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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments received 03-23-2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Claims 1, 9, and 15 have been amended.
No claims have been cancelled.
There are no new claims.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim(s) 1, 9, and 15 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
“mowing along the mow pattern when a static object is in proximity to the autonomous lawn mower and the static object is mowable such that one or more blades of the autonomous lawn mower are configured to contact the mowable static object”
The remaining/intervening claims are rejected based upon their dependency to a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balutis (US 20160174459 A1) in view of Grufman (US 20170364088 A1), and in further view of Szatmary (US 20200073401 A1) in view of Ran (US 20200272165 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 1, as amended, Balutis discloses, a sensor (Balutis: [0035]); one or more processors (Balutis: [0085]); which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: receiving boundary information associated with a boundary of a region to be mowed (Balutis: [0038]; [0047]); receiving sensor data from the sensor while traversing at least a portion of the region within the boundary (Balutis: [0035]; [0039-0041]; [0094]); when one or more objects exist within the region, determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, one or more objects in the region (Balutis: [0039-0041]; [0094]); receiving a mow pattern (Balutis: [FIG. 3]; [0058]); controlling the lawn mower to mow the region based on the mow pattern (Balutis: [0079]); and receiving a modified mow pattern when a static object is in proximity to the autonomous lawn mower and the object is not mowable (Balutis: [0041]; [0094]), wherein the modified mow pattern is based at least in part on the boundary information and the static object (Balutis: [0041]; [0094]), and wherein the modified mow pattern causes the lawn mower to navigate around the static object (Balutis: [0041]; [0094]).
In the implicit disclosure doctrine, in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (examiner: element “receiving a modified mow pattern when a static object is in proximity to the autonomous lawn mower and the object is not mowable”).
Balutis does not explicitly disclose classifying the one or more objects in the region as static objects that are currently not moving or dynamic objects that are currently moving.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Grufman discloses, classifying the one or more objects in the region (Grufman: [0033]; [0039]) as static objects that are currently not moving (Grufman: [0058]) or dynamic objects that are currently moving (Grufman: [0058]), for the benefit of providing a robotic mower that can truly operate without any need for human intervention (remote controlled mowers).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of mowing disclosed by Balutis to include object recognition disclosed by Grufman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a robotic mower that can truly operate without any need for human intervention (remote controlled mowers).
Balutis, as modified, does not explicitly disclose stopping the lawn mower when a dynamic object is in proximity to the lawn mower.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Szatmary discloses, stopping the lawn mower when a dynamic object is in proximity to the lawn mower (Szatmary: [0048]), for the benefit of minimizing damage due to a collision.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Balutis to include risk mitigation disclosed by Szatmary. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to minimize damage due to a collision.
Balutis, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, mowing along the mow pattern when a static object is in proximity to the autonomous lawn mower and the static object is mowable such that one or more blades of the autonomous lawn mower are configured to contact the mowable static object.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ran discloses, mowing along the mow pattern when a static object is in proximity to the autonomous lawn mower and the static object is mowable such that one or more blades of the autonomous lawn mower are configured to contact the mowable static object (Ran: [0221] when there are some tall weeds or weeds with relatively large branch diameters in a lawn, such as dandelions, the autonomous lawn mower may also determine the weeds as obstacles, and performs an avoidance operation when the distance is less than the preset distance. However, in this case, there is no need to perform the avoidance operation. Therefore, in order to reduce unnecessary avoidance and improve obstacle avoidance efficiency, after it is determined that the distance between the obstacle and the autonomous lawn mower is less than the preset distance, strength of the received echo signal is further determined. The avoidance operation is performed to avoid the obstacle only when the strength of the echo signal is greater than preset strength. An echo signal formed through reflection by weeds is generally relatively weak, and an echo signal formed through reflection by obstacles such as a large stump and a stone sculpture that really need to be avoided are relatively strong. Therefore, increased determinations as to strength of the echo signal can improve obstacle avoidance efficiency of the autonomous lawn mower), for the benefit of improve obstacle avoidance efficiency of the autonomous lawn mower.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process disclosed by a modified Balutis to include not breaking a lawnmower taught by Ran. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve obstacle avoidance efficiency of the autonomous lawn mower.
REGARDING CLAIM 2, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Balutis also discloses, the boundary information comprises one or more of: an initial position for the autonomous lawn mower within the region, or boundary locations defining a perimeter of the region (Balutis: [FIG. 2, 7]; [0046]; [0048]).
REGARDING CLAIM 3, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Balutis also discloses, traversing at least the portion of the region comprises controlling the autonomous lawn mower to move in accordance with a random walk algorithm or a striping algorithm (Balutis: [0006]; [0093] (examiner: in this case, algorithm is interpreted as a process or set of rules to be followed; see corn rowing)).
REGARDING CLAIM 4, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Balutis also discloses, the operations further comprise determining one or more mow parameters associated with the mow pattern, and wherein the one or more mow parameters comprise at least one or more of a mower speed, a blade deck height, deck type or a blade speed (Balutis: [0041]; [0059]).
REGARDING CLAIM 5, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Balutis also discloses, the mow pattern comprises a series of waypoints and mowing occurs by traveling along a path from one waypoint to a next waypoint (Balutis: [0067]; [FIG. 7A, 7B]).
REGARDING CLAIM 6, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 5, and further, Balutis also discloses, the controlling comprises using incremental motion vectors compared to the path and reducing an error between each incremental motion vector and the path (Balutis: [0051]; [0058]; [0067]; [FIG. 7A, 7B]).
REGARDING CLAIM 7, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 5, and further, Balutis also discloses, transmitting a signal in response to determining that one or more objects exist in the region, the signal configured to provide notification of the one or more objects (Balutis: [0041]; [0094]; [0115]).
REGARDING CLAIM 8, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Balutis also discloses, controlling the autonomous lawn mower to mow the region comprises receiving additional sensor data from the sensor while mowing the region (Balutis: [0041]; also see at least [0115] and [0117]) and using the additional sensor data to update a mow pattern or a mow parameter (Balutis: [0094]; also see at least [0115] and [0117]).
REGARDING CLAIM 9, as amended, Balutis discloses, receiving boundary information defining a boundary of a region to be mowed (Balutis: [0038]; [0047]); controlling a lawn mower to traverse at least a portion of the region (Balutis: [0094]); receiving sensor data from a sensor associated with the autonomous lawn mower (Balutis: [0035]; [0039-0041]; [0094]); when one or more objects exist within the region, determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, one or more objects in the region (Balutis: [0039-0041]); receiving a mow pattern (Balutis: [FIG. 3]; [0058]); controlling the lawn mower to mow the region based on the mow pattern (Balutis: [FIG. 3]; [0058]); and receiving a modified mow pattern when a static object is in proximity to the autonomous lawn mower and the object is not mowable (Balutis: [0041]; [0094]), wherein the modified mow pattern is based at least in part on the boundary information and the static object (Balutis: [0041]; [0094]), and wherein the modified mow pattern causes the lawn mower to navigate around the static object (Balutis: [0041]; [0094]).
Balutis does not explicitly disclose classifying the one or more objects in the region as static objects that are currently not moving or dynamic objects that are currently moving.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Grufman discloses, classifying the one or more objects in the region (Grufman: [0033]; [0039]) as static objects that are currently not moving (Grufman: [0058]) or dynamic objects that are currently moving (Grufman: [0058]), for the benefit of providing a robotic mower that can truly operate without any need for human intervention (remote controlled mowers).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of mowing disclosed by Balutis to include object recognition disclosed by Grufman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a robotic mower that can truly operate without any need for human intervention (remote controlled mowers).
Balutis, as modified, does not explicitly disclose stopping the lawn mower when a dynamic object is in proximity to the lawn mower.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Szatmary discloses, stopping the lawn mower when a dynamic object is in proximity to the lawn mower (Szatmary: [0048]), for the benefit of minimizing damage due to a collision.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Balutis to include risk mitigation disclosed by Szatmary. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to minimize damage due to a collision.
Balutis, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, mowing along the mow pattern when a static object is in proximity to the autonomous lawn mower and the static object is mowable such that one or more blades of the autonomous lawn mower are configured to contact the mowable static object.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ran discloses, mowing along the mow pattern when a static object is in proximity to the autonomous lawn mower and the static object is mowable such that one or more blades of the autonomous lawn mower are configured to contact the mowable static object (Ran: [0221] when there are some tall weeds or weeds with relatively large branch diameters in a lawn, such as dandelions, the autonomous lawn mower may also determine the weeds as obstacles, and performs an avoidance operation when the distance is less than the preset distance. However, in this case, there is no need to perform the avoidance operation. Therefore, in order to reduce unnecessary avoidance and improve obstacle avoidance efficiency, after it is determined that the distance between the obstacle and the autonomous lawn mower is less than the preset distance, strength of the received echo signal is further determined. The avoidance operation is performed to avoid the obstacle only when the strength of the echo signal is greater than preset strength. An echo signal formed through reflection by weeds is generally relatively weak, and an echo signal formed through reflection by obstacles such as a large stump and a stone sculpture that really need to be avoided are relatively strong. Therefore, increased determinations as to strength of the echo signal can improve obstacle avoidance efficiency of the autonomous lawn mower), for the benefit of improve obstacle avoidance efficiency of the autonomous lawn mower.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process disclosed by a modified Balutis to include not breaking a lawnmower taught by Ran. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve obstacle avoidance efficiency of the autonomous lawn mower.
REGARDING CLAIM 10, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 9, and further, Balutis also discloses, determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, one or more objects in the region (Balutis: [0041]; [0094]; also see at least [0115] and [0117]), wherein determining one or more objects in the region comprises controlling the autonomous lawn mower in accordance with a random walk algorithm or a striping algorithm (Balutis: [0006]; [0093]).
Balutis does explicitly recite the terminology "determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, one or more objects in the region, wherein determining one or more objects in the region comprises controlling the lawn mower in accordance with a random walk algorithm or a striping algorithm". However, Balutis discloses detecting and determining object/obstacle data while traveling in its environment, and a striping (corn row pattern) algorithm (algorithm is interpreted as a process or set of rules to be followed; see corn rowing), which, the examiner submits, implies or is capable of said detecting while corn rowing.
REGARDING CLAIM 11, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 9, and further, Balutis also discloses, determining a mow parameter associated with the mow pattern, wherein the mow parameter comprises at least one or more of a mower speed, a blade deck height, deck type or a blade speed (Balutis: [0041]; [0059]).
REGARDING CLAIM 12, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 9, and further, Balutis also discloses, controlling the autonomous lawn mower to minimize a difference between a state of the autonomous lawn mower and a state defined by one or more waypoints of the series of waypoints (Balutis: [0051]; [0058]).
REGARDING CLAIM 13, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 9, and further, Balutis also discloses, transmitting a signal in response to determining that one or more objects exist in the region, the signal configured to provide notification of the one or more objects (Balutis: [0041]; [0094]; [0115]).
REGARDING CLAIM 14, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 9, and further, Balutis also discloses, receiving additional sensor data from the sensor while mowing the region (Balutis: [0041]; also see at least [0115] and [0117]) and using the additional sensor data to update a mow pattern or a mow parameter (Balutis: [0094]; also see at least [0115] and [0117]).
REGARDING CLAIM 15, as amended, Balutis discloses, receiving boundary information defining a boundary of a region to be mowed (Balutis: [0038]; [0047]); controlling an autonomous lawn mower to traverse at least a portion of the region (Balutis: [0079]); receiving sensor data from a sensor associated with the autonomous lawn mower (Balutis: [0035]; [0039-0041]; [0094]); determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, that one or more objects exist in the region (Balutis: [0039-0041]; [0094]); receiving a mow pattern (Balutis: [FIG. 3]; [0058]); controlling the autonomous lawn mower to mow the region based on the mow pattern (Balutis: [0079]); and receiving a modified mow pattern when a static object is in proximity to the autonomous lawn mower and the object is not mowable (Balutis: [0041]; [0094]), wherein the modified mow pattern is based at least in part on the boundary information and the static object (Balutis: [0041]; [0094]), and wherein the modified mow pattern causes the autonomous lawn mower to navigate around the static object (Balutis: [0041]; [0094]).
Balutis does not explicitly disclose classifying the one or more objects in the region as static objects that are currently not moving or dynamic objects that are currently moving.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Grufman discloses, classifying the one or more objects in the region (Grufman: [0033]; [0039]) as static objects that are currently not moving (Grufman: [0058])) or dynamic objects that are currently moving (Grufman: [0058]), for the benefit of providing a robotic mower that can truly operate without any need for human intervention (remote controlled mowers).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of mowing disclosed by Balutis to include object recognition disclosed by Grufman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a robotic mower that can truly operate without any need for human intervention (remote controlled mowers).
Balutis, as modified, does not explicitly disclose stopping the lawn mower when a dynamic object is in proximity to the lawn mower.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Szatmary discloses, stopping the lawn mower when a dynamic object is in proximity to the lawn mower (Szatmary: [0048]), for the benefit of minimizing damage due to a collision.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Balutis to include risk mitigation disclosed by Szatmary. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to minimize damage due to a collision.
Balutis, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, mowing along the mow pattern when a static object is in proximity to the autonomous lawn mower and the static object is mowable such that one or more blades of the autonomous lawn mower are configured to contact the mowable static object.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ran discloses, mowing along the mow pattern when a static object is in proximity to the autonomous lawn mower and the static object is mowable such that one or more blades of the autonomous lawn mower are configured to contact the mowable static object (Ran: [0221] when there are some tall weeds or weeds with relatively large branch diameters in a lawn, such as dandelions, the autonomous lawn mower may also determine the weeds as obstacles, and performs an avoidance operation when the distance is less than the preset distance. However, in this case, there is no need to perform the avoidance operation. Therefore, in order to reduce unnecessary avoidance and improve obstacle avoidance efficiency, after it is determined that the distance between the obstacle and the autonomous lawn mower is less than the preset distance, strength of the received echo signal is further determined. The avoidance operation is performed to avoid the obstacle only when the strength of the echo signal is greater than preset strength. An echo signal formed through reflection by weeds is generally relatively weak, and an echo signal formed through reflection by obstacles such as a large stump and a stone sculpture that really need to be avoided are relatively strong. Therefore, increased determinations as to strength of the echo signal can improve obstacle avoidance efficiency of the autonomous lawn mower), for the benefit of improve obstacle avoidance efficiency of the autonomous lawn mower.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process disclosed by a modified Balutis to include not breaking a lawnmower taught by Ran. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve obstacle avoidance efficiency of the autonomous lawn mower.
REGARDING CLAIM 16, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 15, and further, Balutis also discloses, detecting, based at least in part on the sensor data, one or more objects in the region (Balutis: [0041]), wherein the mow pattern is further based at least in part on the one or more objects (Balutis: [FIG. 7A(1900a)] patter based on avoidance can be observed), and wherein controlling the autonomous lawn mower to traverse the at least the portion of the region comprises controlling the autonomous lawn mower in accordance with a random walk algorithm or a striping algorithm (Balutis: [0006]; [0093]).
REGARDING CLAIM 17, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 15, and further, Balutis also discloses, the operations further comprise determining a mow parameter associated with the mow pattern, and wherein the mow parameter comprises at least one or more of a mower speed, a blade deck height, deck type or a blade speed (Balutis: [0041]; [0059]).
REGARDING CLAIM 18, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 15, and further, Balutis also discloses, the mow pattern comprises a series of waypoints (Balutis: [0067]; [FIG. 7A, 7B]), controlling the autonomous lawn mower to minimize a difference between a state of the autonomous lawn mower and a state defined by one or more waypoints of the series of waypoints (Balutis: [0051]; [0058]).
REGARDING CLAIM 19, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 15, and further, Balutis also discloses, transmitting a signal in response to determining that one or more objects exist in the region, the signal configured to provide notification of the one or more objects (Balutis: [0041]; [0094]; [0115]).
REGARDING CLAIM 20, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 15, and further, Balutis also discloses, receiving additional sensor data from the sensor while mowing the region (Balutis: [0041]; also see at least [0115] and [0117]) and using the additional sensor data to update a mow pattern or a mow parameter (Balutis: [0094]; also see at least [0115] and [0117]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the independent claim(s) 1, 9, and 15 under 35 USC §103, obviousness, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference combination applied in the prior rejection of record for matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the objection of claim 15, duplicate limitations without further limiting, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 15, duplicate limitations without further limiting has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pjevach (US 20210116911 A1)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 AARRON SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights