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 .
Status of Claims
This non-final rejection is in response to Applicant’s amended filing of 02/06/2026.
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant has amended claims 1 and 9-10.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-4 and 6-13 rejected under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 1 Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness, the Applicant argues that the lawn mower robot produces technical effects that are unexpected for one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Frick, Muro, and Lee to provide a long felt need in the field. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. All of Frick, Muro, and Lee are directed toward operating lawn mowing devices without boundary wires, with Frick particularly directed toward using the lawn mower with vision and GPS data to determine map, boundary, and obstacle information (see rejection below). Muro suggests further improvements to the GPS-based positioning and Lee suggests further improvements to data sampling, both in an effort to improve the quality of data gathered by Frick that further the methods that avoid the use of boundary wires. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize these combinations would be appropriate based on the commensurate field of these inventions in operating lawn mowers without boundary wires guiding and/or constricting their movements or facilitating local positioning.
Regarding 2 Legal Errors in the Office's § 103 Analysis, the Applicant enumerates multiple perceived errors in the rejection under 35 USC § 103, recounted and responded to below:
Conclusory Motivation – Applicant argues that Examiner supplied conclusory statements to incorporate and combine the references of record because the references do not suggest reasons to combine. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the combined references suggest features deficient in Frick alone or Frick in combination with Muro, but have motivation and rationale to combine for improving GPS and positioning data collection in pursuit of operating lawn mowers without the aid of boundary wires.
“Could-have” vs. “Would-have” – Applicant argues that the rejection is structured with “could-have” rationale over “would-have” rationale. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the recited formulation is inaccurate and mischaracterized, with the improvements specifically directed toward improving GPS data positioning for the benefit of performing lawn mower operations without the aid of boundary wires. Frick, Muro, and Lee further reflect and emphasize these motivations in the Backgrounds of their disclosures discussing the shortcomings of problems and the solutions they implement to resolve them.
Absence of Any KSR/MPEP 2143 Rationale – The Applicant argues that the combination of prior art is not reflective of the seven recognized rationales. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because (a) Muro applies a similar technique to Frick’s derivation of GPS data according to the lawn mower’s position to determine the points, and (b) Lee operates in the same field of guiding lawn mowers to operate in a work area without the aid of boundary wires, prompting the variation in their use despite Lee’s explicit collection of aerial image data to predicate GPS data sampling (see ¶ [0093-0096]).
Hindsight Reconstruction – The Applicant argues that the combination of prior art represents impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the claimed application’s pipeline. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicants’ disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Accordingly, no knowledge of the Applicant’s disclosure was impermissibly used to reconstruct the invention with the references used and the references disclose, teach, or suggest the limitations as claimed.
Misidentification of What the References Actually Teach – The Applicant argues and characterizes the references of record do not reflect the claimed limitations of the application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the Applicant argues against the references individually, and the Applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding 3 "Multiple Detections" vs Lee's Multiple Aerial Images, the Applicant argues that Lee does not teach or suggest the multiple-detection-based storage of P points. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lee discloses a collection operation of capturing aerial images facilitating a reconstruction operation of a work area, where feature points can be extracted from the reconstructed map and a coordinate grid map interpolated (¶ [0054-0057]), and then allow the map of the work region to be stored and used for lawn mower operations (¶ [0061-0063]). In other words, storing the map occurs after the points are extracted from a reconstructed map comprised of multiple images. This suggests storing the feature points after multiple derivations of their presence are collected from the captured aerial images. While Lee discloses using aerial images as opposed to derived GPS coordinates, Lee demonstrates that collecting multiple images improves the reliability of feature point and obstacle region locations in the work target region, and the practice of collecting multiple copies of data to verify the location of boundaries and objects can directly increase the degree of precision (¶ [0057]). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the multiple imaging of Lee into the combination of Frick and Muro with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward operating autonomous lawn mowers within designated working areas and accurately positioning them within that working area. This would help improve the positioning of the autonomous lawn mower in the work area as well as identify borders and obstacles in the work area.
Regarding 4 Analogous Art and Enabling Combinability, the Applicant argues that Lee is not analogous art and not combinable with Frick and Muro with presenting radical modifications to their core teachings. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Without completely reiterating reasons for combining with Frick and Muro above, Lee is required to teach the multiple sampling of data in positioning features and boundaries of a work area for a lawn mower. This is directly applicable and analogous to the fields explored in Frick and Muro, specifically for positioning features and boundaries of a work area without the use of boundary wires. This is accomplished by visual/ground-based sensor data as well as GPS data, all of which are implemented in Frick, Muro, and Lee and compile the data to improve overall positioning precision. This is sufficient to make them operate in analogous art and enable combining them without making radical modifications to their sensor suites and/or positioning algorithms.
Regarding 5 GPS Precision - Robot vs P-Point Accuracy, the Applicant argues that the art of record does not derive points from grass/no-grass and obstacle detection nor the GPS precision of the points, emphasizing that Muro improves the GPS positioning of the lawn mower. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Examiner understands and concedes that none of the references disclose “grass/no-grass” detection, as has been emphasized in the Applicant’s arguments, that feature is not claimed in the present limitations. The limitation “a processing module, coupled to the at least one sensor and to the GPS device, for deriving, by said at least one sensor, a plurality of derived points belonging to edges of a cutting zone or defining obstacles in the cutting zone to define a map of the cutting zone, and associating with said derived points GPS coordinates and a precision of the GPS position of the lawn mower robot derived using the GPS device” (emphasis added) does not require “grass/no-grass” detection in deriving the GPS position of lawn mower and points of edges of the cutting zone. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, Frick at least suggests the limitation by having the lawn mower operate in an autonomous training mode to determine boundaries of zones within the work region using sensors and GPS positioning of the lawn mower (see at least ¶ [0117-0120]), which is reasonable to combine with Muro to improve the precision of positioning the lawn mower and corresponding boundary mapping.
Regarding 6 Teaching Away in Muro and Lee, the Applicant argues that Muro and Lee teach away from the claimed invention. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Without repeating previous responses, Muro and Lee present sufficient disclosures to be incorporated into Frick with a reasonable expectation of success such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the functions of Frick with their modification. In particular, Lee does not teach away simply by utilizing aerial images, as what Lee is relied upon is the algorithmic use of multiple images to improve work area map data collation and accuracy.
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.
Claims 1 and 9 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 claims 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.
Claims 1 and 9 recite “…a storage unit configured for storing a point of the plurality of derived points and the GPS coordinates associated with the point, only if the point, or a boundary of the point, is derived for a predetermined plural number of times;…” (emphasis added). Applicant’s specification for this statement. Applicant’s specification ¶ [0063] recites “According to a preferred embodiment, the storage unit 8 is configured for storing an edge point P corresponding to an edge or to an obstacle 6 if it (or a boundary of it) is derived for a predetermined number of times; this means that, in order to add a point P to the map, it must be traced several times, making the map more reliable.” The recitation that storing the point information “must” occur after a number of derivations is not equivalent to storing the point information “only” if a number of point derivations have occurred. In other words, the specification recites a non-exclusionary requirement be performed and is open-ended to other steps occurring to store the point so long as this requirement is met, while the limitation claims an exclusive step for storing the point to occur and no other step is permitted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frick (US 20230236604 A1) in view of Muro et al. (US 20210064036 A1) and Lee et al. (US 20210168996 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Frick discloses a lawn mower robot (see at least abstract and Fig. 1), comprising:
- a grass cutting device comprising at least one blade and configured for performing an operation for cutting grass (see at least ¶ [0045] disclosing a cutting implement comprising single or multiple blades),
- a movement device including at least one motor configured for moving the lawn mower robot (see at least ¶ [0043-0044] disclosing motorized wheels to drive the autonomous lawn mower),
- at least one sensor configured to detect a presence of grass and/or obstacles in a cutting zone (see at least ¶ [0048-0050] disclosing one or more sensors to detect the position of the mower as well as obstacles in a work region);
- and a processing module, coupled to the at least one sensor and to the GPS device, for deriving, by said at least one sensor, a plurality of derived points belonging to edges of a cutting zone or defining obstacles in the cutting zone to define a map of the cutting zone, and associating with said derived points GPS coordinates and a precision of the GPS position of the lawn mower robot derived using the GPS device (see at least ¶ [0061], [0064-0065], [0068], [0090-0093], and [0117-0120] disclosing one or more controllers used to process sensor data and detect both edges of the work region as well as locate and position obstacles and the mower within the work region according to a training mode executed by the mower);
the processing module configured to use the derived points to update the map of the cutting zone (see at least ¶ [0107-0108] disclosing a path planning module updating the map of the work region using vision and non-vision based sensor fusion).
While Frick discloses a GPS device, configured to derive coordinates of a GPS position of the lawn mower robot (see at least ¶ [0048] and [0062] disclosing using data from a GPS receiver to determine the position and pose of the autonomous lawn mower), it does not explicitly disclose deriving a precision of the GPS position of the lawn mower robot.
However, Muro teaches deriving a precision of the GPS position of the lawn mower robot (see at least ¶ [0008] and [0037] disclosing an autonomous traveling work machine (lawn mower) is characterized according to position detection accuracy data associated with its location in a mapped working area).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the position detection accuracy data of Muro into the autonomous lawn mower of Frick with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward operating autonomous lawn mowers within designated working areas and accurately positioning them within that working area. This would help determine zones within the work area that have reduced localization effectiveness and therefore identify associated data that may require correction from stored maps and paths that the lawn mower navigates.
While Frick discloses a storage unit configured for storing a point of the plurality of derived points and the GPS coordinates associated with the point (see at least ¶ [0064], [0067], [0075-0076], and [0120-0122] disclosing memory used alongside the navigation system to store boundary, pathing, work region, and ground and feature data to a terrain map of coordinate points with corresponding locations), the combination of Frick and Muro does not explicitly disclose storing the point only if the point, or a boundary of the point, is derived for a predetermined plural number of times.
However, Lee suggests storing the point if the point, or a boundary of the point, is derived for a predetermined plural number of times (see at least ¶ [0054-0056], [0099], and [0112-0113] disclosing a lawn mower robot operating a work target region in conjunction with an aerial image capturing unit that captures multiple images of the work target region to locate feature points and obstacle regions, where feature points are extracted for storage for the lawn mower to respond to after multiple images are collected and collated into map information of the work target region).
While Lee discloses using aerial images as opposed to derived GPS coordinates, Lee demonstrates that collecting multiple images improves the reliability of feature point and obstacle region locations in the work target region, and the practice of collecting multiple copies of data to verify the location of boundaries and objects can directly improve the accuracy of location data. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the multiple imaging of Lee into the combination of Frick and Muro with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward operating autonomous lawn mowers within designated working areas and accurately positioning them within that working area. This would help improve the positioning of the autonomous lawn mower in the work area as well as identify borders and obstacles in the work area.
Regarding claim 2, Frick discloses the GPS device is an RTK device (see at least ¶ [0062] disclosing the GPS receiver collecting real time kinematics (RTK) data).
Regarding claim 3, Frick discloses the at least one sensor is a radar sensor or an ultrasound sensor (see at least ¶ [0050] disclosing non-contact sensors including infrared, radar, lidar, and/or sonar sensors).
Regarding claim 6, Frick does not disclose the storage unit is also configured for storing the precision of the GPS position of the lawn mower robot associated with said derived points.
However, Muro teaches the storage unit is also configured for storing the precision of the GPS position of the lawn mower robot associated with said derived points (see at least ¶ [0068] disclosing the storage unit holds position detection accuracy data).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the position detection accuracy data of Muro into the autonomous lawn mower of Frick with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward operating autonomous lawn mowers within designated working areas and accurately positioning them within that working area. This would help determine zones within the work area that have reduced localization effectiveness and therefore identify associated data that may require correction from stored maps and paths that the lawn mower navigates.
Regarding claim 7, Frick discloses the movement device is configured for moving the lawn mower robot along a feed direction (see at least ¶ [0044] disclosing the wheels being used to control the movement direction of the autonomous lawn mower);
the lawn mower robot comprises a direction sensor configured for detecting a direction vector corresponding to said feed direction (see at least ¶ [0049] and [0054] disclosing obstacle detection sensors and/or cameras used to detect objects in the path of the autonomous lawn mower).
Regarding claim 8, Frick discloses a control unit, operatively connected to the processing module, and configured to control the movement device and/or the grass cutting device as a function of the derived points and the GPS coordinates stored in the storage unit (see at least ¶ [0061], [0064-0065], [0068], and [0090-0093] disclosing one or more controllers with memory used to process sensor data and detect both edges of the work region as well as locate and position obstacles and the mower within the work region).
Regarding claim 9, Frick discloses a process for mapping a cutting zone (see at least abstract) comprising the following steps:
providing a lawn mower robot (see at least abstract and Fig. 1), comprising:
- a grass cutting device comprising at least one blade and configured for performing an operation for cutting grass (see at least ¶ [0045] disclosing a cutting implement comprising single or multiple blades),
- a movement device including at least one motor configured for moving the lawn mower robot (see at least ¶ [0043-0044] disclosing motorized wheels to drive the autonomous lawn mower),
- at least one sensor configured to detect a presence of grass and/or obstacles in a cutting zone (see at least ¶ [0048-0050] disclosing one or more sensors to detect the position of the mower as well as obstacles in a work region);
- and a processing module, coupled to the at least one sensor and to the GPS device, for deriving, by said at least one sensor, a plurality of derived points belonging to edges of a cutting zone or defining obstacles in the cutting zone to define a virtual map of the cutting zone, and associating with said derived points GPS coordinates and a precision of the GPS position of the lawn mower robot derived using the GPS device (see at least ¶ [0061], [0064-0065], [0068], [0090-0093], and [0117-0120] disclosing one or more controllers used to process sensor data and detect both edges of the work region as well as locate and position obstacles and the mower within the work region according to a training mode executed by the mower);
moving said lawn mower robot in the cutting zone (see at least ¶ [0071-0077] and Figs. 2-3 disclosing the autonomous lawn mower covering the assigned work region);
- deriving, using the at least one sensor, at least one derived point defining the edge or at least one of the obstacles in the cutting zone (see at least ¶ [0048-0050] disclosing one or more sensors to detect the position of the mower as well as obstacles in a work region);
- deriving, using the GPS device, the coordinates of the GPS position of said at least one derived point (see at least ¶ [0042], [0048], [0062], [0076], and [0079] disclosing using data from a GPS receiver to determine the position and pose of the autonomous lawn mower and objects using points in a coordinate system);
- associating to said at least one derived point, using the processing module, the coordinates of the GPS position and the precision of the GPS position of the lawn mower robot derived using the GPS device (see at least ¶ [0061], [0064-0065], [0068], and [0090-0093] disclosing one or more controllers used to process sensor data and detect both edges of the work region as well as locate and position obstacles and the mower within the work region);
- storing in the storage unit the coordinates of the GPS position of said at least one derived point (see at least ¶ [0064], [0067], [0075-0076], and [0120-0122] disclosing memory used alongside the navigation system to store boundary, pathing, work region, and ground and feature data to a terrain map of coordinate points with corresponding locations);
the processing module configured to use the derived points to update the map of the cutting zone (see at least ¶ [0107-0108] disclosing a path planning module updating the map of the work region using vision and non-vision based sensor fusion).
While Frick discloses a GPS device, configured to derive coordinates of a GPS position of the lawn mower robot (see at least ¶ [0048] and [0062] disclosing using data from a GPS receiver to determine the position and pose of the autonomous lawn mower), it does not explicitly disclose deriving a precision of the GPS position of the lawn mower robot, deriving a precision of said coordinates, using the GPS device.
However, Muro teaches deriving a precision of the GPS position of the lawn mower robot, deriving a precision of said coordinates, using the GPS device (see at least ¶ [0008] and [0037] disclosing an autonomous traveling work machine (lawn mower) is characterized according to position detection accuracy data associated with its location in a mapped working area).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the position detection accuracy data of Muro into the autonomous lawn mower of Frick with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward operating autonomous lawn mowers within designated working areas and accurately positioning them within that working area. This would help determine zones within the work area that have reduced localization effectiveness and therefore identify associated data that may require correction from stored maps and paths that the lawn mower navigates.
While Frick discloses a storage unit configured for storing a point of the plurality of derived points and the GPS coordinates associated with the point (see at least ¶ [0064], [0067], [0075-0076], and [0120-0122] disclosing memory used alongside the navigation system to store boundary, pathing, work region, and ground and feature data to a terrain map of coordinate points with corresponding locations), the combination of Frick and Muro does not explicitly disclose storing the point only if the point, or a boundary of the point, is derived for a predetermined plural number of times.
However, Lee suggests storing the point if the point, or a boundary of the point, is derived for a predetermined plural number of times (see at least ¶ [0054-0056], [0099], and [0112-0113] disclosing a lawn mower robot operating a work target region in conjunction with an aerial image capturing unit that captures multiple images of the work target region to locate feature points and obstacle regions, where feature points are extracted for storage for the lawn mower to respond to after multiple images are collected and collated into map information of the work target region).
While Lee discloses using aerial images as opposed to derived GPS coordinates, Lee demonstrates that collecting multiple images improves the reliability of feature point and obstacle region locations in the work target region, and the practice of collecting multiple copies of data to verify the location of boundaries and objects can directly improve the accuracy of location data. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the multiple imaging of Lee into the combination of Frick and Muro with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward operating autonomous lawn mowers within designated working areas and accurately positioning them within that working area. This would help improve the positioning of the autonomous lawn mower in the work area as well as identify borders and obstacles in the work area.
Regarding claim 10, Frick discloses the step of deriving, using the at least one sensor, at least one derived point defining the edge or at least one of the obstacles in the cutting zone comprises a step of deriving, using the at least one sensor, a plurality of derived points defining edges or obstacles in the cutting zone (see at least ¶ [0061], [0064-0065], [0068], and [0090-0093] disclosing one or more controllers used to process sensor data and detect both edges of the work region as well as locate and position obstacles and the mower within the work region) and storing in the storage unit the coordinates of the GPS positions of said derived points (see at least ¶ [0064], [0067], [0075-0076], and [0120-0122] disclosing memory used alongside the navigation system to store boundary, pathing, work region, and ground and feature data to a terrain map of coordinate points with corresponding locations);
the process also comprising a step of generating a virtual map of the cutting zone using said coordinates of the GPS positions of said derived points (see at least ¶ [0075-0076] disclosing a terrain map of the work region in a coordinate system).
Regarding claim 11, while Frick suggests storing localization information only temporarily (see at least [0062-0063] disclosing pose data and GPS-RTK data to update, correct, and or augment each other to make data more accurate), it does not explicitly disclose storing localization information only temporarily if said precision corresponding to the at least one derived point is less than a predetermined value.
However, Muro suggests storing localization information only temporarily if said precision corresponding to the at least one derived point is less than a predetermined value (see at least ¶ [0037] and [0054-0059] disclosing comparing position sensor units to determine position detection accuracy and determine if they are equal or less than a predetermined value to associate a zone of the working area with low position detection accuracy).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the position detection accuracy data of Muro into the autonomous lawn mower of Frick with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward operating autonomous lawn mowers within designated working areas and accurately positioning them within that working area. This would help determine zones within the work area that have reduced localization effectiveness and therefore identify associated data that may require correction from stored maps and paths that the lawn mower navigates.
Regarding claim 12, Frick discloses the lawn mower robot, set up in the step of preparing the lawn mower robot, and wherein the step of moving said lawn mower robot in the cutting zone comprises a step of controlling the movement device and/or the grass cutting device as a function of the derived points and the coordinates of the GPS positions of the derived points stored in the storage unit (see at least ¶ [0061], [0064-0065], [0068], and [0090-0093] disclosing one or more controllers with memory used to process sensor data and detect both edges of the work region as well as locate and position obstacles and the mower within the work region).
Regarding claim 13, Frick discloses a step of cutting the cutting zone, and wherein the step of moving said lawn mower robot in the cutting zone comprises moving the lawn mower robot in the cutting zone as a function of the stored coordinates of the GPS position of said at least one derived point derived during cutting (see at least abstract and ¶ [0061], [0064-0065], [0068], and [0090-0093] disclosing one or more controllers with memory used to process sensor data and detect both edges of the work region as well as locate and position obstacles and the mower within the work region while covering the work region).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frick in view of Muro et al. and Lee et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Letsky (US 20140222197 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Frick, Muro, and Lee does not disclose at least a first sensor configured for detecting the presence of grass and at least a second sensor configured for detecting the presence of obstacles in the cutting zone.
However, Letsky teaches a first sensor configured for detecting the presence of grass and at least a second sensor configured for detecting the presence of obstacles in the cutting zone (see at least ¶ [0066], [0180], and [0184] disclosing a vision system camera for detecting obstacles and a current sensor for detecting the thickness of grass and possible impact with obstacles).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the distinct sensors of Letsky into the combination of Frick, Muro, and Lee with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward operating autonomous lawn mowers within designated working areas. This would help prevent the lawn mower from inadvertently striking the blades against non-grass obstacles and potentially damaging it.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED C BEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5255. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/J.C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669