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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). A certified copy of the priority document (see Table below) has been received in this National Stage application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
Application Number
Filing Date
CN202011585147.3
December 25, 2020
CN202011573504.4
December 25, 2020
CN202023177681.9
December 25, 2020
CN202011573674.2
December 25, 2020
CN202010493112.0
June 3, 2020
CN202020988949.8
June 3, 2020
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 03/18/2026. The examiner notes the following adjustments to the claims by the applicant:
Claims 1, 5-7, 12-15 and 21 are amended; and
Claim 22 is new.
Therefore, Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15 and 17-22 are pending examination, in which Claims 1 and 12 are independent claims.
In light of the instant amendments and arguments:
The applicant’s preference to amend the Abstract is accepted.
The objection to the Drawings, due to informalities, is withdrawn. However, an additional informality in Fig. 2 has arisen, due to the amended Specifications, as detailed below.
Examiner’s response to the objection to the Specifications, due to informalities, is partially withdrawn, as detailed here:
Regarding ¶[0004], the phrase “which is not only easy to cause track”, lacks sufficient clarity, and needs rephrasing. {The applicant’s amendment is acceptable if the last word in the amendment is made plural, i.e., “easy to cause tracks”, to make it grammatically correct.}
Regarding ¶[0004] and ¶[0006], the term “overmuch” is grammatically incorrect. The examiner suggest rewording to reflect the aim of identifying excessive mowing in a given area. {This objection is withdrawn.}
Regarding ¶[0016] and the statement “defining a distance between the rear sensor and the guide wire as the random corridor distance”. The word random serves no purpose in this context. [Similarly in ¶[0043], the phrase “random mowing operation” should simply be “mowing operation.] {This objection is withdrawn.}
Regarding ¶[0073], the mower’s motorized drive assembly is referred to as a “walking assembly’, which is non-standard terminology. Similarly, the phrase “walking direction” is non-standard terminology. More standard terminology for these phrases is preferable. {This objection is withdrawn.}
Regarding ¶[0077], the phrase “random distance” is used. However, the phrase is defined as: “the random distance may be between 50cm to 250cm, such as 50cm, 100cm, 150cm, 200cm and 250cm”, which does not reflect randomness. {This objection is withdrawn.}
Regarding ¶[0083], the phrase “the robotic mower 1 is easy to repeat rolling which forms a track” is grammatically unsatisfactory. Rephrasing to reflect the fact that, in the vicinity of a charging station, it is common for a mower to repeatedly roll over the same portion of the ground and form tracks, is preferable. {This objection is withdrawn.}
Regarding ¶[0106], the limitation “controlling the robotic mower 1 to enable the guide wire 7 cross the rear sensor 5b”, lacks sufficient clarity, and needs rephrasing. {The applicant’s amendment is acceptable if the word “from” is added to the last part of the amendments (i.e., “to keep the rear sensor 5b [from] crossing the guide wire 7”). The examiner has interpreted this change to reflect the aim of keeping the rear sensor aligned with the guide wire.}
The objection to Claims 1 and 12-15, due to informalities, is withdrawn. However, additional informalities in Claims 1, 6-7, 12 and 14 has arisen, due to the amended claim language, as detailed below.
Regarding the objection to Claims 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. §112(f), the applicant’s arguments/amendments have been considered and found persuasive. The objection is withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection to Claims 1, 12 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. §112(a), the applicant’s arguments/amendments have been considered and found unpersuasive. The rejection is maintained.
Regarding the rejection to Claims 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. §112(a), the applicant’s arguments/amendments have been considered and found persuasive. The rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection to Claim 1, 5-7, 12 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), involving the use the word random (e.g., “random distance”), the applicant’s arguments/amendments have been considered and found persuasive. The rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection to Claim 1, 12 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), involving the comparison to “the length of the straight boundary area”, the applicant’s arguments/amendments have been considered and found unpersuasive. The rejection is maintained.
Regarding the rejection to Claims 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), involving modules, the applicant’s arguments/amendments have been considered and found persuasive. The rejection is withdrawn.
The Specifications are objected to for failing to support all the amended claim limitations, as detailed below.
New rejections of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) and 35 U.S.C. §112(b) due to the amended claim limitations, is detailed below.
In light of the instant amendments and arguments, further examination resulted in a new rejection of Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15 and 17-22 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. Claim 1 is considered representative and includes following additional underlined limitations:
[A] To overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection, the applicant has amended each independent claim to include the additional underlined limitations: “controlling, by the control unit, the robotic mower to continue to move for a after the robotic mower exiting out of the loop of the charger station, the distance being randomly selected from 50cm to 250cm… defining a section of boundary wire as the straight boundary section when current sensing signals of the first sensor or the second sensor remain unchangeable for a predetermined time period, and defining another section of boundary wire as a non-straight boundary section when current sensing signals of the first sensor or the second sensor keep changeable”;
[B] “In Kraft's disclosure, the vehicle control unit may use signals from four boundary sensors to determine orientation and heading of the robotic mower with respect to the boundary wire (paragraph [0039] in Kraft's specification), and Kraft only discloses that the robotic mower return to the charging station around the boundary wire (paragraphs [0059] and [0065] in Kraft's specification). And Kraft discloses the vehicle control unit may command the vehicle to exit the charging station. However, Kraft only discloses that the vehicle control unit may command the traction wheel motors to leave the charging station by rotating in reverse for a specified distance or duration to back up the robotic mower out and away from the charging station (paragraph [0042] ins Kraft's disclosure). "a specified distance" means that the reversing distance each time is fixed and same, which means that Kraft fails to teach the moving distance of the vehicle after exiting the charging station is randomly selected from 50cm to 250cm.”;
[C] “Strandburg only teaches a method for docketing the robotic mower with the charging station and discloses that the robotic mower follows the guide wire at a random distance Rd (paragraphs [0058]-[0059] in Strandburg's disclosure). However, Strandburg does not disclose that after exiting the charger station, the robotic mower may further move for a distance which is randomly selected from 50cm to 250cm.
[D] “The examiner pointed out that Ballutes discloses that a data processing unit generates a 2D grid of cells to represent the lawn areas, and with respect to the traversal route 1600, the robot 10 move across the boundary 106b in a diagonal direction (paragraphs [0066] and [0070] in Balutis's specification). However, it can be seen from FIG. 5A, FIG. 5B and FIG. 6, Ballutes only teaches that the return path of the robot is just an oblique straight line because the robot moves in the diagonal direction. Although Ballutes teaches that the charging station may be a launch point of the vehicle, Ballutes fails to disclose any detail operations about exiting the charging station, so Ballutes certainly does not disclose that the moving distance of the vehicle after exiting the charging station is randomly selected from 50cm to 250cm”.
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.
Drawings
A new corrected drawing of Fig. 2, in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), is required in this application because the term “walking assembly” has been changed in the amended Specifications, but remains in Fig. 2.
Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6-7, 12 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claims 1, 6-7, 12 and 14, the amended limitation “predetermined target point is traveled” is grammatically incorrect. One cannot travel along a point, but one can reach a target point. The examiner suggest changing the word “traveled” to “reached”.
Regarding Claim 1 and 12, the limitation “the robotic mower to exit out of the loop of the charger station” is grammatically awkward due to the word combination “exit out”, which is somewhat redundant. The examiner recommends more standard phrasing “to exit the loop” or “exit from the loop”, or another standard phrase to represent leaving the loop.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). The examiner does not find support in the specifications for the newly amended claim language:
“defining a section of boundary wire as the straight boundary section when current sensing signals of the first sensor or the second sensor remain unchangeable for a predetermined time period, and defining another section of boundary wire as a non-straight boundary section when current sensing signals of the first sensor or the second sensor keep changeable”
The detection of boundary wire signals changes, and what distinguishes a changing signal from an unchanging signal, and how one determines a signal has changed enough to represent a non-straight boundary section, is not described in the specifications.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
With regard to amended claim language, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention:
Independent Claims 1 and 12 have been amended to include the following claim limitation which the examiner finds to be unsupported by the original specifications [See Waldemar Link, GmbH & Co. v. Osteons Corp., 32 F.3d 556, 559, 31 USPQ2d 1855, 1857 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Vas-Cath Inc. v. Madhukar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991)(A written-description question often arises when an applicant, after filing a patent application, subsequently adds "new matter" not present in the original application.); In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).]: “defining a section of boundary wire as the straight boundary section when current sensing signals of the first sensor or the second sensor remain unchangeable for a predetermined time period, and defining another section of boundary wire as a non-straight boundary section when current sensing signals of the first sensor or the second sensor keep changeable”. Therefore independent Claims 1 and 12, and all claims depending from these, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent Claims 1 and 12 each recite the limitation:
“defining a section of boundary wire as the straight boundary section when current sensing signals of the first sensor or the second sensor remain unchangeable for a predetermined time period, and defining another section of boundary wire as a non-straight boundary section when current sensing signals of the first sensor or the second sensor keep changeable”
It is unclear what “unchangeable” means in this context. What level of signal change actually represents a definite transition from a straight to a non-straight boundary section, and vice versa? How long must a signal change be to represent a confirmed transition? Therefore independent Claims 1 and 12, and all claims depending from these, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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, 5-6, 12, 14-15, 17-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kraft et al. (US 8,549,826 B2, henceforth Kraft) and Da Rocha et al. (US 9,072,219 B2, henceforth Da Rocha).
Regarding Claim 1, Kraft discloses the limitations: a path planning method of a robotic mower {110, Fig. 1} exiting a charger station {105, Fig. 1}, wherein the robotic mower comprises a main body {100, Fig. 1}, a control unit {vehicle control unit 101, Fig. 1} arranged on the main body {“in block 402 the vehicle control unit may command the traction wheel motors to leave the charging station by rotating in reverse for a specified distance or duration to back up the robotic mower out and away from the charging station, then turn the robotic mower around.”, Col. 6, Lns. 56-61} and a front sensor arranged at a front end of the main body and a rear sensor arranged at the rear end of the main body, wherein the front sensor and the rear sensor both sense guide signals {front and rear boundary sensors 119, Fig. 1, and “The boundary sensor may include a sense coil L1 and a circuit to amplify and filter the signal from the sense coil before it is applied to the ND input of the vehicle control unit”, Col. 4, Lns. 34-36 and Fig. 11} from a boundary wire {103, Fig. 1}, a guide wire {104, Fig. 1} and a loop in the charger station {106, Fig. 1}, wherein the loop facilitates the robotic mower to identify and locate a position of the charger station {“inner wire 104 may be a shorter loop provided within the area of the main boundary wire where charging station 105 is positioned. The main boundary wire and inner wire may be connected to charging station 105.”, Col. 3, Lns. 20-23}, the method comprising: controlling, by the control unit, the robotic mower to exit out of the loop of the charger station {“in block 402 the vehicle control unit may command the traction wheel motors to leave the charging station”, Col. 6, Lns. 56-58}; detecting, by the control unit, with the rear sensor, that a polarity of the guide signal of the loop of the charger station has reversed {“in block 207, one or more boundary sensors on the robotic mower may receive the encoded boundary wire magnetic signal, and send the signal to the vehicle control unit.”, Col. 3, Lns. 49-52; sensors detecting signal strength: “The vehicle control unit may receive input from each of the boundary sensors regarding strength of the signal from the main boundary wire to indicate proximity of the sensor to the wire.”, Col. 5, Lns. 59-62; and detecting signal inversion 215, Fig. 2}; controlling, by the control unit, the robotic mower to continue to move for a distance after the robotic mower exiting out of the loop of the charger station, the distance being randomly selected from 50cm to 250cm {“in block 402 the vehicle control unit may command the traction wheel motors to leave the charging station by rotating in reverse for a specified distance or duration to back up the robotic mower out and away from the charging station, then turn the robotic mower around.”, Col. 6, Lns. 56-61}; searching, by the control unit, for guide signals of the boundary wire or guide wire {“boundary drive circuit 106 may be contained in charging station 105, and may drive signals on the main boundary wire and the inner wire. The fundamental frequency of the waveform on the main boundary wire may be about 2 kHz.”, Col. 3, Lns. 24-27}, including rotating the robotic mower such that the rear sensor aims at a traveling direction {“…leave the charging station by rotating in reverse for a specified distance or duration to back up the robotic mower out and away from the charging station, then turn the robotic mower around.”, Col. 6, Lns. 56-61}; and wherein the boundary wire is laid in advance at an edge of a working area of the robotic mower, the guide wire is laid in advance in a working area of the robotic mower {“robotic mower 100 may operate in a specified area 102 that is surrounded by main or outer boundary wire 103 which may form a loop positioned at or below the ground or turf surface. Additionally, inner wire 104 may be a shorter loop provided within the area of the main boundary wire where charging station 105 is positioned. The main boundary wire and inner wire may be connected to charging station 105.”, Col. 3, Lns. 16-23}; and following the boundary wire or guide wire {“As shown in FIG. 7, in block 700, the vehicle control unit may command the left and right traction motors to start rotating in forward on a path at a specified distance parallel to the boundary wire.”, Col. 9, Lns. 32-35} until a predetermined target point is traveled {“In block 1206, the vehicle control unit may command the robotic mower to exit the charging station and follow the outer boundary wire a specified distance to the first selected launch point.”, Col. 12, Lns. 18-21}; wherein following the guide wire comprises: following the guide wire by straddling the guide wire or following the guide wire at a corridor distance until the predetermined target point is traveled {with regard to Fig. 1, robotic mower 100 necessarily follows inner wire 104 when exiting or entering charger station 106; one skilled in the art will appreciate that turning the robot to move towards the left or right perimeter of outer boundary wire 103 is well known in the art, as is moving specified distances before turning the mower}, following the boundary wire comprises: controlling the robotic mower to follow the boundary wire along a first direction according to a target signal amplitude until the robotic mower finds a straight boundary section of boundary wire {“As shown in FIG. 7, in block 700, the vehicle control unit may command the left and right traction motors to start rotating in forward on a path at a specified distance parallel to the boundary wire.”, Col. 9, Lns. 32-35}, defining a current distance between the rear sensor and the boundary wire as a first predetermined distance {“In block 219, the vehicle control unit may determine the relative distance of the sensor from the outer boundary wire”, Col. 4, Lns. 13-15}; controlling the robotic mower to move reversely for a reverse distance, the reverse distance being less than a length of the straight boundary section {Col. 6, Lns. 56-61 teaches of moving the robotic mower in a reverse direction, and Col. 5, Ln. 66 - Col. 6, Ln. 2 teaches of identifying whether the robot is near or outside the outer boundary wire, combine to teach of reversing the mower as needed or in a preferred manner; one skilled in the art will appreciate that reversing mower motion near the outer boundary wire is well known in order to maintain the mower within a confined area, as is arbitrary motion of limited distance and/or duration to aid a robotic mower in dealing with obstacles and narrow areas}; controlling the robotic mower to rotate for a turning angle {“the vehicle control unit may execute wide area coverage by commanding the left and right wheel motors to drive the robotic mower in a straight line until an obstacle or boundary wire is encountered. When the robotic mower encounters the boundary wire or obstacle, the vehicle control unit may command the wheel motors to reverse and back up the mower for a prespecified distance and then turn the robotic mower around, preferably less than 180 degrees, to follow a path that diverges from the preceding forward path.”, Col. 7, Ln. 63 - Col. 8, Ln. 2} and then move straight towards the working area {“in block 402 the vehicle control unit may command the traction wheel motors to leave the charging station by rotating in reverse for a specified distance or duration to back up the robotic mower out and away from the charging station, then turn the robotic mower around.”, Col. 6, Lns. 56-61}; controlling the robotic mower to rotate back for the turning angle to keep the traveling direction of the robotic mower to be the first direction {“in block 411 the vehicle control unit may determine if the wheel motors are currently executing the reverse and turn around function. If the motors are still in reverse for the prespecified distance or duration, or have not finished turning the robotic mower around, in block 412 the vehicle control unit may command both traction wheel motors to continue the reverse and turn around functions.”, Col. 7, Lns. 36-43}, defining a current distance between the rear sensor and the boundary wire as a second predetermined distance {“In block 219, the vehicle control unit may determine the relative distance of the sensor from the outer boundary wire”, Col. 4, Lns. 13-15}, the second predetermined distance being different from the first predetermined distance {“the robotic mower's path along the boundary wire may change or shift each time it executes boundary coverage. The shift ensures that the same turf is not repeatedly contacted and compacted by the robotic mower's wheels. The shift may occur because the robotic mower will often have a different starting position each time it starts executing boundary coverage.”, Col. 10, Lns. 37-47; also, in Col. 9, Lns. 32-58, adjusting the mower’s distance from the boundary wire is discussed, which necessarily involves the robot turning to move away from the wire, before reestablishing movement parallel to the wire, when the mower is initially to close to the wire (“the robotic mower may execute boundary coverage, or return to the charging station, on a path along or parallel to the boundary wire using the system described in the block diagram of FIG. 7.”, Col. 7, Lns. 21-24)}; and controlling the robotic mower to move by following the boundary wire with the second predetermined distance {once a signal threshold from boundary wire 103 is met, Col. 10, Lns. 10-16, the robot moves parallel to the boundary wire a distance to reach a launch position for mowing to start: “once the robotic mower leaves the charging station, it may travel along the boundary wire until it reaches a specified launch point where it may depart from the boundary wire and follow a mowing pattern”, Col. 11, Lns. 53-56}, until the predetermined target point is traveled {“In block 1206, the vehicle control unit may command the robotic mower to exit the charging station and follow the outer boundary wire a specified distance to the first selected launch point.”, Col. 12, Lns. 18-21}.
Kraft does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: defining a section of boundary wire as the straight boundary section when current sensing signals of the first sensor or the second sensor remain unchangeable for a predetermined time period, and defining another section of boundary wire as a non-straight boundary section when current sensing signals of the first sensor or the second sensor keep changeable.
However, Da Rocha explicitly recites the limitations: defining a section of boundary wire as the straight boundary section when current sensing signals of the first sensor or the second sensor remain unchangeable for a predetermined time period, and defining another section of boundary wire as a non-straight boundary section when current sensing signals of the first sensor or the second sensor keep changeable {teaches of detecting the signal changes associated with curved and corner boundary sections: “One or more of the boundary wire features may change the polarity and strength of the magnetic field that is detected by sensors on the robotic mower when the robotic mower reaches the feature along the boundary wire…robotic mower navigation system 100 may include boundary wire features based on how one or more boundary wires 104, 106…specifically the geometry of how each boundary wire may change direction and/or cross another boundary wire. As shown in FIG. 1, boundary wire features may include but are not limited to sharp corners 115, 116, 117 and smooth corner 121 along first boundary wire 104, and smooth corners 122, 123 along second boundary wire 106.”, Col. 3, Lns. 18-32}.
Kraft and Da Rocha are analogous art because each deals with motion of robot mowers relative to a charging station.
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 Kraft and Da Rocha before them, to modify the teachings of Kraft to include the teachings of Da Rocha to enable a robot mower to return to charging station along a suitable boundary wire path {Abstract}.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Kraft and Da Rocha discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Kraft recites the limitation: wherein when meeting obstacle during controlling the robotic mower to move by straddling the guide wire or following the guide wire at the random corridor distance, conducting at least one obstacle bypass operation to bypass the obstacle {“the vehicle control unit may execute wide area coverage by commanding the left and right wheel motors to drive the robotic mower in a straight line until an obstacle or boundary wire is encountered. When the robotic mower encounters the boundary wire or obstacle, the vehicle control unit may command the wheel motors to reverse and back up the mower for a prespecified distance and then turn the robotic mower around, preferably less than 180 degrees, to follow a path that diverges from the preceding forward path.”, Col. 7, Ln. 63 - Col. 8, Ln. 2}.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Kraft and Da Rocha discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Kraft recites the limitations: wherein straddling the guide wire or following the guide wire at the random corridor distance, until the predetermined target point is traveled, including: making the guide wire and the rear sensor cross and straddling the guide wire until the predetermined target point is traveled {regarding Fig. 1, as robotic mower 100 backs up out of charging station 104 (per Col. 6, Lns. 56-61) it will straddle inner wire 104 until turning is initiated; when turning is initiated before completely moving past inner wire 104 a sensor 119 will cross over a portion of inner wire 104 as can also happen if the robotic mower’s path is disrupted, by say a large rock, and the mower swerves, as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art}.
Regarding Claim 12, Kraft discloses the limitations: a path planning system, comprising a control unit {vehicle control unit 101, Fig. 1, and “in block 402 the vehicle control unit may command the traction wheel motors to leave the charging station by rotating in reverse for a specified distance or duration to back up the robotic mower out and away from the charging station, then turn the robotic mower around.”, Col. 6, Lns. 56-61} wherein, the control unit: controls the robotic mower to exit the charger station {“in block 402 the vehicle control unit may command the traction wheel motors to leave the charging station”, Col. 6, Lns. 56-58} until the robotic mower is outside a loop {106, Fig. 1} of the charger station {105, Fig. 1}, wherein the loop facilitates the robotic mower to identify and locate a position of the charger station {“inner wire 104 may be a shorter loop provided within the area of the main boundary wire where charging station 105 is positioned. The main boundary wire and inner wire may be connected to charging station 105.”, Col. 3, Lns. 20-23}; control a rear sensor {front and rear boundary sensors 119, Fig. 1, and “The boundary sensor may include a sense coil L1 and a circuit to amplify and filter the signal from the sense coil before it is applied to the ND input of the vehicle control unit”, Col. 4, Lns. 34-36 and Fig. 11} to detect that a polarity of a guide signal of the loop of the charger station has reversed when the robotic mower is outside the loop of the charger station {“in block 207, one or more boundary sensors on the robotic mower may receive the encoded boundary wire magnetic signal, and send the signal to the vehicle control unit.”, Col. 3, Lns. 49-52; sensors detecting signal strength: “The vehicle control unit may receive input from each of the boundary sensors regarding strength of the signal from the main boundary wire to indicate proximity of the sensor to the wire.”, Col. 5, Lns. 59-62; and detecting signal inversion 215, Fig. 2} and controls the robotic mower to continue to move for a distance after the robotic mower exiting out of the loop of the charger station, the distance being randomly selected from 50cm to 250cm {“in block 402 the vehicle control unit may command the traction wheel motors to leave the charging station by rotating in reverse for a specified distance or duration to back up the robotic mower out and away from the charging station, then turn the robotic mower around.”, Col. 6, Lns. 56-61}; controls the robotic mower to search a boundary wire or a guide wire {“boundary drive circuit 106 may be contained in charging station 105, and may drive signals on the main boundary wire and the inner wire. The fundamental frequency of the waveform on the main boundary wire may be about 2 kHz.”, Col. 3, Lns. 24-27}, including to rotate the robotic mower such that the rear sensor is aimed at a traveling direction {“…leave the charging station by rotating in reverse for a specified distance or duration to back up the robotic mower out and away from the charging station, then turn the robotic mower around.”, Col. 6, Lns. 56-61}; and wherein the boundary wire is laid in advance at an edge of the working area of the robotic mower, the guide wire is laid in advance in a working area of the robotic mower {“robotic mower 100 may operate in a specified area 102 that is surrounded by main or outer boundary wire 103 which may form a loop positioned at or below the ground or turf surface. Additionally, inner wire 104 may be a shorter loop provided within the area of the main boundary wire where charging station 105 is positioned. The main boundary wire and inner wire may be connected to charging station 105.”, Col. 3, Lns. 16-23}, and controls the robotic mower to move by following the boundary wire or the guide wire {“As shown in FIG. 7, in block 700, the vehicle control unit may command the left and right traction motors to start rotating in forward on a path at a specified distance parallel to the boundary wire.”, Col. 9, Lns. 32-35} until a predetermined target point is traveled {“In block 1206, the vehicle control unit may command the robotic mower to exit the charging station and follow the outer boundary wire a specified distance to the first selected launch point.”, Col. 12, Lns. 18-21}; [wherein the control unit further: controls the robotic mower to follow the guide wire by straddling the guide wire or following the guide wire at a corridor distance until the predetermined target point is traveled;] or the control unit further: controls the robotic mower to follow the boundary wire along a first direction according to a target signal amplitude {“boundary drive circuit 106 may be contained in charging station 105, and may drive signals on the main boundary wire and the inner wire. The fundamental frequency of the waveform on the main boundary wire may be about 2 kHz.”, Col. 3, Lns. 24-27} until the robotic mower finds a straight boundary section of boundary wire {“As shown in FIG. 7, in block 700, the vehicle control unit may command the left and right traction motors to start rotating in forward on a path at a specified distance parallel to the boundary wire.”, Col. 9, Lns. 32-35}, and defines a current distance between the rear sensor and the boundary wire as a first predetermined distance {“In block 219, the vehicle control unit may determine the relative distance of the sensor from the outer boundary wire”, Col. 4, Lns. 13-15}; control the robotic mower to move reversely for a reverse distance, the reverse distance being a random value less than or equal to a length of the straight boundary section {Col. 6, Lns. 56-61 teaches of moving the robotic mower in a reverse direction, and Col. 5, Ln. 66 - Col. 6, Ln. 2 teaches of identifying whether the robot is near or outside the outer boundary wire, combine to teach of reversing the mower as needed or in a preferred manner; one skilled in the art will appreciate that reversing mower motion near the outer boundary wire is well known in order to maintain the mower within a confined area, as is arbitrary motion of limited distance and/or duration to aid a robotic mower in dealing with obstacles and narrow areas}; controls the robotic mower to rotate for a turning angle {“the vehicle control unit may execute wide area coverage by commanding the left and right wheel motors to drive the robotic mower in a straight line until an obstacle or boundary wire is encountered. When the robotic mower encounters the boundary wire or obstacle, the vehicle control unit may command the wheel motors to reverse and back up the mower for a prespecified distance and then turn the robotic mower around, preferably less than 180 degrees, to follow a path that diverges from the preceding forward path.”, Col. 7, Ln. 63 - Col. 8, Ln. 2} and then move straight towards the working area {“in block 402 the vehicle control unit may command the traction wheel motors to leave the charging station by rotating in reverse for a specified distance or duration to back up the robotic mower out and away from the charging station, then turn the robotic mower around.”, Col. 6, Lns. 56-61}; controls the robotic mower to rotate back for the turning angle to keep the traveling direction of the robotic mower to be the first direction {“in block 411 the vehicle control unit may determine if the wheel motors are currently executing the reverse and turn around function. If the motors are still in reverse for the prespecified distance or duration, or have not finished turning the robotic mower around, in block 412 the vehicle control unit may command both traction wheel motors to continue the reverse and turn around functions.”, Col. 7, Lns. 36-43}, defines a current distance between the rear sensor and the boundary wire as a second predetermined distance {“In block 219, the vehicle control unit may determine the relative distance of the sensor from the outer boundary wire”, Col. 4, Lns. 13-15}, the second predetermined distance being different from the first predetermined distance {“the robotic mower's path along the boundary wire may change or shift each time it executes boundary coverage. The shift ensures that the same turf is not repeatedly contacted and compacted by the robotic mower's wheels. The shift may occur because the robotic mower will often have a different starting position each time it starts executing boundary coverage.”, Col. 10, Lns. 37-47; also, in Col. 9, Lns. 32-58, adjusting the mower’s distance from the boundary wire is discussed, which necessarily involves the robot turning to move away from the wire, before reestablishing movement parallel to the wire, when the mower is initially to close to the wire (“the robotic mower may execute boundary coverage, or return to the charging station, on a path along or parallel to the boundary wire using the system described in the block diagram of FIG. 7.”, Col. 7, Lns. 21-24)}; and controls the robotic mower to move by following the boundary wire with the second predetermined distance {once a signal threshold from boundary wire 103 is met, Col. 10, Lns. 10-16, the robot moves parallel to the boundary wire a distance to reach a launch position for mowing to start: “once the robotic mower leaves the charging station, it may travel along the boundary wire until it reaches a specified launch point where it may depart from the boundary wire and follow a mowing pattern”, Col. 11, Lns. 53-56} until the predetermined target point is traveled {“In block 1206, the vehicle control unit may command the robotic mower to exit the charging station and follow the outer boundary wire a specified distance to the first selected launch point.”, Col. 12, Lns. 18-21}.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Kraft and Da Rocha discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, as discussed supra. In addition, Kraft recites the limitation: the control unit {control unit 101, Fig. 1, controls all aspects of the mower, Col. 2, Lns. 1-6} further controls the robotic mower to start mowing in the working area after the predetermined target point is traveled {launch point for beginning mowing operation (“the vehicle control unit may select one of the launch points along the outer boundary wire. For example, the vehicle control unit may select one of several alternative launch points that were preset by the operator and stored in the vehicle control unit.”, Col. 12, Lns. 5-9) is variable (“the robotic mower may be activated to start area coverage, such as by an operator or by an internal or external timer.”, Col. 6, Lns. 49-51)}.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Kraft and Da Rocha discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. a robotic mower {100, Fig. 1}, comprising: a main body {100, Fig. 1}; at least a front sensor set on a front part of the main body; at least a rear sensor set on a rear part of the main body {“the robotic mower may have a plurality of boundary sensors 119, and most preferably three boundary sensors mounted at or near the front of the robotic mower and a fourth boundary sensor mounted at or near the back of the robotic mower”, Col. 5, Lns. 55-59 and Fig. 1}; a control unit {101, Fig. 1} arranged on the main body, the control unit comprising a processor and a memory coupled to each other, the memory storing program instructions, when the program instructions stored in the memory are executed by the processor {Col. 2, Lns. 23-32}, the control unit performs the method according to Claim 1 {see Claim 1 above}.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Kraft and Da Rocha discloses the limitations of Claim 15, as discussed supra. In addition, Kraft explicitly discloses the limitation: wherein the guide signal comprises an alternating magnetic field {“boundary drive circuit 106 may be contained in charging station 105, and may drive signals on the main boundary wire and the inner wire. The fundamental frequency of the waveform on the main boundary wire may be about 2 kHz.”, Col. 3, Lns. 6-10}; the front sensor comprises a magnetic induction coil, the rear sensor comprises a magnetic induction coil {front and rear boundary sensors 119, Fig. 1, and “The boundary sensor may include a sense coil L1 and a circuit to amplify and filter the signal from the sense coil before it is applied to the ND input of the vehicle control unit”, Col. 4, Lns. 34-36 and Fig. 11}.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Kraft and Da Rocha discloses the limitations of Claim 15, as discussed supra. In addition, Kraft explicitly discloses the limitation: wherein the front sensor is arranged on a center line of the front part of the main body, the rear sensor is arranged on a side of a center line of the rear part of the main body {“the robotic mower may have a plurality of boundary sensors 119, and most preferably three boundary sensors mounted at or near the front of the robotic mower and a fourth boundary sensor mounted at or near the back of the robotic mower”, Col. 5, Lns. 55-59 and Fig. 1, wherein one front sensor is aligned on the robot centerline and two are off the centerline, and, one skilled in the art will appreciate, that the single rear sensor can be positioned off the centerline, comparable to the latter pair of front sensors}.
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Kraft and Da Rocha discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Kraft explicitly discloses the limitation: wherein the reverse distance is equal to half of the length of the straight boundary section {the teachings of Col. 6, Lns. 56-61 (moving the robotic mower in a reverse direction) and Col. 5, Ln. 66 - Col. 6, Ln. 2 (identifying whether the robot is near or outside the outer boundary wire), combine to teach of reversing the mower as needed or in a preferred manner; in addition, “in block 402 the vehicle control unit may command the traction wheel motors to leave the charging station by rotating in reverse for a specified distance or duration to back up the robotic mower out and away from the charging station, then turn the robotic mower around.”, Col. 6, Lns. 56-61}.
Claims 7 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kraft, Da Rocha and Strandberg (US 11,415,998 B2).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Kraft and Da Rocha discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Kraft and Da Rocha does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein straddling the guide wire or following the guide wire at the corridor distance, until the predetermined target point is traveled, including: controlling a rear end of the robotic mower to rotate at a random angle, defining a distance between the rear sensor and the guide wire as the corridor distance, and following the guide wire at the corridor distance.
However, Strandberg explicitly recites the limitations: wherein straddling the guide wire or following the guide wire at the random corridor distance, until the predetermined target point is traveled {one skilled in the art will appreciate the sequence of movement in Figs. 6a-6d, can be view in reverse, corresponding the leaving charging station 11/charging station loop 10}, including: controlling a rear end of the robotic mower to rotate at a random angle {Figs. 6c-6d shows mower 2 beginning to turn from the centerline position of Fig. 6d}, defining a distance between the rear sensor and the guide wire as the corridor distance {Rd, Fig. 6a}, and following the guide wire at the corridor distance {Fig. 6a shows mower 2 a defined distance from guide wire 8, and one skilled in the art will appreciate the mower can continue to move parallel to the guider wire until the guide wire ends}.
Kraft, Da Rocha and Strandberg are analogous art because each deals with motion of robot mowers relative to a charging station.
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 Kraft, Da Rocha and Strandberg before them, to modify the teachings of Kraft and Da Rocha to include the teachings of Strandberg to facilitate the docking and undocking of a robot mower by using a guide wire without restrictions on the motion of the mower relative to the guide wire.
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Kraft, Da Rocha and Strandberg discloses all the limitations of Claim 7, as discussed supra. The combination of Kraft and Da Rocha does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein the random angle is determined according a distance between the rear sensor and the guide wire .
However, Strandberg explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the random angle is determined according a distance between the rear sensor and the guide wire {Figs. 6c-6d shows mower 2 beginning to turn from the centerline position of Fig. 6d}.
Claims 8, 13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination Kraft, Da Rocha and Ballutes et al. (US 9,538,702 B2, henceforth Ballutes).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Kraft and Da Rocha discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Kraft and Da Rocha does not appear to explicitly teach the limitations: further comprising a return path planning method, wherein the return path planning method including: obtaining a virtual working area map corresponding to the working area of the robotic mower; obtaining virtual positions of the robotic mower and the charger station in the virtual working area map according to current positions of the robotic mower and the charger station, and planning a return path of the robotic mower according to the virtual positions, comprising: planning an X-axis path with the virtual position of the charger station as a starting point, planning the Y-axis path with the virtual position of the robotic mower as a starting point, and obtaining the return path when the X-axis path intersects the Y-axis path.
However, Ballutes explicitly recites the limitations: obtaining a virtual working area map corresponding to the working area of the robotic mower {Figs. 5A-7B and 3500, Fig. 8}; obtaining virtual positions of the robotic mower and the charger station in the virtual working area map {“The user can further set virtual regions for the traversal regions and for obstacles. Also prior to training, the map includes the launch point 1001 corresponding to the location of the charging dock as well as the current location of the robot 10.”, Col. 16, Lns. 23-27, with examples of the virtual maps in Figs. 6-8} according to current positions of the robotic mower {10, Figs. 1A-1B} and the charger station {50, Fig. 2}, and planning a return path of the robotic mower according to the virtual positions {navigation system 700 and controller 1000, Fig. 1C, are responsible for path planning: “The controller 1000 operates the navigation system 700 configured to maneuver the robot 10 in a path or route stored in the memory storage element 900 across the lawn areas and/or traversal regions. The navigation system 700 is a behavior-based system executed on the controller 1000”, Col. 6, Lns. 11-16}, comprising: planning an X-axis path with the virtual position of the charger station as a starting point , planning the Y-axis path with the virtual position of the robotic mower as a starting point, and obtaining the return path when the X-axis path intersects the Y-axis path {the robot path planning, corresponding to 1500 in Fig. 5A, 1600 in Fig. 5B and, in particular 1700 in Fig. 6 – each with start and ends points, that one skilled in the art will appreciated can be the route to or from the charging station - are shortest routes between two points determined algorithmically using a grid based approach: “Referring to FIG. 5A, the controller determines and stores the shortest traversable route…The robot 10 can identify the shortest traversable route in various ways. For example, the robot can identify locations where the robot is able to drive between one area and the other (e.g., determine regions free of obstacles). Given a grid-based representation of the lawn as described earlier”, Col. 12, Lns. 47-58; one skilled in the art will appreciate that any algorithm determining the shortest route will consider alternative routes such as a longer route based simply on horizontal and vertical motions, such as the robot starting from position 1760 and moving vertically down in Fig. 6, and the proceeding directly vertically across to the charging station at position 1740}.
Kraft, Da Rocha and Ballutes are analogous art because each deals with motion of robot mowers relative to a charging station and the area to be mowed.
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 Kraft, Da Rocha and Ballutes before them, to modify the teachings of Kraft and Da Rocha to include the teachings of Ballutes to determine the shortest path back to a charging station to prevent the robot from running out of charge before reaching the charging station.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Kraft, Da Rocha and Ballutes discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, as discussed supra. The combination of Kraft and Da Rocha does not appear to explicitly teach of the limitations: the control unit further obtains a virtual working area map corresponding to the working area of the robotic mower; obtains virtual positions of the robotic mower and the charger station in the virtual working area map according to current positions of the robotic mower and the charger station, and plans a return path of the robotic mower according to the virtual positions, comprising: planning an X-axis path with the virtual position of the charger station as a starting point, planning a Y-axis path with the virtual position of the robotic mower as a starting point, and obtaining, when the X-axis path intersects the Y-axis path, the return path.
However, Ballutes explicitly recites the limitations: a return path planning module {navigation system 700 and controller 1000, Fig. 1C, are responsible for path planning: “The controller 1000 operates the navigation system 700 configured to maneuver the robot 10 in a path or route stored in the memory storage element 900 across the lawn areas and/or traversal regions. The navigation system 700 is a behavior-based system executed on the controller 1000”, Col. 6, Lns. 11-16}, the return path planning module is configured to: obtain a virtual working area map corresponding to the working area of the robotic mower {Figs. 5A-7B and 3500, Fig. 8}; obtain virtual positions of the robotic mower and the charger station in the virtual working area map {“The user can further set virtual regions for the traversal regions and for obstacles. Also prior to training, the map includes the launch point 1001 corresponding to the location of the charging dock as well as the current location of the robot 10.”, Col. 16, Lns. 23-27, with examples of the virtual maps in Figs. 6-8} according to current positions of the robotic mower {10, Figs. 1A-1B} and the charger station {50, Fig. 2}, and plan a return path of the robotic mower according to the virtual positions, comprising: planning an X-axis path with the virtual position of the charger station as a starting point, planning a Y-axis path with the virtual position of the robotic mower as a starting point, and obtaining, when the X-axis path intersects the Y-axis path, the return path {the robot path planning, corresponding to 1500 in Fig. 5A, 1600 in Fig. 5B and, in particular 1700 in Fig. 6 – each with start and ends points, that one skilled in the art will appreciated can be the route to or from the charging station - are shortest routes between two points determined algorithmically using a grid based approach: “Referring to FIG. 5A, the controller determines and stores the shortest traversable route…The robot 10 can identify the shortest traversable route in various ways. For example, the robot can identify locations where the robot is able to drive between one area and the other (e.g., determine regions free of obstacles). Given a grid-based representation of the lawn as described earlier”, Col. 12, Lns. 47-58; one skilled in the art will appreciate that any algorithm determining the shortest route will consider alternative routes such as a longer route based simply on horizontal and vertical motions, such as the robot starting from position 1760 and moving vertically down in Fig. 6, and the proceeding directly vertically across to the charging station at position 1740}.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Kraft, Da Rocha and Ballutes discloses all the limitations of Claim 8, as discussed supra. The combination of Kraft and Da Rocha does not appear to explicitly teach of the limitations: wherein the X-axis path extends along an X-axis direction and deviates toward one side of a Y-axis, and is step-shaped, and the Y-axis path extends along a Y-axis direction and deviates toward one side of an X-axis, and is step-shaped.
However, Ballutes explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the X-axis path extends along an X-axis direction and deviates toward one side of a Y-axis, and is step-shaped, and the Y-axis path extends along a Y-axis direction and deviates toward one side of an X-axis, and is step-shaped {the robot path planning, corresponding to 1500 in Fig. 5A, 1600 in Fig. 5B and, in particular 1700 in Fig. 6 – each with start and ends points, that one skilled in the art will appreciated can be the route to or from the charging station - are shortest routes between two points determined algorithmically using a grid based approach: “Referring to FIG. 5A, the controller determines and stores the shortest traversable route…The robot 10 can identify the shortest traversable route in various ways. For example, the robot can identify locations where the robot is able to drive between one area and the other (e.g., determine regions free of obstacles). Given a grid-based representation of the lawn as described earlier”, Col. 12, Lns. 47-58; one skilled in the art will appreciate that any algorithm determining the shortest route will consider alternative routes such as a longer route based simply on horizontal and vertical motions, such as the robot starting from position 1760 and moving vertically down in Fig. 6, and the proceeding directly vertically across to the charging station at position 1740}.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Kraft, Da Rocha and Ballutes disclose all the limitations of Claim 19, as discussed supra. The combination of Kraft and Da Rocha does not appear to explicitly teach the limitations: wherein the return path planning method of the robotic mower further comprises: planning the X-axis path with the virtual position of the charger station as the starting point of the X-axis path, comprising: taking the virtual position of the charger station as the starting point of the X-axis path; and moving forward along the X-axis, wherein when the robotic mower encounters the boundary wire along an X-axis direction, the X-axis path goes backwards at least one grid from the boundary wire, then turns left or right as a first turning direction and goes straight along the Y-axis for at least one grid, then turns back to the X-axis direction and continues to plan the path until the X-axis path intersects the Y-axis path or the boundary wire is encountered when moving along the Y-axis linearly; and when the boundary wire is encountered along the Y-axis, the X-axis path is re-planned from the virtual position of the charger station, including that: when encountering the boundary wire along the X-axis direction, the X-axis path goes backwards at least one grid from the boundary wire, and turns right or left opposite to the first turning direction and goes straight for at least one grid, and then turns back to the X-axis direction and continues to plan the path until the X-axis path and the Y-axis path intersect; planning the Y-axis path with the virtual position of the robotic mower as the starting point of the Y-axis path, comprising: taking the virtual position of the robotic mower as the starting point of the Y- axis path; and moving forward along the Y-axis, wherein when the robotic mower encounters the boundary wire along a Y-axis direction, the Y-axis path goes backwards at least one grid from the boundary wire, then turns left or right as a second turning direction and goes straight along the X-axis for at least one grid, and then turns back to the Y-axis direction and continues to plan the path until the Y-axis path and the X-axis path intersect or the boundary wire is encountered when moving straight along the X-axis; and when the boundary wire is encountered along the X-axis, the Y-axis path is re-planned from the virtual position of the robotic mower, including that: when encountering the boundary wire along the Y-axis direction, the Y- axis path goes backwards at least one grid from the boundary wire, and turns right or left opposite to the second turning direction and goes straight for at least one grid, and then turns back to the Y-axis direction and continues to plan the path until the Y-axis path and the X-axis path intersect.
However, Ballutes explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the return path planning method of the robotic mower further comprises: planning the X-axis path with the virtual position of the charger station {50, Fig. 2} as the starting point of the X-axis path {control unit 101, Fig. 1, controls all aspects of a robotic mower, Col. 2, Lns. 25-40, which one skilled in the art will appreciate includes leaving and returning to a charging station}, comprising: taking the virtual position of the charger station {Figs. 5A-7B and 3500, Fig. 8} as the starting point of the X-axis path {“The user can further set virtual regions for the traversal regions and for obstacles. Also prior to training, the map includes the launch point 1001 corresponding to the location of the charging dock as well as the current location of the robot 10.”, Col. 16, Lns. 23-27, with examples of the virtual maps in Figs. 6-8}; and moving forward along the X-axis, wherein when the robotic mower encounters the boundary wire along an X-axis direction, the X-axis path goes backwards at least one grid from the boundary wire, then turns left or right as a first turning direction and goes straight along the Y-axis for at least one grid, then turns back to the X-axis direction and continues to plan the path until the X-axis path intersects the Y-axis path or the boundary wire is encountered when moving along the Y-axis linearly; and when the boundary wire is encountered along the Y-axis, the X-axis path is re-planned from the virtual position of the charger station, including that: when encountering the boundary wire along the X-axis direction, the X-axis path goes backwards at least one grid from the boundary wire, and turns right or left opposite to the first turning direction and goes straight for at least one grid, and then turns back to the X-axis direction and continues to plan the path until the X-axis path and the Y-axis path intersect {navigation system 700 and controller 1000, Fig. 1C, are responsible for path planning: “The controller 1000 operates the navigation system 700 configured to maneuver the robot 10 in a path or route stored in the memory storage element 900 across the lawn areas and/or traversal regions. The navigation system 700 is a behavior-based system executed on the controller 1000”, Col. 6, Lns. 11-16}; planning the Y-axis path with the virtual position of the robotic mower as the starting point of the Y-axis path, comprising: taking the virtual position of the robotic mower as the starting point of the Y- axis path; and moving forward along the Y-axis, wherein when the robotic mower encounters the boundary wire along a Y-axis direction, the Y-axis path goes backwards at least one grid from the boundary wire, then turns left or right as a second turning direction and goes straight along the X-axis for at least one grid, and then turns back to the Y-axis direction and continues to plan the path until the Y-axis path and the X-axis path intersect or the boundary wire is encountered when moving straight along the X-axis; and when the boundary wire is encountered along the X-axis, the Y-axis path is re-planned from the virtual position of the robotic mower, including that: when encountering the boundary wire along the Y-axis direction, the Y- axis path goes backwards at least one grid from the boundary wire, and turns right or left opposite to the second turning direction and goes straight for at least one grid, and then turns back to the Y-axis direction and continues to plan the path until the Y-axis path and the X-axis path intersect {the robot path planning, corresponding to 1500 in Fig. 5A, 1600 in Fig. 5B and, in particular 1700 in Fig. 6 – each with start and ends points, that one skilled in the art will appreciated can be the route to or from the charging station - are shortest routes between two points determined algorithmically using a grid based approach: “Referring to FIG. 5A, the controller determines and stores the shortest traversable route…The robot 10 can identify the shortest traversable route in various ways. For example, the robot can identify locations where the robot is able to drive between one area and the other (e.g., determine regions free of obstacles). Given a grid-based representation of the lawn as described earlier”, Col. 12, Lns. 47-58; one skilled in the art will appreciate that any algorithm determining the shortest route will consider alternative routes such as a longer route based simply on horizontal and vertical motions, such as the robot starting from position 1760 and moving vertically down in Fig. 6, and the proceeding directly vertically across to the charging station at position 1740; additionally, one skilled in the art will appreciate that the path planning described here (a combination of forward motion, backward motion and turning) is aimed at avoiding or bypassing an obstacle (or preventing moving outside the region defined by the boundary wire) are well known capabilities of robot mowers, as is continually replanning movement of the robot based on updated sensor information}.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights