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 .
The application is CIP. of application PCT/CN2024/102315 filed on Jun. 28, 2024, which relates to a Foreign Application Priority Data CN-202311239604.7 filed on Sept. 22, 2023.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims:
Claim 1. An intelligent control method, performed by a self-moving device and comprising:
after the self-moving device exits a station site, moving the self-moving device toward a first identification target; and
after the self-moving device reaches the first identification target, moving the self-moving device along the first identification target to acquire a second identification target, wherein the second identification target is configured to determine a path position at which the self-moving device is located, and the second identification target is different from the first identification target.
Claim 9. A self-mobile device, comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program executable by the processor, and the processor is configured to implement, when executing the computer program, an intelligent control method; wherein the intelligent control method includes:
after the self-moving device exits a station site, moving the self-moving device toward a first identification target; and
after the self-moving device reaches the first identification target, moving the self-moving device along the first identification target to acquire a second identification target, wherein the second identification target is configured to determine a path position at which the self-moving device is located, and the second identification target is different from the first identification target.
Claim 15. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing non-volatile program codes executable by a processor, wherein the program codes are configured to cause a processor to implement an intelligent control method; wherein the intelligent control method includes:
after the self-moving device exits a station site, moving the self-moving device toward a first identification target; and
after the self-moving device reaches the first identification target, moving the self-moving device along the first identification target to acquire a second identification target, wherein the second identification target is configured to determine a path position at which the self-moving device is located, and the second identification target is different from the first identification target.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claims recite a device/method including elements and function steps accordingly. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes.
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claims recite the limitation (e.g., claims 1, 9 & 15) of “after the self-moving device exits a station site, moving the self-moving device toward a first identification target; and after the self-moving device reaches the first identification target, moving the self-moving device along the first identification target to acquire a second identification target …”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “a self-moving device”. That is, other than reciting by “a self-moving device” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “selt-moving device” language, the claim encompasses a person imagination of a self-moving device (a robot moving around a house) from one location to another location. The mere nominal recitation of the “self-moving device” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims recite additional elements of “a memory and a processor” in claim 9, and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” in claim 15 merely describe how generally apply to the mental function steps using generic computer components. The self-moving device comprises the memory (or a non-transitory computer-readable medium) for the processor to implement functions step above is insignificant solution or improving.
Accordingly, even 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.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, the conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the function steps and additional elements in the independent claims were insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background cites self-moving devices have come into people’s lives. Thus, the device comprises generic computer elements that is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Thus, the independent claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims(s) 2-8, 10-14 & 16-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, they are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claims
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, is unclear and indefinite. The claim fails to define how and what manner the self-moving device starts exiting “a station”, moving toward “a first identification target”; and then moving to “a second identification target”.
Claims 9 & 15 have same issue as claim 1.
Claims 2-8, 10-14 & 16-20 depend upon rejected claims 1, 9 & 15.
Below are cited references that teach the claimed subject matter as best understood.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN 114115211B).
With regard to claim 1. Yang discloses a self-moving device includes a boundary line detecting unit for detecting a boundary signal, and an electronic tag which has unique identification information for boundary tags of different identification; an inertial measurement unit, a speedometer, position unit for real-time-position coordinates, see page 10-11. The self-moving device comprises a map establishing module for causing the self-moving device to walk at least one circle along the outer boundary of the working area. The device comprises a map correction module for correcting the boundary position coordinate sequence recorded in the process of the device walking around the outer boundary, see page 12. The sel-moving device 10 takes the charging station 5 as the origin, moves along the boundary lines, wherein the boundary lines comprise multiple target coordinates which the self-moving device moving from one location coordinate to another location coordinate along the boundary line, see page 15-16 which meets the scope of the claim.
Although Yang’s disclosure is not described as same world languages, but Examiner interprets the self-moving device includes modules for controlling the self-moving device travels along the boundary including multiple tag positions. For this reason, Yang is obvious suggestively, if not anticipatory, of the claimed subject matter.
With regard to claim 2, Yang teaches that the intelligent control method according to claim 1, wherein moving the self-moving device toward the first identification target includes: after the self-moving device exits the station site, turning the self-moving device in a preset direction to move toward the first identification target; and wherein after the self-moving device reaches the first identification target, the intelligent control method further includes: turning the self-moving device in a preset direction to cause the self-moving device to move along the first identification target (the self-moving device maps the sub-operating area in an established map and the cover the operating area in a predetermined sequence walking logic with return or turn to the target location, see page 16+)
With regard to claim 3, Yang teaches that the intelligent control method according to claim 1, wherein after the self-moving device acquires the second identification target, the path position indicated by the second identification target is used as a starting position of a path, and the self-moving device is further moved along the first identification target until the self-moving device acquires a third identification target, wherein the third identification target is configured to indicate a ending position of the path (the position unit records the sequences of position coordinates of the travel path, see page 16+).
With regard to claim 4, Yang teaches that the intelligent control method according to claim 3, wherein the starting position of the path indicated by the second identification target is the same as the ending position of the path indicated by the third identification target (the self-moving device returns to the initial position which is a starting point, and travels a closed loop, see page 16).
With regard to claim 5, Yang teaches that the intelligent control method according to claim 3, wherein the starting position of the path indicated by the second identification target differs from the ending position of the path indicated by the third identification target by a predetermined distance (the self-moving device accurately identify the accurate coordinate position of the boundary tags, see page 16).
With regard to claim 6, Yang teaches that the intelligent control method according to claim 5, wherein the predetermined distance is 30cm to 150 cm (obtaining the actual traveling distance between the current boundary label and the previous boundary label according to the pre-stored boundary length, see page 20). The design choice of the predetermined distance 30cm to 150cm in an expected way of implementing of Yang’s disclosure with no new or unexpected result.
With regard to claim 7, Yang teaches that the intelligent control method according to claim 3, further comprising: moving the self- moving device along the first identification target to collect information of identification points located in the path, wherein each of the identification points includes a unique identifier (pre-store position coordinates of a boundary tag having unique identification information, see page 22).
With regard to claim 8, Yang teaches that the intelligent control method according to claim 1, wherein the first identification target is a boundary line, and the second identification target is a radio frequency identification device (RFID) with a unique identifier (the boundary tag is RFID, see page 12).
With regard to claims 9 & 15, Yang discloses a self-mobile device, comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program executable by the processor, and the processor is configured to implement, when executing the computer program, an intelligent control method (the self-moving apparatus 10 comprises at least one processor and a memory for storing computer execution instruction, see page 23); wherein the intelligent control method includes:
after the self-moving device exits a station site, moving the self-moving device toward a first identification target (a charging station is set on the boundary, the self-moving starting from charging station, moving along the edge of the working area, see page 10); and
after the self-moving device reaches the first identification target, moving the self-moving device along the first identification target to acquire a second identification target, wherein the second identification target is configured to determine a path position at which the self-moving device is located, and the second identification target is different from the first identification target (a plurality of boundary tags are provided on the boundary line where the self-moving device travels from one tag to another tag, see page 11-16).
Although Yang’s disclosure is not described as same world languages, but Examiner interprets the self-moving device includes modules for controlling the self-moving device travels along the boundary including multiple tag positions. For this reason, Yang is obvious suggestively, if not anticipatory, of the claimed subject matter.
With regard to claims 10 & 16, Yang teaches that the self-mobile device according to claim 9, wherein moving the self-moving device toward the first identification target includes: after the self-moving device exits the station site, turning the self-moving device in a preset direction to move toward the first identification target; and wherein after the self-moving device reaches the first identification target, the intelligent control method further includes: turning the self-moving device in a preset direction to cause the self-moving device to move along the first identification target (the self-moving device maps the sub-operating area in an established map and the cover the operating area in a predetermined sequence walking logic with return or turn to the target location, see page 16+)
With regard to claims 11 & 17, Yang teaches that the self-mobile device according to claim 9,, wherein after the self-moving device acquires the second identification target, the path position indicated by the second identification target is used as a starting position of a path, and the self-moving device is further moved along the first identification target until the self-moving device acquires a third identification target, wherein the third identification target is configured to indicate a ending position of the path (the position unit records the sequences of position coordinates of the travel path, see page 16+).
With regard to claims 12 & 18, Yang teaches that the self-mobile device according to claim 11, wherein the starting position of the path indicated by the second identification target is the same as the ending position of the path indicated by the third identification target (the self-moving device returns to the initial position which is a starting point, and travels a closed loop, see page 16).
With regard to claims 13 & 19, Yang teaches that the self-mobile device according to claim 11, wherein the starting position of the path indicated by the second identification target differs from the ending position of the path indicated by the third identification target by a predetermined distance (the self-moving device accurately identify the accurate coordinate position of the boundary tags, see page 16).
With regard to claims 14 & 20, Yang teaches that the self-mobile device according to claim 13, wherein the predetermined distance is 30cm to 150 cm (obtaining the actual traveling distance between the current boundary label and the previous boundary label according to the pre-stored boundary length, see page 20). The design choice of the predetermined distance 30cm to 150cm in an expected way of implementing of Yang’s disclosure with no new or unexpected result.
Prior Arts Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hayashida (12461544) discloses a lawn mowing robot inside a house, wherein the robot is set its own travel route in the field using a processing system for traveling on the set travel route (see the summary section).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGA X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5217. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30AM - 2:30PM.
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, JELANI SMITH can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
NGA X. NGUYEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/NGA X NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights