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 .
Status of Application
This action is in reply to the application filed July 27, 2022.
Claims 1, 2, 7 – 12, 28 – 31, and 36 – 38 are pending and elected for examination.
Claims 3 – 6, 13 – 27, 32 – 35, and 39 have been cancelled by the applicant.
Information Disclosure Statement
The 3rd party submission information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 1, 2023, has been considered by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs (or columns and lines) in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP §2111.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 30 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “AEM” which should be expanded into its full form of Autonomous Electric Mower. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 7 – 12, 37, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0039313 A1, hereinafter Morrison.
Regarding Claim 7, Morrison teaches An autonomous electric mower (see at least Morrison Abstract: An autonomous lawn mower is described) for mowing a lawn comprising: a computer (see at least Morrison P0022: improve the functioning of a computer through function optimization, improved processing efficiencies, improved and optimized autonomous behavior of mower(s), etc.); a Lidar sensor; a plurality of depth sensing cameras; and a plurality of color cameras (see at least Morrison P0027: The exterior of the body 132 supports various sensors including but not limited to forward viewing camera (s) 120, rear viewing camera(s) 122, side viewing camera(s) 138, radar antenna 136, global navigation satellite system (GNSS) antenna 118, communications antennas 114 and 116 as well as a number of other sensors ( described in detail with respect to FIG. 2) that are within the body 132. Additional sensor elements may include one or more of cameras (whether stereo, RGB, monochromatic, infrared, ultraviolet, hyperspectral, etc.), radar( s ), lidar( s ), accelerometer(s ), gyroscope(s), torque sensor(s), magnetometer(s), location system(s), battery management systems, wheel encoder(s), motor sensor(s), orientation sensor(s), and/or the like), wherein the computer is operable, based on the data generated from each of the Lidar sensor, depth sensing cameras, and color cameras, to: determine the location of the mower (see at least Morrison P0033: Mower pose (location and orientation) may be detected, received, or determined based at least in part on the one or more sensor systems described above); detect an obstacle; and instruct the mower to avoid the obstacle (see at least Morrison P0107: the sensors detect an unknown obstacle (i.e., not accounted for in the mow pattern) that may impede the progress of the mower, the mower controller executes an interrupt (for example, obstacle handling program 334 of FIG. 3) that handles the obstacle).
Regarding Claim 8, Morrison teaches the limitations of claim 7 and the computer applies a first machine learning image-based sensor processing model to determine the location of the mower and a second machine learning image-based sensor processing model to detect the obstacle (see at least Morrison P0066: the objects may be specifically identified through object recognition algorithms to identify trees, bushes, buildings, etc. Such identification may be performed using machine learning algorithms… various neural networks may be trained to output object identification and location based on at least a portion of the sensor data the examiner interprets neural networks to output location as an example of the first machine learning model, and object identification as an example of the second machine learning model).
Regarding Claim 9, Morrison teaches the limitations of claim 8 and the computer is further operable to compare the data of a first sensor type to the data of a second sensor type to validate the location of the mower and presence of the obstacle (see at least Morrison P0051: During mowing, the mower may collect additional data regarding the property and use this additional data to update the mow pattern to, for example, add new obstacles, remove obstacles that are no longer present, update mower parameters, and/or the like the examiner interprets adding new obstacles and removing old obstacles as an example of validating the presence of an obstacle and P0033: Motion characteristics (e.g., velocity, acceleration direction, and/or the like) may be available from GNSS receiver 214 and the monitoring sensors 216 (e.g., inertial sensors, accelerometers, magnetometers, wheel rotation sensors, and/or the like) the examiner interprets a GNSS receiver as an example of a first sensor type and monitoring sensors as an example of a second sensor type for validating location of the mower).
Regarding Claim 10, Morrison teaches the limitations of claim 9 and the computer is further operable to instruct the mower to continue mowing when one sensor is obstructed by use of data generated from at least one of the unobstructed sensors (see at least Morrison P0072: For very large objects (e.g., lake, house, barn, etc.), that cannot be circumscribed, the mower may map a portion of the object and recognize that the remainder form part of the boundary. The differing object behavior may be based on any one or more of sensor segmentation, detections, classifications, a percentage of sensor data represented by the obstacle (which may be associated with a distance to the obstacle), etc. the examiner interprets a percentage of sensor data represented by the obstacle as an example of that sensor being obstructed by the obstacle and notes that this example description pertains to the “explore method”, but continuous performance of the mower’s task also takes place in the “explore and mow method” indicating continuation of mowing).
Regarding Claim 11, Morrison teaches the limitations of claim 7 and at least one cutting blade defining a cutting plane, and at least one blade motor for rotating the cutting blade, and at least one cutting-plane lift motor for adjusting the height of the cutting blade relative to the ground (see at least Morrison P0046: The mow pattern 322 may be associated with mow parameters 338 (e.g., mower speed, blade height, blade speed, deck type of side discharge, rear discharge, or mulching etc.) that are used while performing the mow pattern 322 and P0042: The actuator drive interface 310 may support control of the actuators 210 of FIG. 2 (e.g., drive motors, brake system, blade motors, deck actuator, etc.)).
Regarding Claim 12, Morrison teaches the limitations of claim 7 and the computer is operable to monitor the power during mowing (see at least Morrison P0033: monitoring sensors 216 including, but not limited to,… battery management systems), and to adjust the power during mowing based on controlling the at least one blade motor, vehicle ground speed, and the cutting plane lift motor (see at least Morrison P0036: The motor controller circuits (power switching) 245 may be separate from the motors or built into the motors and P0024: The mower has one or more drive mechanisms, e.g., motors, facilitating movement of the mower as well as rotating the cutting blades, where the drive mechanism is of a type commensurate with the energy source).
Regarding Claim 37, Morrison teaches the limitations of claim 7 and the computer is programmed and operable to compute a global path for the mower to mow the lawn (see at least Morrison P0093: The mow pattern is established as a series of waypoints that the mower travels between as it mows).
Regarding Claim 38, Morrison teaches the limitations of claim 37 and the computer is programmed and operable to compute a local path if an obstacle is detected, and wherein the local path departs the global path, avoids the obstacle, and returns to the global path (see at least Morrison P0104: the mower may not have a preplanned path around the tree and be enabled to use its sensors to circumnavigate the tree (or other obstacle). The process continues from waypoint to waypoint until the entire lawn is mowed while avoiding the obstacles and staying within the boundary the examiner interprets the preplanned path as an example of the global path, and circumnavigation as an example of a local path, after which the mower returns to the preplanned waypoints).
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.
Morrison + Becke
Claims 1, 30, 31, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison in view of US 10,980,173 B2, hereinafter Becke.
Regarding Claim 1, Morrison teaches An autonomous electric mower (see at least Morrison Abstract: An autonomous lawn mower is described) comprises: a computer (see at least Morrison P0022: improve the functioning of a computer through function optimization, improved processing efficiencies, improved and optimized autonomous behavior of mower(s), etc.); a Lidar sensor; a color camera; a depth sensing camera; a GPS sensor (see at least Morrison P0027: The exterior of the body 132 supports various sensors including but not limited to forward viewing camera (s) 120, rear viewing camera(s) 122, side viewing camera(s) 138, radar antenna 136, global navigation satellite system (GNSS) antenna 118, communications antennas 114 and 116 as well as a number of other sensors ( described in detail with respect to FIG. 2) that are within the body 132. Additional sensor elements may include one or more of cameras (whether stereo, RGB, monochromatic, infrared, ultraviolet, hyperspectral, etc.), radar( s ), lidar( s ), accelerometer(s ), gyroscope(s), torque sensor(s), magnetometer(s), location system(s), battery management systems, wheel encoder(s), motor sensor(s), orientation sensor(s), and/or the like); and at least one blade motor and blade coupled to the blade motor for cutting (see at least Morrison P0023: The mower has one or more drive mechanisms, e.g., motors, facilitating movement of the mower as well as rotating the cutting blades, where the drive mechanism is of a type commensurate with the energy source); and wherein the computer is operable to: determine the mower location based on at least one of the Lidar sensor, color camera, GPS, and depth sensing camera (see at least Morrison P0033: Mower pose (location and orientation) may be detected, received, or determined based at least in part on the one or more sensor systems described above); instruct the mower to move along a path according to a predetermined route plan; instruct the mower to cut according to a predetermined cutting pattern (see at least Morrison P0046: The mow pattern 322 may be associated with mow parameters 338 (e.g., mower speed, blade height, blade speed, deck type of side discharge, rear discharge, or mulching etc.) that are used while performing the mow pattern 322 and Fig. 10 showing the mow pattern generation occurs before the mow pattern execution, which the examiner interprets as a predetermined plan); monitor the path for obstacles as the mower is moving along the path and cutting based on data from the color camera, depth camera, and LIDAR sensor (see at least Morrison P0107: the sensors detect an unknown obstacle (i.e., not accounted for in the mow pattern) that may impede the progress of the mower, the mower controller executes an interrupt (for example, obstacle handling program 334 of FIG. 3) that handles the obstacle); instruct the mower to continue moving along the path and to continue cutting if data from at least one of the color camera, depth camera, and LIDAR sensor is unobstructed even if one of the color camera, depth sensing camera, and LIDAR sensor is obstructed (see at least Morrison P0072: For very large objects (e.g., lake, house, barn, etc.), that cannot be circumscribed, the mower may map a portion of the object and recognize that the remainder form part of the boundary. The differing object behavior may be based on any one or more of sensor segmentation, detections, classifications, a percentage of sensor data represented by the obstacle (which may be associated with a distance to the obstacle), etc. the examiner interprets a percentage of sensor data represented by the obstacle as an example of that sensor being obstructed by the obstacle and notes that this example description pertains to the “explore method”, but continuous performance of the mower’s task also takes place in the “explore and mow method” indicating continuation of cutting).
Morrison teaches a differential drive system and independent control of each of the wheels by a separate electric motor (see at least P0025) but does not explicitly teach this is a traction motor for the drive wheels. However, a traction drivetrain is known in the art and obvious for implementation in a lawn mower which requires enhanced traction on sloped and rugged terrain. Becke teaches at least one traction motor and drive wheel coupled to the traction motor (see at least Becke C18 Ln8: the vehicle control module 306 to provide control signals to the traction motor controller 58, which is configured to control the speed of the mower's wheels 24R, 24L).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Morrison to incorporate the method of Becke in the same field of invention to incorporate a traction motor for the advantage of regulating the torque to the motor and maintain a speed to most effectively propel the mower over the ground (see at least Becke C18 Ln26).
Regarding Claim 31, Morrison teaches An AEM system (see at least Morrison Abstract: An autonomous lawn mower is described) comprising: a perception module (see at least Morrison Fig. 3 sensor data 318), route planning module (see at least Morrison Fig. 3 pattern and map generator 328), localization module (see at least Morrison Fig. 3 sensor data 318 which the examiner notes includes a GNSS sensor depicted in Fig. 2, 218), blade cutting module (see at least Morrison Fig. 3 maw parameters 338), and navigation module (see at least Morrison Fig. 3 mow pattern following 332), wherein the navigation module comprises a traction controller (see at least Morrison P0025: each rear wheel 110 may be coupled to a drive mechanism, e.g., at least one motor (not shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B). For example, each wheel may be directly driven by a separate electric motor. In other examples, the drive mechanism may include a transmission and/or other form of gearing between the wheels and the motor).
Morrison does not name a traction controller explicitly. However, a traction drivetrain is known in the art and obvious for implementation in a lawn mower which requires enhanced traction on sloped and rugged terrain. Becke teaches at least one traction motor and drive wheel coupled to the traction motor (see at least Becke C18 Ln8: the vehicle control module 306 to provide control signals to the traction motor controller 58, which is configured to control the speed of the mower's wheels 24R, 24L).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Morrison to incorporate the method of Becke in the same field of invention to incorporate a traction motor for the advantage of regulating the torque to the motor and maintain a speed to most effectively propel the mower over the ground (see at least Becke C18 Ln26).
Regarding Claim 31, the combination of Morrison and Becke teaches the limitations of claim 30 and Morrison further teaches the blade cutting module includes a height adjustment motor and dedicated controller for adjusting the height of the blade plane (see at least Morrison P0038: The deck assembly 106 may comprise at least one drive motor 246 for the blades 248, at least one deck actuator 250 for raising and lowering the deck (104 in FIG. 2)), and wherein the blade cutting module is operable to optimize mowing efficiency by adjusting the height of the blade plane during mowing (see at least Morrison P0097: The method 1200 optimizes the mow pattern and its parameters on a macro-level to minimize power consumption and P0078: the method 1000 sets the mow parameters (e.g., mower speed, blade speed, blade deck height, deck type of side discharge, rear discharge, or mulching etc.) to be used during the mowing session. These parameters may be changed during the mowing session either in accordance with the mow task, via operator adjustment, or by the mower as the mower analyses the environment in which it is mowing).
Regarding Claim 36, the combination of Morrison and Becke teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Morrison further teaches the computer is programmed and operable to compute a detour if an obstacle is detected in the path of mower (see at least Morrison P0099: the addition of way points to alter the mow pattern or to define a previously unknown obstacle that is to be avoided, the examiner interprets additional waypoints as an example of a detour).
Blanton + Becke
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,951,977 B1, hereinafter Blanton, in view of Becke.
Regarding Claim 28, Blanton teaches An autonomous electric vehicle system (see at least Blanton Abstract: Disclosed are solutions for an autonomous vehicle) comprising a main robotic unit and slave attachment, wherein the main robotic unit comprises at least one traction motor and wheel, a plurality of sensors and cameras for localization, navigation and perception (see at least Blanton C16 Ln65: Tractor 710 may also include a main body that houses various electrical components and electronics such as batteries, drive motors, a battery- or power-management system, component controllers, sensors ( e.g., LID AR, RADAR, IMU, inertial navigation systems…), and an attachment hitch for power supply, data/communication, and mechanically connecting the vehicle to a slave attachment; and the slave attachment (see at least Blanton C17 Ln10: the mowing deck 701 may be cantilevered from tractor 710 without supporting wheels. Power may be provided through electrical connections to motors on mowing deck 701 to drive the mower blades the examiner interprets the mowing deck 701 as an example of a slave attachment, see also at least Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
461
890
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Blanton Fig. 7 showing the autonomous mower 700 with a tractor 710 and mowing deck 701 attached
Blanton does not explicitly teach this is a traction motor and wheel. However, a traction drivetrain is known in the art and obvious for implementation in a lawn mower which requires enhanced traction on sloped and rugged terrain. Becke teaches the main robotic unit comprises at least one traction motor and wheel (see at least Becke C18 Ln8: the vehicle control module 306 to provide control signals to the traction motor controller 58, which is configured to control the speed of the mower's wheels 24R, 24L).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blanton to incorporate the method of Becke in the same field of invention to incorporate a traction motor for the advantage of regulating the torque to the motor and maintain a speed to most effectively propel the mower over the ground (see at least Becke C18 Ln26).
Regarding Claim 29, the combination of Blanton and Becke teaches the limitations of claim 28 and Blanton further teaches the slave attachment is a mowing deck (see at least Blanton C16 Ln63: Autonomous mower 700 may include a mowing deck 701 and a tractor 710).
Morrison + Becke + Blanton
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,951,977 B1, hereinafter Blanton, in view of Becke.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Morrison and Becke teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Morrison further teaches the mower comprises a vehicle body (see at least Morrison P0027: The exterior of the body 132 supports various sensors), and the Lidar sensor is arranged to have a 360-degree view from the vehicle body (see at least Morrison P0033: The cameras 120, 122, 138 may include any combination of stereo, RGB, monochromatic, infrared, ultraviolet, hyperspectral, etc. Additional sensors may also include lidar(s), orientation sensor(s), inertial measurement unit(s) (IMU(s)) and/or the like. In one example, front and rear cameras 120 and 122 may be stereo camera pairs with an imaging angle of between 55 and 90 degrees. In an example, the side cameras 138 may each be a single camera with wide imaging angle, e.g., up to about 170 degrees. And Fig. 1 showing placement of the cameras. The examiner notes that the viewing angles and placement of the cameras result in a field of view covering 360 degrees with overlap).
Morrison teaches the fields of views of the cameras and sensors but does not explicitly state that the Lidar sensors themselves comprise a 360-degree view. However, Blanton teaches the mower comprises a vehicle body (see at least Blanton C16 Ln61: an implementation for an autonomous mower 700 which may be one example of autonomous mower 310. Autonomous mower 700 may include a mowing deck 701 and a tractor 710. Tractor 710 may also include a main body that houses various electrical components and electronics such as batteries, drive motors, a battery- or power-management system, component controllers, sensors (e.g., LIDAR, RADAR, IMU, inertial navigation systems…), and the Lidar sensor is arranged to have a 360-degree view from the vehicle body (see at least Blanton C2 Ln28: the direct sensing data is light detection and ranging (LIDAR) data; the direct sensing comprises continuous 360-degree sensing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Morrison to incorporate the method of Blanton in the same obstacle avoidance by work vehicles and mowers field of invention to ensure the Lidar sensor had a 360 degree view for the advantage of producing a comprehensive point cloud of all the mower’s surroundings (see at least Blanton C14 Ln41).
Conclusion
Related References
The related art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0378088 A1 by Anderson teaches a tractor system that for predicting and reacting to obscurant conditions of sensors, managing and mitigating obscured sensors of the work vehicle to complete the work task.
US 9538702 B2 by Balutis teaches a path planning and execution mower reacting to boundaries and obstacles.
Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSE RIDDER whose telephone number is (703)756-1675. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 EST.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571)270-3921. 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.
ROSE . RIDDER
Examiner
Art Unit 3664
/R.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights