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
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 09/12/2025. The examiner notes the following adjustments to the claims by the applicant:
Claims 1 and 14 are amended;
No claims are cancelled or added.
Therefore, Claims 1-16 are pending examination, in which Claims 1 and 14 are independent claims.
In light of the instant amendments and arguments:
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the applicant’s arguments have been considered and found persuasive. The rejection is withdrawn.
Further examination resulted in a new rejection of Claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as detailed below.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments regarding the previous office action:
To overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, the applicant has amended each independent claim to include the additional underlined limitations: "determine a variance of the location based on signal strength and connection strength of navigation signals; and to determine the boundary at an instance of the at least one boundary point based on the variance of the location utilizing an innermost variance at the instance of the at least one boundary point, wherein the robotic work tool operates based on the boundary.";
“Independent claims 1 and 14 have been amended to recite, inter alia, determine/determining a variance of the location based on signal strength and connection strength of navigation signals; and determine/determining the boundary at an instance of the at least one boundary point based on the variance of the location utilizing an innermost variance at the instance of the at least one boundary point. (Emphasis Added). In this regard, a boundary is determined for each individual boundary point by the specific variance of the signal reception and the signal strength of received navigation signals related to the individual boundary point (Pg. 15, Line 27 - Pg. 17, Line 3 of the present Specification for support). Only the signal variance of the individual boundary point is needed to determine the boundary at the specific boundary point.”;
“Yamauchi and Robinson also both fail to determine an innermost variance of navigation signals, as Robinson's alleged innermost variance is merely an inward shift of the boundary according to the rejection. An inward shift of the boundary is not synonymous with an innermost variance, let alone an innermost variance of navigation signals. In contrast, the present invention utilizes the specifically measured variances of a boundary point location based on navigation signal strength and connection strength, and the variances allow for a detailed boundary adjustment beyond threshold change amounts.”;
“Utilizing the innermost signal strength and connection strength variance at the instance of a boundary point, the presently claimed invention tailors and adjusts the boundary of the work area to mirror the innermost variance point. In this regard, the present invention can perform smaller adjustments to the boundary than the combination of Yamauchi and Robinson.”.
Applicant's arguments A., B. , C. and D. appear to be directed to the instantly amended subject matter. Accordingly, they have been addressed in the rejections below.
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.
Claims 1-3, 12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yamauchi et al. (US 9,516,806 B2, henceforth Yamauchi), and Robinson et al. (EP 3695701 B1, henceforth Robinson).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamauchi explicitly discloses the limitations: a robotic work tool system {Figs. 1A-1C} comprising a robotic working tool {10, Fig. 1C} arranged to operate in a work area defined by a boundary {31, Fig. 9A}, the robotic working tool comprising a signal navigation device {151, Fig. 1C: “A wireless operator feedback unit 700 sends a signal to an emitter/receiver 151 on the robot lawnmower 10 that is in communication with a controller 150.”, Col. 4, Lns. 27-30}, and a controller {150 Fig. 1C}, wherein the controller is configured to: determine a location of at least one boundary point {“During the teaching mode the robot lawnmower 10 will determine and store its position at all times relative to the beacons 810, via a data processing unit. This data processing unit may be the controller 150 mounted on the robot lawnmower (see FIG. 1B), or may be a separate data processing unit”, Col. 11, Lns. 24-29}; determine a variance of the location {position error estimation represented in Fig. 5D}, wherein the robotic work tool operates based on the boundary {“altering direction of the mowing robot at or near a position corresponding to data in the redacted data set so as to redirect the robot back into the bounded area”, Abstract}.
Yamauchi does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: determine a variance of the location based on signal strength and connection strength of navigation signals; and to determine the boundary at an instance of the at least one boundary point based on the variance of the location utilizing an innermost variance at the instance of the at least one boundary point.
However, Robinson explicitly recites the limitation: determine a variance of the location {Figs. 5A-5B represent the shifting of a boundary segment 412 (see also Figs. 4A-4B) by a distance 417, with a maximum shift corresponding to “change threshold distance 501”, ¶[0080-0086]} based on signal strength and connection strength of navigation signals {outer boundary 107, Fig. 1 (and provided on a graphical grid in Figs. 6A-6B) may be dimensionally modified based on “vehicle position determination accuracy”, ¶[0037], which according to ¶[0040&0046], depends on Global Navigation Satellite System/GNSS signal quality: “signal qualities like signal-to-noise ratios or signal intensities of the first and second set of GNSS signals may permit to identify and omit parts of the second set of GNSS signals that are of low quality”}; and to determine the boundary at an instance of the at least one boundary point based on the variance of the location utilizing an innermost variance at the instance of the at least one boundary point {shifting of the boundary, ¶[0079], inwardly or outwardly, ¶[0095] and Figs. 5A-5B, and shifting by a threshold distance, ¶[0082]}.
Yamauchi and Robinson are analogous art because they both deal with managing the motion of robotic mowers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Yamauchi and Robinson before them, to modify the teachings of Yamauchi to include the teachings of Robinson to adapt the mowing perimeter boundary for changing conditions a robotic mower encounters {¶[0082]}.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Yamauchi and Robinson discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. Yamauchi does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the controller is further configured to determine the boundary based on the variance of the location(s) utilizing the innermost variance(s) by generating an inner envelope of the at least one boundary point.
However, Robinson explicitly recites limitation: wherein the controller {Fig. 2} is further configured to determine the boundary based on the variance of the location(s) utilizing the innermost variance(s) by generating an inner envelope of the at least one boundary point {updating work area perimeter in the fashion shown in Figs. 5A-5B: “The updating of the workable area may comprise updating the position data. For example, changing the current boundaries may comprise replacing by the robotic vehicle the current boundary position data by new boundary position data that reflects the changed boundaries.”, ¶[0012]}.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Yamauchi and Robinson discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. Yamauchi further explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the controller is further configured to determine based on the variance a location of a boundary point is inaccurate {“all sensors have some noise, so these circles are unlikely to intersect at one point, and some means is necessary to estimate the sensor position based on multiple intersections between range circles”, Col. 9, Lns. 44-48} and in response thereto determine the variance of the location as a variance of the location of the boundary point determined to be inaccurate {position error estimation represented in Fig. 5D: “the robot's location can be determined using a technique referred to herein as minimum-distance intersection set trilateration (MIST). MIST is a technique for estimating the location of a sensor based on noisy range data from a set of fixed beacons at known locations.”, Col. 9, Lns. 52-57; wherein the robot’s position established the perimeter during training: “As shown in FIGS. 6B and 6C, keep-out zones can also be trained using a method similar to that for teaching the boundary. For example, to create a keep-out Zone around a tree, the user can move the robot to a point on the boundary of the tree”, Col. 12, Lns. 4-8}.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Yamauchi and Robinson discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. Yamauchi further explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the robotic work tool is a robotic lawnmower {10, Figs. 1A-1C}.
Regarding Claim 14, Yamauchi explicitly discloses the limitations: a method for use in a robotic work tool system comprising a robotic working tool {10 including controller 150, Fig. 1C} arranged to operate in a work area defined by a boundary {31, Fig. 9A}, the robotic working tool comprising a signal navigation device {151, Fig. 1C: “A wireless operator feedback unit 700 sends a signal to an emitter/receiver 151 on the robot lawnmower 10 that is in communication with a controller 150.”, Col. 4, Lns. 27-30}, wherein the method comprises: determining a location of at least one boundary point {“During the teaching mode the robot lawnmower 10 will determine and store its position at all times relative to the beacons 810, via a data processing unit. This data processing unit may be the controller 150 mounted on the robot lawnmower (see FIG. 1B), or may be a separate data processing unit”, Col. 11, Lns. 24-29}; determining a variance of the location {position error estimation represented in Fig. 5D}, wherein the robotic work tool operates based on the boundary {“altering direction of the mowing robot at or near a position corresponding to data in the redacted data set so as to redirect the robot back into the bounded area”, Abstract}.
Yamauchi does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: determine a variance of the location based on signal strength and connection strength of navigation signals; and to determine the boundary at an instance of the at least one boundary point based on the variance of the location utilizing an innermost variance at the instance of the at least one boundary point.
However, Robinson explicitly recites the limitation: determine a variance of the location {Figs. 5A-5B represent the shifting of a boundary segment 412 (see also Figs. 4A-4B) by a distance 417, with a maximum shift corresponding to “change threshold distance 501”, ¶[0080-0086]} based on signal strength and connection strength of navigation signals {outer boundary 107, Fig. 1 (and provided on a graphical grid in Figs. 6A-6B) may be dimensionally modified based on “vehicle position determination accuracy”, ¶[0037], which according to ¶[0040&0046], depends on Global Navigation Satellite System/GNSS signal quality: “signal qualities like signal-to-noise ratios or signal intensities of the first and second set of GNSS signals may permit to identify and omit parts of the second set of GNSS signals that are of low quality”}; and to determine the boundary at an instance of the at least one boundary point based on the variance of the location utilizing an innermost variance at the instance of the at least one boundary point {shifting of the boundary, ¶[0079], inwardly or outwardly, ¶[0095] and Figs. 5A-5B, and shifting by a threshold distance, ¶[0082]}.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Yamauchi and Robinson discloses the limitations of Claim 14, as discussed supra. Yamauchi further explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the method further comprises providing a representation of the boundary through a user equipment {“The robot can determine whether all keep out zones have been defined by generating a prompt for a user to indicate whether the zones have been defined and receiving a response from the user indicative of their completion/non-completion.”, Col. 14, Lns. 38-42}, wherein the representation of the boundary indicates the accuracy of at least one boundary point {position error estimation represented in Fig. 5D}.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Yamauchi and Robinson discloses the limitations of Claim 15, as discussed supra. Yamauchi further explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the method further comprises receiving user input to change the at least one boundary point {“The robot can determine whether all keep out zones have been defined by generating a prompt for a user to indicate whether the zones have been defined and receiving a response from the user indicative of their completion/non-completion.”, Col. 14, Lns. 38-42}.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yamauchi, Robinson and He (US 12,153,440 B2).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Yamauchi and Robinson discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Yamauchi and Robinson does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the controller is further configured to determine that the location of boundary point is inaccurate by determining that a boundary point is in an area of insufficient signal reception.
However, He explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the controller {“automatic lawn mower 1 includes at least one position sensor, electrically connected to the controller, and configured to detect a feature related to a position of the automatic lawn mower 1…the position sensor is the inertial navigation sensor.”, Col. 8, Lns. 63-67 and Col. 10, Lns. 1-2} is further configured to determine that the location of boundary point is inaccurate {S101, Fig. 6: “generating a working region map and an initial shadow section, the working region map being a map of a boundary, and the initial shadow section being a part of the boundary on which a positioning signal does not meet a quality requirement.”, and S104: “Generate a corrected shadow region according to the positioning signal quality data and the positioning coordinates.”} by determining that a boundary point is in an area of insufficient signal reception {“The auxiliary positioning apparatus is configured to match differential GPS positioning when a differential GPS signal is poor. A positioning error is corrected by using a correction value outputted by the auxiliary positioning apparatus, so that the accuracy of a generated map is higher.”, Col. 23, Lns. 1-6}.
The combination of Yamauchi and Robinson along with He are analogous art because they deal with managing the motion of robotic mowers within a bounded area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Yamauchi, Robinson and He before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Yamauchi and Robinson to include the teachings of He to alter the mowing boundary to account for regions of weak signal reception.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Yamauchi and Robinson discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Yamauchi and Robinson does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the controller is further configured to determine that an area is an area of insufficient signal reception based on a number of signals or quality of at least one of signal received by the signal navigation device .
He, however, teaches of a system wherein the controller is further configured to determine that an area is an area of insufficient signal reception {“a smart lawn mower may not perform accurate positioning due to a weak GPS signal when working in the shadow region. Therefore, it is necessary to properly process the shadow region, so as to improve the positioning accuracy.”, Col. 1, Lns. 54-58} based on a number of signals or quality of at least one of signal {S101, Fig. 6: “generating a working region map and an initial shadow section, the working region map being a map of a boundary, and the initial shadow section being a part of the boundary on which a positioning signal does not meet a quality requirement.”, and S104: “Generate a corrected shadow region according to the positioning signal quality data and the positioning coordinates.”} received by the signal navigation device {“The auxiliary positioning apparatus is configured to match differential GPS positioning when a differential GPS signal is poor. A positioning error is corrected by using a correction value outputted by the auxiliary positioning apparatus, so that the accuracy of a generated map is higher.”, Col. 23, Lns. 1-6}.
Claims 6-8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yamauchi, Robinson and Chen et al. (US 2023/0259138 A1, henceforth Chen).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Yamauchi and Robinson discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Yamauchi and Robinson does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: further comprising an optical navigation sensor, wherein the controller is further configured to follow the boundary in a first direction using the optical navigation sensor to record features utilizing simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM).
However, Chen explicitly recites the limitation: an optical navigation sensor, wherein the controller is further configured to follow the boundary in a first direction using the optical navigation sensor to record features utilizing simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) {“A smart mower includes a camera for collecting image data of the environment around the smart mower….performing simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) of the smart mower, and generating a navigation or mowing action instruction”, Abstract}.
Yamauchi, Robinson and Chen are analogous art because they all deal with managing the motion of robotic mowers within a bounded area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Yamauchi, Robinson and Chen before them, to modify the teachings of Yamauchi and Robinson to include the teachings of Chen to enhance navigational accuracy of a robot mower {“the main object of the present application is to provide a smart mower with a higher positioning accuracy and a deeper understanding of the surrounding environment.”, ¶[0004]}.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Yamauchi, Robinson and Chen discloses the limitations of Claim 6, as discussed supra. The combination of Yamauchi and Robinson does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the controller is further configured to follow the boundary in a second direction using the optical navigation sensor to record features utilizing SLAM.
However, Chen explicitly recites the limitations wherein the controller is further configured to follow the boundary in a second direction using the optical navigation sensor to record features utilizing SLAM {“A smart mower includes a camera for collecting image data of the environment around the smart mower….performing simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) of the smart mower, and generating a navigation or mowing action instruction”, Abstract, wherein one skilled in the art will appreciate that movements in more than one direction enhances data collection}.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Yamauchi, Robinson and Chen disclose the robotic work tool system of Claim 6, as discussed supra. Yamauchi further explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the controller is further configured to follow the boundary before an installation process {manually assisted process for initially establishing a work area boundary, which results in the boundary in Fig. 6C: “Referring to FIG. 1B, in a perimeter teaching mode, a human operator manually guides the robot lawnmower 10 to establish the perimeter 21 of the lawn 20.”, Col. 4, Lns. 47-49}.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Yamauchi and Robinson disclose the robotic work tool system of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Yamauchi and Robinson does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the robotic work tool is configured to be remote controlled by a user equipment.
However, Chen explicitly recites the limitation: further comprising an optical navigation sensor, wherein the robotic work tool is configured to be remote controlled by a user equipment {“a separate display device, or an interactive display interface of a mobile terminal such as a mobile phone and a tablet that can perform data interaction with the smart mower 110”, ¶[0118]}.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yamauchi, Robinson, Chen and Markusson et al. (US 8,942,862 B2, henceforth Markusson).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Yamauchi, Robinson, Chen discloses the robotic work tool system of Claim 6, as discussed supra. The combination of Yamauchi, Robinson and Chen does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the controller is further configured to follow the boundary after an installation process.
However, Markusson explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the controller is further configured to follow the boundary after an installation process {“the robotic lawnmower 202 may also partially follow the boundary wire 204 to locate the charging station 210”, Col. 6, Lns. 25-27}.
Yamauchi, Robinson, Chen and Markusson are analogous art because they all deal with managing the motion of robotic mowers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Yamauchi, Robinson, Chen and Markusson before them, to modify the teachings of Yamauchi to include the teachings of Robinson to operate a robotic mower along a defined perimeter boundary {“a system (100) for guiding a robotic garden tool to a predetermined position”, Abstract}.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Yamauchi, Robinson, Chen discloses the robotic work tool system of Claim 7, as discussed supra. Yamauchi further explicitly recites the limitations: a charging station {“The robot lawnmower 10 may be docked at a base station or dock 12. In some examples, the dock 12 includes a charging system for changing a battery 160 housed by the robot body 100.”, Col. 4, Lns. 32-35}, wherein the controller is further configured to move the robotic working tool to the charging station {“When the perimeter-teaching process is complete, the user may dock the robot lawnmower 10 in its dock 12 (see FIG. 1A), allowing the robot lawnmower 10 to recharge before mowing”, Col. 6, Lns. 18-21}.
The combination of Yamauchi, Robinson and Chen does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the controller is further configured to follow the boundary while the robotic working tool moves to the charging station in selectively the first direction and the second direction.
However, Markusson explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the controller is further configured to follow the boundary while the robotic working tool moves to the charging station in selectively the first direction and the second direction {“the robotic lawnmower 202 may also partially follow the boundary wire 204 to locate the charging station 210”, Col. 6, Lns. 25-27, wherein one skilled in the art will appreciate the robotic lawnmower will change directions when following a boundary wire when the wire includes a 90° turn}.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Yamauchi, Robinson, Chen and Markusson disclose the robotic work tool system according to Claim 10, as discussed supra. Yamauchi further explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the controller is further configured to follow the boundary while the robotic working tool moves to the charging station {“When the perimeter-teaching process is complete, the user may dock the robot lawnmower 10 in its dock 12 (see FIG. 1A), allowing the robot lawnmower 10 to recharge before mowing”, Col. 6, Lns. 18-21} in selectively the first direction and the second direction {Fig. 6A} through an area of insufficient signal reception {in the teaching mode to determine suitable virtual boundary for autonomous navigation, weak signals are dealt with: “in a teaching mode, store in non-transient memory a set of geospatially referenced boundary data corresponding to positions of the mowing robot as the mowing robot is guided about a border of the lawn area”, Col. 23, Lns. 1-6, and “The auxiliary positioning apparatus is configured to match differential GPS positioning when a differential GPS signal is poor. A positioning error is corrected by using a correction value outputted by the auxiliary positioning apparatus, so that the accuracy of a generated map is higher.”, Col. 23, Lns. 1-6}.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
EP 3876063 A1 – Redefining the work area of a robotic mower: “may redefine a work area perimeter such that a more accurate work area perimeter is created. The work area may be easy to define, while still being defined with a high precision. By determining whether a detected position of a boundary segment is closer than a threshold distance to a safety perimeter, it may be possible to create a work area perimeter close to the safety perimeter, but without extending beyond it. With the proposed redefining process, the precision of the work area may be further improved such that the work area perimeter surrounds the complete work area, while still excluding areas that are not intended to be covered.” {¶[0027]}.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD EDWIN GEIST whose telephone number is (703)756-5854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/R.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665