dispersion (Column 166, Lines 44-56, Column 164, Lines 22-60).
As to claim 12, Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. discloses the method according to claim 10, and further discloses further comprising applying a first algorithm to captured images when a first set of light sources is operating; and applying a second algorithm, different from the first algorithm, to captured images when a second set of light sources is operating (Column 209, Lines 49-65, Column 274, Line 40 – Column 275, Line 32).
As to claim 13, Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. discloses the method according to claim 10, and further discloses further comprising selecting a certain set of light sources to operate at a certain time in dependence of the current detected environment (Column 209, Lines 49-65, Column 274, Line 40 – Column 275, Line 32).
As to claim 14, Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. discloses the method according to claim 10, and further discloses further comprising selecting a certain set of light sources to operate for every picture frame, such which set of light sources that is operating is changed for each picture frame (Column 209, Lines 49-65, Column 274, Line 40 – Column 275, Line 32).
As to claim 15, Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. discloses the method according to claim 10, and further discloses further comprising controlling the input current of the set of light sources that is operating at the moment in dependence of the current detected environment, such that an emitted light intensity can be controlled in dependence of the current detected environment (Column 184, Lines 27-47, Column 238, Lines 16-39).
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.
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.
Claims 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al., U.S. Patent 12,235,659 B2 (2025) in view of Docken et al., U.S. Patent 12,642,167 B2 (2026).
As to claim 9, Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. discloses the robotic lawn mower according to claim 1. Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. does not disclose the other claim limitations, which are standard robotic lawn mower features.
Docken et al. discloses comprising a main body part where a first end portion is facing a forward travelling direction and a second end portion is facing a reverse travelling direction, the robotic lawn mower further comprising a plurality of wheels and a rotatable cutting disc that is driven by a cutter motor, where at least two drive wheels are drivably connected to a corresponding electric drive wheel motor (Figure 2, front sidewall 105, rear sidewall 107, cutting disc 312, rear wheels 106, Figure 5, tool motor 370, Column 5, Lines 6-24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the robotic lawn mower of claim 1, as disclosed by Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al., with the use of standard robotic lawn mower components, as claimed, as disclosed by Docken et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, allowing the robotic lawn mower to perform standard mowing functions to propel the mower and the cutting disc to mow grass.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The published application of the present invention is cited. Issued patents from the citations listed in the Information Disclosure Statement are cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BERNS whose telephone number is (313)446-4892. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
MICHAEL BERNS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3667
/MICHAEL A BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
