DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to applicant’s amendments received on 12/17/2025.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 9-16 are amended. Claims 2 and 8 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3-8, and 9-16 are being considered in this Office Action. Claims 1, 3-8, and 9-16 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
In response to applicant’s amendments to claim 10, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
In response to applicant’s amendments, applicant’s addresses 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation, and therefore 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been considered in regard 35 U.S.C. 103; however, they are primarily raised in light of applicant’s amendments, and therefore an updated 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection will address applicant’s amendments.
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1, 3, 4, 14, and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as in view of Ryan Douglas Ingvalson (US 2020/0267896 A1, hereinafter “Ingvalson”) in view of Ackerman (US 2021/0018927 A1).
Claim 1/14/15
Ingvalson teaches:
An operation management device, comprising: a memory; and a processor configured to execute computer-executable instructions stored on the memory ([0036] controller 120 may include a processor 122 that receives various inputs and executes one or more computer programs or applications stored in memory 124); a mower ([0035] describes a mower);
acquiring operation completion data that is generated based on a travel path of the mower in a designated work area on a grass field ([0035] The mower 100 may further include one or more sensors to provide location data. For instance, some embodiments may include a positioning system (e.g., global positioning system (GPS) receiver 116 and/or other position system that may provide similar data) adapted to estimate a position of the mower 100 within a work region and provide such information to a controller 120. For example, one or more of the wheels 106, 108 (e.g., both rear wheels 106) may include encoders 118 that provide wheel rotation/speed information that may be used to estimate mower position (e.g., based upon an initial start position) within a given work region. [0061] FIGS. 3A-3K, the instantaneous or current travelling containment zone 302 (see initial zone 302t1) is represented by hatched lines, the portions of the work region that have been covered by the mower are represented by the double-hatched lines, and the uncut portions of the work region are shown unmarked. The examiner notes the positioning system and wheel encoder used to estimate mower position within a work region based upon an initial start position which represents travel path of the mower),
generating boundary data indicating a boundary of an operation completion area, indicated by the operation completion data, where the lawn mowing operation is implemented or a boundary of an area adjacent to the operation completion area based on the operation completion area where the autonomous lawn mowing operation has been performed ([0069] the controller 120 may then populate grid cells along that selected segment/leading edge path. This process continues until the leading edge 352L again encounters a boundary. Such boundary encounters include: encountering a dead-end either by hitting a boundary of the work region (see, e.g., encounter with boundary 350 as shown in FIG. 3K); or by hitting the boundary of a previously cut portion of the work region (see, e.g., encounter with previously mowed section as shown in FIG. 3J). [0074] Once the mower 100 completes mowing of the area 356, the controller 120 may recognize that area 359 remains uncut and may command the mower to proceed to that area. Once within that area, the mower 100 may re-activate the cutting unit and continue to mow the final uncut area represented by travelling containment zone 302t11 as shown in FIG. 3K. The examiner notes that are 359 is an area adjacent to the operation completion area based on the operation completion area 356 where the autonomous lawn mowing operation has been performed as illustrated in figures 3J-3K).
While Ingvalson teaches [0069] the controller 120 may then populate grid cells along that selected segment/leading edge path. This process continues until the leading edge 352L again encounters a boundary. Such boundary encounters include: encountering a dead-end either by hitting a boundary of the work region (see, e.g., encounter with boundary 350 as shown in FIG. 3K); or by hitting the boundary of a previously cut portion of the work region (see, e.g., encounter with previously mowed section as shown in FIG. 3J). [0074] Once the mower 100 completes mowing of the area 356, the controller 120 may recognize that area 359 remains uncut and may command the mower to proceed to that area. Once within that area, the mower 100 may re-activate the cutting unit and continue to mow the final uncut area represented by travelling containment zone 302t11 as shown in FIG. 3K. Ingvalson does not explicitly teach the following limitation; however analogues reference in the field of task management, Wang teaches:
the processor being configured for communicating with a plurality of machines including a first machine and an edge cutting machine(Fig. 1 illustrates a plurality of machines. Col. 4 lines 49-52 the administrator system 106 may establish a communication channel with each of the vehicles 104 selected to perform tasks as part of the mission 102 prior to finalizing the mission 102. Col. 18 lines 6-14 and At 1810, the vehicle (or the second vehicle) may initiate operations associated with the second task. For example, the vehicle may navigate to a start point of the next segment and proceed to perform an operation. In the current example, the vehicle may determine the completion of the task by comparing the data collected to the desired cutting profile. Examiner notes the task associated with the machine is related to cutting profile, while at 1608, the vehicle may initiate operations associated with the task. For example, the vehicle may navigate to an appropriate starting position according to the segment or path and begin performing a task, such as leveling, grading, scrapping, lawn mowing, tree removal, etc. ), and the computer-executable instructions comprising:
generating boundary data indicating a boundary of an operation completion area that indicates a partial area in which an autonomous lawn mowing operation performed by the mower on the grass field has been completed (Figure 2 illustrates that a sub-region is a partial area of a designated work area site, wherein each sub-region is divided into multiple segments, paths, and layer. Col. 4 lines 13-20 the administrator system 106 may collect survey data 110 of a site at which the vehicles 104 are assigned to generate a mission 102 including tasks that are assigned based on divisions of the site including sub-regions, paths, layers, restricted areas, and segments. Fig. 14 and col. 13 lines 19-26 discloses at 1418, the administrator system may send the tasks to the assigned vehicles. For example, the administrator system may assign a task to a vehicle and wait until a complete signal is received before assigning the next task within the sub-region to either the same or a different vehicle);
and outputting operation implementation data in response to a determination that the autonomous lawn mowing operation has been completed, the operation implementation data instructing the edge cutting machine to perform an autonomous edge cutting operation on the grass field in an area that is located at or within a distance from the boundary indicated by the boundary data, and that is included in the operation completion area (Fig. 14 and col. 13 lines 19-26 discloses at 1418, the administrator system may send the tasks to the assigned vehicles. For example, the administrator system may assign a task to a vehicle and wait until a complete signal is received before assigning the next task within the sub-region to either the same or a different vehicle. Col. 18 lines 6-14 and FIG. 18 is an example flow diagram showing an illustrative process 1800 for determining completion of a task by a vehicle. At 1810, the vehicle (or the second vehicle) may initiate operations associated with the second task. For example, the vehicle may navigate to a start point of the next segment and proceed to perform an operation. In the current example, the vehicle may determine the completion of the task by comparing the data collected to the desired cutting profile. Figure 2 illustrates that a segment is a partial area of a designated work area).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Ingvalson to include those of Wang such as the processor being configured for communicating with a plurality of machines including a mower and an edge cutting machine, generating boundary data indicating a boundary of an operation completion area that indicates a partial area in which an autonomous lawn mowing operation performed by the mower on the grass field has been completed, and outputting operation implementation data in response to a determination that the autonomous lawn mowing operation has been completed, the operation implementation data instructing the edge cutting machine to perform an autonomous edge cutting operation on the grass field in an area that is located at or within a distance from the boundary indicated by the boundary data, and that is included in the operation completion area, because doing so would allow the coordination of operation of a fleet to reduce risk and dangers associated with allowing multiple autonomous vehicles to operate within a site(Abstract).
While Ingvalson teaches [0069] the controller 120 may then populate grid cells along that selected segment/leading edge path. This process continues until the leading edge 352L again encounters a boundary. Such boundary encounters include: encountering a dead-end either by hitting a boundary of the work region (see, e.g., encounter with boundary 350 as shown in FIG. 3K); or by hitting the boundary of a previously cut portion of the work region (see, e.g., encounter with previously mowed section as shown in FIG. 3J). [0074] Once the mower 100 completes mowing of the area 356, the controller 120 may recognize that area 359 remains uncut and may command the mower to proceed to that area. Once within that area, the mower 100 may re-activate the cutting unit and continue to mow the final uncut area represented by travelling containment zone 302t11 as shown in FIG. 3K. Ingvalson does not explicitly teach the following limitation; however analogues reference in the field of task management, Ackerman teaches:
perform an autonomous edge cutting operation on the grass field in an area with a distance, the distance being equal to or less than a defined distance ([0105]-[0108] At block 642, the robotic mower is controlled within an operating area based on the boundary. For example, the robotic mower is controlled by control system 204 based on the control vectors generated at block 634. [0108] As noted above, boundary data can be defined in a number of ways. In accordance with one example of block 418, the robotic mower can receive multiple sets of boundary data and selectively use that boundary data in a preferential or ordered way. In one example, the robotic mower can first be controlled using boundary data generated by one or more of systems 304 and 306. That is, virtual worksite boundaries (e.g., a boundary map) 302 are received by control system 204. When control system 204 determines that robotic mower 202 is within a threshold distance of this boundary (e.g., within 10 feet, etc.)).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Ingvalson and Wang to include those of Ackerman such as perform an autonomous edge cutting operation on the grass field in an area with a distance, the distance being equal to or less than a defined distance, because doing so would provide a system that accurately detects boundaries to constrain operation of the machine within an operating area on a worksite, which can increase operating efficiency of the machine, which can reduce the operating time and thus the power consumption, wear and tear on the machine, etc. [0109].
Claim 3
Ingvalson further teaches:
The operation management device according to claim 1, wherein, the computer-executable instructions further comprise: in response to identifying a second operation non-implemented area that is adjacent to the boundary indicated by the boundary data and in which the autonomous edge cutting operation is not implemented ([0069] the controller 120 may then populate grid cells along that selected segment/leading edge path. This process continues until the leading edge 352L again encounters a boundary. Such boundary encounters include: encountering a dead-end either by hitting a boundary of the work region (see, e.g., encounter with boundary 350 as shown in FIG. 3K); or by hitting the boundary of a previously cut portion of the work region (see, e.g., encounter with previously mowed section as shown in FIG. 3J). [0074] Once the mower 100 completes mowing of the area 356, the controller 120 may recognize that area 359 remains uncut and may command the mower to proceed to that area. Once within that area, the mower 100 may re-activate the cutting unit and continue to mow the final uncut area represented by travelling containment zone 302t11 as shown in FIG. 3K. The examiner notes that are 359 is an area adjacent to the operation completion area based on the operation completion area 356 where the autonomous lawn mowing operation has been performed as illustrated in figures 3J-3K).
While Ingvalson teaches [0069] the controller 120 may then populate grid cells along that selected segment/leading edge path. This process continues until the leading edge 352L again encounters a boundary. Such boundary encounters include: encountering a dead-end either by hitting a boundary of the work region (see, e.g., encounter with boundary 350 as shown in FIG. 3K); or by hitting the boundary of a previously cut portion of the work region (see, e.g., encounter with previously mowed section as shown in FIG. 3J). [0074] Once the mower 100 completes mowing of the area 356, the controller 120 may recognize that area 359 remains uncut and may command the mower to proceed to that area. Once within that area, the mower 100 may re-activate the cutting unit and continue to mow the final uncut area represented by travelling containment zone 302t11 as shown in FIG. 3K. The examiner notes that are 359 is an area adjacent to the operation completion area based on the operation completion area 356 where the autonomous lawn mowing operation has been performed as illustrated in figures 3J-3K, Ingvalson does not explicitly teach the following, however Wang teaches:
generating the operation implementation data to instruct the edge cutting machine to perform preferential implementation of the autonomous edge cutting operation in the second operation non-implemented area(Fig. 1 illustrates a plurality of machines. Col. 4 lines 49-52 the administrator system 106 may establish a communication channel with each of the vehicles 104 selected to perform tasks as part of the mission 102 prior to finalizing the mission 102. Fig. 14 and col. 13 lines 19-26 discloses at 1418, the administrator system may send the tasks to the assigned vehicles. For example, the administrator system may assign a task to a vehicle and wait until a complete signal is received before assigning the next task within the sub-region to either the same or a different vehicle. Col. 18 lines 6-14 and FIG. 18 is an example flow diagram showing an illustrative process 1800 for determining completion of a task by a vehicle. At 1810, the vehicle (or the second vehicle) may initiate operations associated with the second task. For example, the vehicle may navigate to a start point of the next segment and proceed to perform an operation, such as removing material. In the current example, the vehicle may determine the completion of the task by comparing the data collected to the desired cutting profile. Figure 2 illustrates that a segment is a partial area of a designated work area).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Ingvalson to include those of Wang such as generating the operation implementation data to instruct the edge cutting machine to perform preferential implementation of the autonomous edge cutting operation in the second operation non-implemented area, because doing so would allow the coordination of operation of a fleet to reduce risk and dangers associated with allowing multiple autonomous vehicles to operate within a site(Abstract).
Claim 4
Ingvalson teaches:
The operation management device according to claim 1, wherein, the computer-executable instructions further comprise: generating the boundary data indicating the boundary in contact with a non-operation area adjacent to the operation completion area(Figures 3A-3K and 6A-6H illustrates and describes boundary of the completed mowing area vs. the adjacent un-mowed area. [0061]-[0064] describes for purposes of describing FIGS. 3A-3K, the instantaneous or current travelling containment zone 302 (see initial zone 302t1) is represented by hatched lines, the portions of the work region that have been covered by the mower are represented by the double-hatched lines, and the uncut portions of the work region are shown unmarked. Figs. 3A and 3B further illustrates generation of new boundaries representing a second work area 302 T_2 of un-mowed area adjacent to a completed work area 302 T_1 where the autonomous lawn mowing operation has been performed).
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as in view of Ingvalson in view of Wang in view of Ackerman, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Martin Schmidt (US 2007/0185754 A1, hereinafter “Schmidt”).
Claim 5
While Ingvalson teaches [0069] the controller 120 may then populate grid cells along that selected segment/leading edge path. This process continues until the leading edge 352L again encounters a boundary. Such boundary encounters include: encountering a dead-end either by hitting a boundary of the work region (see, e.g., encounter with boundary 350 as shown in FIG. 3K); or by hitting the boundary of a previously cut portion of the work region (see, e.g., encounter with previously mowed section as shown in FIG. 3J). [0074] Once the mower 100 completes mowing of the area 356, the controller 120 may recognize that area 359 remains uncut and may command the mower to proceed to that area. Once within that area, the mower 100 may re-activate the cutting unit and continue to mow the final uncut area represented by travelling containment zone 302t11 as shown in FIG. 3K. Ingvalson does not explicitly teach the following limitation; however analogues reference in the field of task management, Schmidt teaches:
The operation management device according to claim 1, wherein, the computer-executable instructions further comprise: outputting information relating to the operation implementation data to a terminal (([0035] The task responsibility system 100 may include one or more work stations or display devices that are capable of displaying a user interface (UD to one or more users. For example, the system 100 includes a UI 200 for viewing by a human user in the work environment, such as, user A. Also, the system 100 may include a UI 300 for another user, such as, users in user group B. The user A or the user group B may use the exemplary UIs 200, 300 to view their respective work lists, which may be all or a portion of the tasks in the folders. Fig. 3 illustrates a terminal).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Ingvalson, Wang, and Ackerman to include those of Schmidt such as the operation implementation data output unit outputs information relating to the operation implementation data to a terminal, because doing so would able to monitor and track the work environment in different perspectives to facilitate the efficient execution of the tasks in the work environment [0052].
Claims 6, 10, and 12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as in view of Ingvalson in view of Wang in view of Ackerman, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Duffy (US 2019/0248007 A1).
Claim 6
While Ingvalson teaches [0069] the controller 120 may then populate grid cells along that selected segment/leading edge path. This process continues until the leading edge 352L again encounters a boundary. Such boundary encounters include: encountering a dead-end either by hitting a boundary of the work region (see, e.g., encounter with boundary 350 as shown in FIG. 3K); or by hitting the boundary of a previously cut portion of the work region (see, e.g., encounter with previously mowed section as shown in FIG. 3J). [0074] Once the mower 100 completes mowing of the area 356, the controller 120 may recognize that area 359 remains uncut and may command the mower to proceed to that area. Once within that area, the mower 100 may re-activate the cutting unit and continue to mow the final uncut area represented by travelling containment zone 302t11 as shown in FIG. 3K. Ingvalson does not explicitly teach the following limitation; however analogues reference in the field of task management, Duffy further teaches:
The operation management device according to any one of claim 1, the computer-executable instructions further comprise: outputting the operation implementation data to the autonomous edge cutting machine that implements the autonomous edge cutting operation (Figs. 4A, 4B, fig. 9, and [0212] Block 906 illustrates main robot 102 connecting to a second modular attachment using the connection interface 214 to complete a second task set. The second modular attachment may be determined using substantially similar methods illustrated in block 902 above. The second task set may comprise different tasks from the first task set, requiring a different modular attachment to perform the second task set after completion of the first task set. According to another non-limiting exemplary embodiment, the second task set may comprise some tasks of the first task set (e.g., a subset of the first task set) requiring the second modular attachment to complete the second task set. [0213] Block 908 illustrates main robot 102 utilizing the second modular attachment to perform the second task set. Main robot 102 may effectuate the control of the second modular attachment by sending power output, electrical data signals, and/or mechanical output to the second modular attachment via the connection interface).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Ingvalson, Wang, and Ackerman to include those of Duffy such as outputting the operation implementation data to the autonomous edge cutting machine that implements the autonomous edge cutting operation using operation data as taught by Ingvalson, because doing so would provide data relating to the work regime to control means of the vehicle whereby the vehicle is operated to follow the work regime based on specified operation settings[0010].
Claim 10
While Ingvalson teaches [0069] the controller 120 may then populate grid cells along that selected segment/leading edge path. This process continues until the leading edge 352L again encounters a boundary. Such boundary encounters include: encountering a dead-end either by hitting a boundary of the work region (see, e.g., encounter with boundary 350 as shown in FIG. 3K); or by hitting the boundary of a previously cut portion of the work region (see, e.g., encounter with previously mowed section as shown in FIG. 3J). [0074] Once the mower 100 completes mowing of the area 356, the controller 120 may recognize that area 359 remains uncut and may command the mower to proceed to that area. Once within that area, the mower 100 may re-activate the cutting unit and continue to mow the final uncut area represented by travelling containment zone 302t11 as shown in FIG. 3K. Ingvalson does not explicitly teach the following limitation; however analogues reference in the field of task management, Duffy further teaches:
The operation management device according to claim 1, wherein the operation completion data is first operation completion data, and the computer-executable instructions further comprise: acquiring second operation completion data indicating that the autonomous edge trimming operation has been completed, and in response to acquisition of the second operation completion data, outputting additional operation implementation data that initiates implementation of an additional operation different from the autonomous lawn mowing operation and the autonomous edge cutting operation. ([0037] FIG. 9 illustrates a process flow diagram of an exemplary method for a main robot, utilizing a connection interface, to connect to a plurality of modular attachments to perform a plurality of task sets. [0169] The steps illustrated in FIG. 4A-B may be repeated upon main robot 102 desiring to exchange the current modular attachment for a new one to perform a different specialized task. [0209] FIG. 9 is a process flow diagram illustrating a method for a main robot 102, comprising a connection interface 214, to connect to a plurality of different modular attachments to accomplish a plurality of corresponding sets of tasks. The set of tasks may include one or more tasks such as mopping a floor, picking up items off a floor, taking images or video, assisting humans, and/or any task to be accomplished by a main robot 102 using a modular attachment. [0212] Block 906 illustrates main robot 102 connecting to a second modular attachment using the connection interface 214 to complete a second task set. The second modular attachment may be determined using substantially similar methods illustrated in block 902 above. The second task set may comprise different tasks from the first task set, requiring a different modular attachment to perform the second task set after completion of the first task set. The second task set may comprise some tasks (additional operation) of the first task set (e.g., a subset of the first task set) requiring the second modular attachment to complete the second task set).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Ingvalson, Wang, and Ackerman to include those of Duffy such as the operation completion data is first operation completion data, acquiring second operation completion data indicating that the autonomous edge trimming operation has been completed, and in response to acquisition of the second operation completion data, outputting additional operation implementation data that initiates implementation of an additional operation different from the autonomous lawn mowing operation and the autonomous edge cutting operation, because doing so would provide data relating to the work regime to control means of the vehicle whereby the vehicle is operated to follow the work regime based on specified operation settings[0010].
Claim 12
While Ingvalson teaches [0069] the controller 120 may then populate grid cells along that selected segment/leading edge path. This process continues until the leading edge 352L again encounters a boundary. Such boundary encounters include: encountering a dead-end either by hitting a boundary of the work region (see, e.g., encounter with boundary 350 as shown in FIG. 3K); or by hitting the boundary of a previously cut portion of the work region (see, e.g., encounter with previously mowed section as shown in FIG. 3J). [0074] Once the mower 100 completes mowing of the area 356, the controller 120 may recognize that area 359 remains uncut and may command the mower to proceed to that area. Once within that area, the mower 100 may re-activate the cutting unit and continue to mow the final uncut area represented by travelling containment zone 302t11 as shown in FIG. 3K. Ingvalson does not explicitly teach the following limitation; however analogues reference in the field of task management, Duffy further teaches:
The operation management device according to claim 10, wherein the computer-executable instructions further comprise: outputting the additional operation implementation data to an operation machine that implements the additional operation ([0209] FIG. 9 is a process flow diagram illustrating a method for a main robot 102, comprising a connection interface 214, to connect to a plurality of different modular attachments to accomplish a plurality of corresponding sets of tasks. The set of tasks may include one or more tasks such as mopping a floor, picking up items off a floor, taking images or video, assisting humans, and/or any task to be accomplished by a main robot 102 using a modular attachment. [0212] Block 906 illustrates main robot 102 connecting to a second modular attachment using the connection interface 214 to complete a second task set. The second modular attachment may be determined using substantially similar methods illustrated in block 902 above. The second task set may comprise different tasks from the first task set, requiring a different modular attachment to perform the second task set after completion of the first task set. The second task set may comprise some tasks (additional operation) of the first task set (e.g., a subset of the first task set) requiring the second modular attachment to complete the second task set. [0213] Block 908 illustrates main robot 102 utilizing the second modular attachment to perform the second task set. Main robot 102 may effectuate the control of the second modular attachment by sending power output, electrical data signals, and/or mechanical output to the second modular attachment via the connection interface 214).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Ingvalson, Wang, and Ackerman to include those of Duffy such as the operation implementation data output unit outputs the additional operation implementation data to an operation machine that implements the additional operation using operation data as taught by Ingvalson, because doing so would provide data relating to the work regime to control means of the vehicle whereby the vehicle is operated to follow the work regime based on specified operation settings[0010].
Claims 7, 9, and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as in view of Ingvalson in view of Wang in view of Ackerman, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Satoshi Haneda (JP 2018/106527 A, hereinafter “Haneda”).
Claim 7
While Ingvalson teaches [0069] the controller 120 may then populate grid cells along that selected segment/leading edge path. This process continues until the leading edge 352L again encounters a boundary. Such boundary encounters include: encountering a dead-end either by hitting a boundary of the work region (see, e.g., encounter with boundary 350 as shown in FIG. 3K); or by hitting the boundary of a previously cut portion of the work region (see, e.g., encounter with previously mowed section as shown in FIG. 3J). [0074] Once the mower 100 completes mowing of the area 356, the controller 120 may recognize that area 359 remains uncut and may command the mower to proceed to that area. Once within that area, the mower 100 may re-activate the cutting unit and continue to mow the final uncut area represented by travelling containment zone 302t11 as shown in FIG. 3K. Ingvalson does not explicitly teach the following limitation; however, analogues reference in the field of task management, Haneda further teaches:
The operation management device according to claim 1, the computer-executable instructions further comprising: acquiring first operation situation data indicating a situation of the autonomous lawn mowing operation implemented in the operation completion area indicated by the first operation completion data([0021] if the work of the work machine 1 in the work area AR is completed, if the grass is left behind or the height of the turf is irregular, the user may not be satisfied with the work result. In this case, it is necessary to cause the working machine 1 to perform the rework. [0032] The re-work determining unit 11 determines whether or not re-work is required according to the work satisfaction degree estimated by the satisfaction degree estimating unit 13. For example, when the estimated work satisfaction degree is equal to or less than a predetermined value (for example, -1), it is determined that rework is necessary); and outputting operation reimplementation data instructs the mower to reimplement of the autonomous lawn mowing operation in response to determining that the situation of the autonomous lawn mowing operation indicated by the first operation situation data satisfies a defined condition([0034] The actuator control unit 15 outputs a control signal to the work actuator 26 and the traveling actuator 27 to control the operation of the work implement 1 so as to perform mowing work while autonomously running in the work area AR. Further, once the work is completed, the traveling operation of the work machine 1 is controlled so that the work machine 1 moves to a position where the biological information detection unit 20 can detect the form of the user. When it is determined by the re-work determining unit 11 that re-work is necessary, control signals are transmitted to the work actuator 26 and the traveling actuator 27 so that the work implement 1 performs the work determined by the work content determining unit 14. When it is determined by the re-work determination unit 11 that re-work is unnecessary, the operation of the work implement 1 is controlled so as to execute a predetermined work completion operation such as returning to the charging station 8 and starting charging).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Ingvalson, Wang, and Ackerman to include those of Haneda such acquiring first operation situation data indicating a situation of the autonomous lawn mowing operation implemented in the operation completion area indicated by the autonomous lawn mowing operation completion data and outputting operation reimplementation data which instructs the mower to reimplement of the first operation in response to determining that the situation of the autonomous lawn mowing operation indicated by the first operation situation data satisfies a defined condition, because doing so would enable to reduce the load on the user by making troublesome settings and to configure the work machine such that the working machine automatically performs rework in accordance with the work satisfaction level of the user.
Claim 9
While Ingvalson teaches [0069] the controller 120 may then populate grid cells along that selected segment/leading edge path. This process continues until the leading edge 352L again encounters a boundary. Such boundary encounters include: encountering a dead-end either by hitting a boundary of the work region (see, e.g., encounter with boundary 350 as shown in FIG. 3K); or by hitting the boundary of a previously cut portion of the work region (see, e.g., encounter with previously mowed section as shown in FIG. 3J). [0074] Once the mower 100 completes mowing of the area 356, the controller 120 may recognize that area 359 remains uncut and may command the mower to proceed to that area. Once within that area, the mower 100 may re-activate the cutting unit and continue to mow the final uncut area represented by travelling containment zone 302t11 as shown in FIG. 3K. Ingvalson does not explicitly teach the following limitation; however, analogues reference Haneda teaches:
The operation management device according to claim 7, wherein the computer-executable instructions further comprise: outputting the operation reimplementation data to the mower that implements the autonomous lawn mowing operation ([0034] The actuator control unit 15 outputs a control signal to the work actuator 26 and the traveling actuator 27 to control the operation of the work implement 1 so as to perform mowing work while autonomously running in the work area AR. Further, once the work is completed, the traveling operation of the work machine 1 is controlled so that the work machine 1 moves to a position where the biological information detection unit 20 can detect the form of the user. When it is determined by the re-work determining unit 11 that re-work is necessary, control signals are transmitted to the work actuator 26 and the traveling actuator 27 so that the work implement 1 performs the work determined by the work content determining unit 14).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Ingvalson, Wang, and Ackerman to include those of Haneda such outputting the operation reimplementation data to the mower that implements the autonomous lawn mowing operation, because doing so would enable to reduce the load on the user by making troublesome settings and to configure the work machine such that the working machine automatically performs rework in accordance with the work satisfaction level of the user.
Claim 16
While Ingvalson teaches [0069] the controller 120 may then populate grid cells along that selected segment/leading edge path. This process continues until the leading edge 352L again encounters a boundary. Such boundary encounters include: encountering a dead-end either by hitting a boundary of the work region (see, e.g., encounter with boundary 350 as shown in FIG. 3K); or by hitting the boundary of a previously cut portion of the work region (see, e.g., encounter with previously mowed section as shown in FIG. 3J). [0074] Once the mower 100 completes mowing of the area 356, the controller 120 may recognize that area 359 remains uncut and may command the mower to proceed to that area. Once within that area, the mower 100 may re-activate the cutting unit and continue to mow the final uncut area represented by travelling containment zone 302t11 as shown in FIG. 3K. Ingvalson does not explicitly teach the following limitation; however, analogues reference Ackerman teaches:
The operation management device according to claim 7, wherein the computer-executable instructions further comprise: generating first operation situation data based on analysis of a still or moving image captured by a camera mounted on the lawn mower ([0070] At block 414, images are captured in real-time with on-board imaging components during operation of robotic mower 202. For example, a stereo camera or other image capture components capture images of an area of the worksite in front of robotic mower 202 in the direction of travel. These images are processed at block 416 to detect a boundary for the robotic mower 202).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Ingvalson and Wang to Ackerman include generating the first operation situation data based on analysis of a still or moving image captured by a camera mounted on the lawn mower as part of operation data as taught by Ingvalson and Wang, because doing so would provide a system that accurately detects boundaries to constrain operation of the machine within an operating area on a worksite, which can increase operating efficiency of the machine, which can reduce the operating time and thus the power consumption, wear and tear on the machine, etc. [0109].
Claim 11 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as in view Ingvalson in view of Wang in view of Ackerman in view of Duffy, as applied in claim 10, and further in view of Schmidt.
Claim 11
While Ingvalson teaches [0069] the controller 120 may then populate grid cells along that selected segment/leading edge path. This process continues until the leading edge 352L again encounters a boundary. Such boundary encounters include: encountering a dead-end either by hitting a boundary of the work region (see, e.g., encounter with boundary 350 as shown in FIG. 3K); or by hitting the boundary of a previously cut portion of the work region (see, e.g., encounter with previously mowed section as shown in FIG. 3J). [0074] Once the mower 100 completes mowing of the area 356, the controller 120 may recognize that area 359 remains uncut and may command the mower to proceed to that area. Once within that area, the mower 100 may re-activate the cutting unit and continue to mow the final uncut area represented by travelling containment zone 302t11 as shown in FIG. 3K. Wang teaches Fig. 14 and col. 13 lines 19-26 discloses at 1418, the administrator system may send the tasks to the assigned vehicles. For example, the administrator system may assign a task to a vehicle and wait until a complete signal is received before assigning the next task within the sub-region to either the same or a different vehicle. Ackerman teaches [0105]-[0108] At block 642, the robotic mower is controlled within an operating area based on the boundary. For example, the robotic mower is controlled by control system 204 based on the control vectors generated at block 634. Ingvalson, Wang, and Ackerman do not explicitly teach the following limitation; however analogues reference in the field of task management, Schmidt teaches:
The operation management device according to claim 10, wherein the operation implementation data output unit outputs information relating to the […] operation implementation data to a terminal ([0035] The task responsibility system 100 may include one or more work stations or display devices that are capable of displaying a user interface (UI) to one or more users. For example, the system 100 includes a UI 200 for viewing by a human user in the work environment, such as, user A. Also, the system 100 may include a UI 300 for another user, such as, users in user group B. The user A or the user group B may use the exemplary UIs 200, 300 to view their respective work lists, which may be all or a portion of the tasks in the folders. Fig. 3 illustrates a terminal).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Ingvalson, Wang, Ackerman, and Duffy to include those of Schmidt such as the operation implementation data output unit outputs information relating to the […] operation implementation data to a terminal using information related to additional operation implementation data as taught by Ingvalson, Wang, and Ackerman, because doing so would able to monitor and track the work environment in different perspectives to facilitate the efficient execution of the tasks in the work environment [0052].
Claim 13 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as Ingvalson in view of Wang in view of Ackerman, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Duffy in view of Richard McMurtry (US 2005/0038578 A1, hereinafter “McMurtry”).
Claim 13
While Ingvalson teaches [0069] the controller 120 may then populate grid cells along that selected segment/leading edge path. This process continues until the leading edge 352L again encounters a boundary. Such boundary encounters include: encountering a dead-end either by hitting a boundary of the work region (see, e.g., encounter with boundary 350 as shown in FIG. 3K); or by hitting the boundary of a previously cut portion of the work region (see, e.g., encounter with previously mowed section as shown in FIG. 3J). [0074] Once the mower 100 completes mowing of the area 356, the controller 120 may recognize that area 359 remains uncut and may command the mower to proceed to that area. Once within that area, the mower 100 may re-activate the cutting unit and continue to mow the final uncut area represented by travelling containment zone 302t11 as shown in FIG. 3K. Ingvalson does not explicitly teach the following limitation; however analogues reference in the field of task management, Duffy further teaches:
The operation management device according to claim 1, wherein the operation implementation data output initiates implementation of the autonomous edge cutting operation using, as the edge cutting machine, an edge cutting machine having [different operation setting] than the mower that implements the lawn mowing operation ([0212] Block 906 illustrates main robot 102 connecting to a second modular attachment using the connection interface 214 to complete a second task set. The second modular attachment may be determined using substantially similar methods illustrated in block 902 above. the second task set may comprise different tasks from the first task set, requiring a different modular attachment to perform the second task set after completion of the first task set. According to another non-limiting exemplary embodiment, the second task set may comprise some tasks of the first task set (e.g., a subset of the first task set) requiring the second modular attachment to complete the second task set. [0213] Block 908 illustrates main robot 102 utilizing the second modular attachment to perform the second task set. Main robot 102 may effectuate the control of the second modular attachment by sending power output, electrical data signals, and/or mechanical output to the second modular attachment via the connection interface 214. [0332] A maintenance robotic system for golf courses may include multiple robotic devices to maintain their grassy areas. For instance, larger devices may be equipped with mowing modules suitable for mowing grass at fairway or rough heights. Smaller devices may be used to clip grass on putting surfaces, which require very uniform, short grass heights. Similar small devices could be used to clip grass on other surfaces, such as grass tennis courts, bowling greens, etc. Each robotic device could be programmed to mow appropriately mapped areas depending on the purpose of the areas. They may be controlled by a central hub in wireless communication with the devices).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Ingvalson, Wang, and Ackerman include those of Duffy such as the operation implementation data output initiates implementation of the autonomous edge cutting operation using, as the edge cutting machine, an edge cutting machine having [different operation setting] than the mower that implements the lawn mowing operation, because doing so would provide data relating to the work regime to control means of the vehicle whereby the vehicle is operated to follow the work regime based on specified operation settings[0010].
While Ingvalson teaches [0069] the controller 120 may then populate grid cells along that selected segment/leading edge path. This process continues until the leading edge 352L again encounters a boundary. Such boundary encounters include: encountering a dead-end either by hitting a boundary of the work region (see, e.g., encounter with boundary 350 as shown in FIG. 3K); or by hitting the boundary of a previously cut portion of the work region (see, e.g., encounter with previously mowed section as shown in FIG. 3J). [0074] Once the mower 100 completes mowing of the area 356, the controller 120 may recognize that area 359 remains uncut and may command the mower to proceed to that area. Once within that area, the mower 100 may re-activate the cutting unit and continue to mow the final uncut area represented by travelling containment zone 302t11 as shown in FIG. 3K. Ingvalson does not explicitly teach the following limitation; however, analogues reference in the field of task management, McMurtry teaches:
the operation implementation data include having a cut width smaller than the mower that implements the lawn mowing operation ([0039] if the working width of the maintenance unit is one meter and the desired width of the stripes cut or rolled into the grass is four meters the vehicle will have to travel four working strokes in the same direction each offset by one meter from each other. The work within the regions that have tasks associated with them may be further defined by angle, direction in which the work is to be done, center of radial cut, one way or cross hatched and the number of passes the vehicle makes in the same direction so as to define the width of the pattern to be worked into the region).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Ingvalson, Wang, Ackerman, and Duffy, to include those of McMurtry such as the operation implementation data include having a cut width smaller than the operation machine that implements the first operation as part of different modular setting of the work machine, because doing so would provide data relating to the work regime to control means of the vehicle whereby the vehicle is operated to follow the work regime based on specified operation settings[0003].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20210233186 A1
Method for Monitoring Processes and Progress at a Construction Site
Cohen; Barak et al.
WO 2021067757 A1
Site Maintenance Utilizing Autonomous Vehicles
JANEY GREGORY et al.
US 20200094411 A1
Control System with Task Manager
Tan; Huan et al.
US 10860016 B1
Automated site-based mission planning system
Wang; Liang et al.
US 20150358890 A1
Device And Method in Radio Communication System
XU; Xiaodong et al.
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 REHAM K ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (571)272-0419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571)-270-5389. 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.
/REHAM K ABOUZAHRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BRIAN M EPSTEIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights