DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This correspondence is in response to amendments filed on January 14, 2026. Claims 1, 3, 7-11, 14-15, and 17 are amended. Claims 2, 12, and 16 are filed as originally. Claims 4-6, 13, and 18 are cancelled. Arguments have been addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Biber does not teach “acquiring an item of color information about a color of an object by use of a color measuring principle and acquiring an item of chlorophyll information about a chlorophyll content of the object by use of a chlorophyll measuring principle independently of the color measuring principle” (Page 10 of Remarks). Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Fig. 2b, receiving unit 116a of sensor 107 is specifically designed to measure light in the visible spectrum, and thus is a sensor that acquires an item of color information about the color of an object using a color measuring principle which is based on a selective acquisition and assessment of a visible spectral range. In Fig. 4, the sensor 130 performs fluorescence spectroscopy to determine the texture of the ground and corresponding chlorophyll content. The text indicates that the sensors 107 and 130 can be used “alternatively or in addition to” each other (see Biber, [0053]), and as such, there are two unique sensors which measure a fluorescence of the ground the robot processes, as well as the color of the ground the robot processes. Provided that there are two sensors which perform different detections of the ground, these sensors work independently. Thus, Applicant’s argument has been considered but is NOT PERSUASIVE.
Applicant further argues that Grufman in combination with Biber does not teach “…wherein the determining is by fusing at least the acquired color information and the acquired chlorophyll information…” (Page 10 of Remarks). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated by Applicant, Grufman teaches a multi-sensor, autonomous robotic vehicle with a grass detector 154 and additionally a camera 95. Examiner cited to Paragraph [0076] to show that both chlorophyll and color information are to each be considered in determining the map data, which is a determination of obstacles and ground types which may or may not be processed by a lawn mower. Specifically, Paragraph [0077] describes probabilistic mapping which collects information from the multiple sensors and assigns score values based on the output. The same paragraph describes “…the mapping module 80 may essentially perform an integration of sensor data over time” and thus fuses said sensor determinations. Paragraph [0078] continues on to describe that the grass detector 154 and camera 95 each evaluate the same areas and objects to assign probabilities that the ground may be “grass, rocks, mulch, pavement, asphalt, or other ground cover features.” Finally, it is discussed in [0048-0049] that the grass detector 154 detects chlorophyll, while [0050] describes the camera detecting color via “RGB values for various pixels in each image”. Thus, Applicant’s argument has been considered but is NOT PERSUASIVE.
Applicant further argues that the teachings of Greenbaum may not be combined with Biber and Grufman because Greenbaum teaches chlorophyll detections of microalgae, not grass (Page 11 of Remarks). Greenbaum not only teaches an application of PAM fluorometry to detecting algae, but additionally generalizes the means for detecting chlorophyll and photosynthesis in plants using PAM fluorometry in Paragraphs [0019-0022], which has been relied upon by the Examiner to teach the emission and receiving of pulsed and modulated electromagnetic radiation to measure chlorophyll fluorescence. The text describes an emission of blue light and a detection of red light, similar to the visible light emissions of sensor 130 as taught by Biber. Examiner merely relies on Greenbaum to describe the pulsed modulation of light required as is common for PAM fluorescence. Provided that PAM fluorescence generally uses specific light emissions to determine the ability of a plant to do photosynthesis and the physiological health of a plant, the same principles may be applied to grass and other non-aqueous plants that perform photosynthesis. Thus, Greenbaum is pertinent to the problem at hand. As such, Applicant’s argument has been considered but is NOT PERSUASIVE.
Drawings
Although previously accepted by Examiner in the office action mailed out on October 14, 2025, Examiner further considered Drawings after consultation with SPE “Wade Miles” and Primary Examiner “Jaime Figueroa” and respectfully requests corrections of the following:
The drawings are objected to because…
Figure 1 shows several labels which are directed to non-structural analysis components (examples: FI, CI, TI, FM, CM, TM, CMG, iS, oS, WS, MIR, CMG, MT) which creates confusion within the image by congesting structural image labels. Such labels are described in the specification and lead one of ordinary skill in the art to understand which features of the drawing in Fig. 1 are directed to a specific control types and analysis criteria. Such labels are additionally sufficiently described in the flowchart of Fig. 6 which correspond directly to labels 100b, 100b’, 100b’’, and 100a’ which are included in Figs. 1 and 2. Thus, it is recommended to remove non-structural labels from Figs. 1 and 2.
Figure 2 includes a dotted arrow behind the processing robot, and it is unclear what this arrow is indicating. Examiner assumes that such an arrow is the previous trajectory which the robot has traversed, and if so it is recommended to either remove the arrow which is behind the robot entirely (as the arrow does not contribute anything significant to the drawing), or to at least remove the arrow head which points to the back end of the robot such that it is interpreted as a continuation of the dotted trajectory line in front of the robot rather than being misinterpreted as another structural entity of the drawing.
Figure 5 includes lines directed to the color key on the right side of the graph and additionally the peaks of the wavelengths towards the left of the graph. It is unclear what these lines are directed to. It is obvious to the Examiner that the lines are directed from the “FM, DB” label which signifies the color measuring principle and the tristimulus principle, but such lines are not necessary as there is a key indicating color representations of lines provided on the graph. Thus, the lines merely add confusion to the drawing and add limited practical value to enhancing understanding of the graph to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner recommends removing these lines from the drawing such that the lines of the graph can be clearly seen without interference from the FM, DB lines. Examiner similarly recommends removing the line from “F” for the same reasons stated above.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 15-17 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “…wherein step b) comprises determining the control type…” in each of lines 24 and 31. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No such step b) has been defined because claim 15 claims a system and step b) alludes to the method of claim 1. Examiner will instead read the limitation as “…wherein the determination device determines the control type…”.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected as being dependent on claim 15.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber (WO 2009/077239 A1; hereinafter “Biber”) in view of Grufman et al. (US 2017/0364090 A1; hereinafter “Grufman”), further in view of Greenbaum (US 2013/0256561 A1; hereinafter “Greenbaum”), and further in view of Wellington et al. (U.S. 2007/0280528 A1; hereinafter “Wellington”).
Regarding claim 1, Biber teaches a method for operating an autonomous mobile processing robot (“landscaping device”, i.e. robot, with “autonomous” mobile capability; [0046] and Fig. 2a), the method comprising the steps of:
a) acquiring an item of color information about a color of an object by use of a color measuring principle (analyze “reflectance” inclusive of the “visible spectrum”; [0014], [0037], Fig. 1) and acquiring an item of chlorophyll information about a chlorophyll content of the object (analysis for “chlorophyll-containing vegetation”; [0011]) by use of a chlorophyll measuring principle independently of the color measuring principle (chlorophyll analyzing unit that is different from color measuring unit; [0021] and Fig. 2b versus Fig. 4) ;
b) determining a control type from a set of different control types (distinction between types of control commands to be issued; [0025]) of the processing robot based on at least the acquired color information and the acquired chlorophyll information (control commands generated based on evaluation of sensor readings/detected obstacles; [0025])…; and
c) controlling the processing robot according to the determined control type (determination of the control commands generated from the evaluation of sensor readings/detected obstacles; [0025]);
wherein the color measuring principle is based on at least one of a selective acquisition and assessment of a visible spectral range (“visible spectral range” assessment using light emission and light receiving units; [0019]), a supply of color values, or a tristimulus principle, via a color sensor (receiving sensor unit specifically for the “visible spectral range”, i.e., color; [0019]);
wherein the chlorophyll measuring principle is based on a measurement of chlorophyll fluorescence (use of “fluorescence spectroscopy”; [0021]), via a chlorophyll fluorometer (unique “sensor device” for the “fluorescence spectroscopy”; [0054] and Fig. 4)…;
wherein step b) comprises determining the control type based on:
whether the acquired color information or an item of information based on the color information meets a color criterion or not, wherein the color criterion is characteristic for a green color (visible spectral range described as “measuring range I” in which classification curves show the distinction between different colored items inclusive of “fresh green grass”; [0038] and Fig. 1), and
whether the acquired chlorophyll information or an item of information based on the chlorophyll information meets a chlorophyll criterion or not, wherein the chlorophyll criterion is characteristic for a chlorophyll minimum content (determination of whether or not the subsurface is “chlorophyll vegetation” or not based on the sensor emissions; [0045]. See [0014] for a minimum content required in order to determine an item containing chlorophyll.);
wherein step b) comprises determining the control type considering the object as:
grass when the color criterion is met and when the chlorophyll criterion is met; …or a thing or an animal or a human when the color criterion is not met and when the chlorophyll criterion is not met (examples of plant and non-plant items to be detected by the color and chlorophyll readings are provided in the description; [0038], [0039], and Fig. 1); and
wherein the processing robot is a lawnmower robot (specifies the present embodiment of the invention is an “autonomously operating lawnmower that can carry out mowing work independently”; [0046] and Fig. 2a).
However, Biber does not teach …wherein the determining is by fusing at least the acquired color information and the acquired chlorophyll information…
… wherein the measurement of chlorophyll fluorescence comprises:
emitting electromagnetic radiation, wherein the emitted electromagnetic radiation is modulated, pulsed, and of only one first wavelength; and
receiving electromagnetic radiation, wherein the received electromagnetic radiation is modulated, pulsed, and of a second wavelength greater than the first wavelength; …
a green-colored thing or a green-colored animal or a green-colored human when the color criterion is met and when the chlorophyll criterion is not;
a chlorophyll-including thing or a chlorophyll-including animal or a chlorophyll-including human when the color criterion is not met and when the chlorophyll criterion is met…
Grufman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches …wherein the determining is by fusing at least the acquired color information and the acquired chlorophyll information (“Additionally, given that some sensors of the sensor network 90 can detect other features or information (e.g., color, chlorophyll, etc.), the map data and corresponding map generated may be further augmented to include such information” [0076]. Thus, both color and chlorophyll information may be included together in the analysis to determine operable areas of the map, thereby fusing the two pieces of information.)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the work of Biber to include the fusing of color and chlorophyll information with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because by including information from multiple sensors the detection and determination of areas which may be processed versus areas which may not be processed become more accurate (Grufman, [0076]). As was stated in the Response to Arguments, Grufman generally teaches a detection of chlorophyll, similar to that of Biber, and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the chlorophyll fluorescence of Biber would be a part of the chlorophyll information as taught by Grufman.
However, Biber as modified by Grufman does not teach … wherein the measurement of chlorophyll fluorescence comprises:
emitting electromagnetic radiation, wherein the emitted electromagnetic radiation is modulated, pulsed, and of only one first wavelength; and
receiving electromagnetic radiation, wherein the received electromagnetic radiation is modulated, pulsed, and of a second wavelength greater than the first wavelength; …
a green-colored thing or a green-colored animal or a green-colored human when the color criterion is met and when the chlorophyll criterion is not;
a chlorophyll-including thing or a chlorophyll-including animal or a chlorophyll-including human when the color criterion is not met and when the chlorophyll criterion is met…
Greenbaum, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches … wherein the measurement of chlorophyll fluorescence comprises:
emitting electromagnetic radiation, wherein the emitted electromagnetic radiation is modulated, pulsed, and of only one first wavelength (Teaches a pulse-amplitude modulated chlorophyll fluorometer which emits blue light (~470nm) (see [0019]).); and
receiving electromagnetic radiation, wherein the received electromagnetic radiation is modulated, pulsed, and of a second wavelength greater than the first wavelength (Additionally teaches the same pulse-amplitude modulated chlorophyll fluorometer which detects radiated wavelengths measured to be 685nm to indicate chlorophyll presence (a second wavelength greater than the first wavelength which was 470nm) (see [0019]).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the methods and systems of Biber to include the pulse-amplitude modulated chlorophyll fluorometer as taught by Greenbaum with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the use of pulse-amplitude modulated chlorophyll analysis techniques provides a more detailed analysis about physiological health of plants (Greenbaum, [0021]), including whether or not a plant is able to do photosynthesis which is a primary indicator of the physiological health of a plant such as grass (Greenbaum, [0022]).
However, Biber as modified by Grufman and Greenbaum still does not teach
…a green-colored thing or a green-colored animal or a green-colored human when the color criterion is met and when the chlorophyll criterion is not;
a chlorophyll-including thing or a chlorophyll-including animal or a chlorophyll-including human when the color criterion is not met and when the chlorophyll criterion is met…
Wellington, which provides a method for classifying terrain spaces in outdoor domains, teaches …a green-colored thing or a green-colored animal or a green-colored human when the color criterion is met and when the chlorophyll criterion is not; a chlorophyll-including thing or a chlorophyll-including animal or a chlorophyll-including human when the color criterion is not met and when the chlorophyll criterion is met (references to four classes of “ground”, “penetrable vegetation”, “non-penetrable vegetation”, “obstacle”, and “free space”, in which the “non-penetrable vegetation” could include chlorophyll-including objects that do not meet the requirement for being green among other dense vegetation states and the “obstacle” classification could include green-colored objects that do not meet the chlorophyll requirements; [0094], Fig. 1 and Fig. 2)…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Biber to include classifying a green-colored thing or green-colored animal or green-colored human and/or a chlorophyll-including thing or chlorophyll-including animal or chlorophyll-including human as taught by Wellington et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because Wellington teaches an expansive classification strategy which considers categories of multiple such classes of objects such as those which are green-colored and do not contain chlorophyll, or those which are not green-colored but do contain chlorophyll, thereby increasing lawn maintenance efficiency and accuracy.
Regarding claim 15, Biber teaches a processing system, comprising:
an acquisition device, wherein the acquisition device is designed to acquire an item of color information about a color of an object by use of a color measuring principle (“the sensor device 107” which utilizes the “visible spectral range” to send and receive light emissions; [0047], [0048], Fig. 2a, and Fig. 2b) and to acquire an item of chlorophyll information about a chlorophyll content of the object by use of a chlorophyll measuring principle independently of the color measuring principle (the addition of “sensor device 130”, separate from “sensor device 107” which uses fluorescence spectroscopy to analyze the chlorophyll properties of the substrate; [0053], [0054], and Fig. 4);
a determination device, wherein the determination device is designed to determine a control type from a set of different control types of an autonomous mobile processing robot based on at least the acquired color information and the acquired chlorophyll information (“evaluation units” 117 and 142 which are used to process the sensor information and “generate control commands”; [0051], [0054], Fig. 2a and Fig.4)…; and
a control device, wherein the control device is designed to control the processing robot according to the determined control type (the “drive unit” and “the motor for the cutting blade” receive the “control commands” from the “evaluation unit” which determines the motion/action of the robot; [0051]) ;
wherein the color measuring principle is based on at least one of a selective acquisition and assessment of a visible spectral range (“visible spectral range” assessment using light emission and light receiving units; [0019]), a supply of color values, or a tristimulus principle, via a color sensor (receiving sensor unit specifically for the “visible spectral range”, i.e., color; [0019]);
wherein the chlorophyll measuring principle is based on a measurement of chlorophyll fluorescence (use of “fluorescence spectroscopy”; [0021]), via a chlorophyll fluorometer (unique “sensor device” for the “fluorescence spectroscopy”; [0054] and Fig. 4)… )…;
wherein the determination device determines the control type based on:
whether the acquired color information or an item of information based on the color information meets a color criterion or not, wherein the color criterion is characteristic for a green color (visible spectral range described as “measuring range I” in which classification curves show the distinction between different colored items inclusive of “fresh green grass”; [0038] and Fig. 1), and
whether the acquired chlorophyll information or an item of information based on the chlorophyll information meets a chlorophyll criterion or not, wherein the chlorophyll criterion is characteristic for a chlorophyll minimum content (determination of whether or not the subsurface is “chlorophyll vegetation” or not based on the sensor emissions; [0045]. See [0014] for a minimum content required in order to determine an item containing chlorophyll.);
wherein the determination device determines the control type considering the object as:
grass when the color criterion is met and when the chlorophyll criterion is met; …or a thing or an animal or a human when the color criterion is not met and when the chlorophyll criterion is not met (examples of plant and non-plant items to be detected by the color and chlorophyll readings are provided in the description; [0038], [0039], and Fig. 1); and
wherein the processing robot is a lawnmower robot (specifies the present embodiment of the invention is an “autonomously operating lawnmower that can carry out mowing work independently”; [0046] and Fig. 2a).
However, Biber does not teach …wherein the determining is by fusing at least the acquired color information and the acquired chlorophyll information…
… wherein the measurement of chlorophyll fluorescence comprises:
emitting electromagnetic radiation, wherein the emitted electromagnetic radiation is modulated, pulsed, and of only one first wavelength; and
receiving electromagnetic radiation, wherein the received electromagnetic radiation is modulated, pulsed, and of a second wavelength greater than the first wavelength; …
a green-colored thing or a green-colored animal or a green-colored human when the color criterion is met and when the chlorophyll criterion is not;
a chlorophyll-including thing or a chlorophyll-including animal or a chlorophyll-including human when the color criterion is not met and when the chlorophyll criterion is met…
Grufman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches …wherein the determination device is configured to make the determination by fusing at least the acquired color information and the acquired chlorophyll information (“Additionally, given that some sensors of the sensor network 90 can detect other features or information (e.g., color, chlorophyll, etc.), the map data and corresponding map generated may be further augmented to include such information” [0076]. Thus, both color and chlorophyll information may be included together in the analysis to determine operable areas of the map, thereby fusing the two pieces of information.)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the work of Biber to include the fusing of color and chlorophyll information with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because by including information from multiple sensors the detection and determination of areas which may be processed versus areas which may not be processed become more accurate (Grufman, [0076]). As was stated in the Response to Arguments, Grufman generally teaches a detection of chlorophyll, similar to that of Biber, and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the chlorophyll fluorescence of Biber would be a part of the chlorophyll information as taught by Grufman.
However, Biber as modified by Grufman does not teach … wherein the measurement of chlorophyll fluorescence comprises:
emitting electromagnetic radiation, wherein the emitted electromagnetic radiation is modulated, pulsed, and of only one first wavelength; and
receiving electromagnetic radiation, wherein the received electromagnetic radiation is modulated, pulsed, and of a second wavelength greater than the first wavelength; …
a green-colored thing or a green-colored animal or a green-colored human when the color criterion is met and when the chlorophyll criterion is not;
a chlorophyll-including thing or a chlorophyll-including animal or a chlorophyll-including human when the color criterion is not met and when the chlorophyll criterion is met…
Greenbaum, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches … wherein the measurement of chlorophyll fluorescence comprises:
emitting electromagnetic radiation, wherein the emitted electromagnetic radiation is modulated, pulsed, and of only one first wavelength (Teaches a pulse-amplitude modulated chlorophyll fluorometer which emits blue light (~470nm) (see [0019]).); and
receiving electromagnetic radiation, wherein the received electromagnetic radiation is modulated, pulsed, and of a second wavelength greater than the first wavelength (Additionally teaches the same pulse-amplitude modulated chlorophyll fluorometer which detects radiated wavelengths measured to be 685nm to indicate chlorophyll presence (a second wavelength greater than the first wavelength which was 470nm) (see [0019]).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the methods and systems of Biber to include the pulse-amplitude modulated chlorophyll fluorometer as taught by Greenbaum with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the use of pulse-amplitude modulated chlorophyll analysis techniques provides a more detailed analysis about physiological health of plants (Greenbaum, [0021]), including whether or not a plant is able to do photosynthesis which is a primary indicator of the physiological health of a plant such as grass (Greenbaum, [0022]).
However, Biber as modified by Grufman and Greenbaum still does not teach
…a green-colored thing or a green-colored animal or a green-colored human when the color criterion is met and when the chlorophyll criterion is not;
a chlorophyll-including thing or a chlorophyll-including animal or a chlorophyll-including human when the color criterion is not met and when the chlorophyll criterion is met…
Wellington, which provides a method for classifying terrain spaces in outdoor domains, teaches …a green-colored thing or a green-colored animal or a green-colored human when the color criterion is met and when the chlorophyll criterion is not; a chlorophyll-including thing or a chlorophyll-including animal or a chlorophyll-including human when the color criterion is not met and when the chlorophyll criterion is met (references to four classes of “ground”, “penetrable vegetation”, “non-penetrable vegetation”, “obstacle”, and “free space”, in which the “non-penetrable vegetation” could include chlorophyll-including objects that do not meet the requirement for being green among other dense vegetation states and the “obstacle” classification could include green-colored objects that do not meet the chlorophyll requirements; [0094], Fig. 1 and Fig. 2)…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Biber to include classifying a green-colored thing or green-colored animal or green-colored human and/or a chlorophyll-including thing or chlorophyll-including animal or chlorophyll-including human as taught by Wellington et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because Wellington teaches an expansive classification strategy which considers categories of multiple such classes of objects such as those which are green-colored and do not contain chlorophyll, or those which are not green-colored but do contain chlorophyll, thereby increasing lawn maintenance efficiency and accuracy.
Regarding claim 16, Biber as modified by Grufman, Greenbaum, and Wellington (references made to Biber) teaches the processing system according to claim 15,
wherein the processing system includes the processing robot (the robot is labeled with the number 100 in the processing system as an example embodiment of the “landscaping device”; [0046] and Fig. 2a).
Regarding claim 17, Biber as modified by Grufman, Greenbaum, and Wellington (references made to Biber) teaches the processing system according to claim 16,
wherein the processing robot includes at least one of the acquisition device, the determination device, or the control device (sensor devices 107 and 130 which include evaluation devices 117 and 142 are a part of the robot 100 which further includes wheels designated as 104 which are operated using the “drive unit” and a “cutting blade” which is “driven by a motor also accommodated in the housing”; [0046], [0047], [0054], Fig. 2a, Fig. 2b, and Fig. 4).
Claims 2, 7, 9-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber in view of Grufman, further in view of Greenbaum, further in view of Wellington, and further in view of Matsuda et al. (U.S. 2019/0141887 A1; hereinafter “Matsuda”).
Regarding claim 2, Biber as modified by Grufman, Greenbaum, and Wellington (references made to Biber) teaches the method according to claim 1 and
that step b) determines the control type based on the acquired sensor information (control commands generated based on evaluation of sensor readings/detected obstacles; [0025]).
However, Biber as modified does not teach that step a) includes:
acquiring an item of temperature information about a temperature of the object by use of a temperature measuring principle.
Matsuda, which teaches another work vehicle for the purpose of lawn maintenance, teaches that step a) includes:
acquiring an item of temperature information about a temperature of the object by use of a temperature measuring principle (addition of a temperature determination device on a lawn work vehicle; [0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Biber and the method of claim 1 to include the acquisition of temperature information and use of temperature information to determine the control type as described by Matsuda with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of using a temperature determination as an additional measurement to assess lawn health/condition (Matsuda; [0040]).
Regarding claim 7, Biber as modified by Grufman, Greenbaum, Wellington, and Matsuda (references to Matsuda) teaches the method according to claim 2 (see above)
wherein step b) comprises determining the control type based on:
whether the acquired temperature information or an item of information based on the temperature information meets a temperature criterion or not, wherein the temperature criterion is characteristic for a minimum temperature (temperature indicates the condition/health of the lawn based on surface and ambiance readings; [0015]).
Regarding claim 9, Biber as modified by Grufman, Greenbaum, Wellington, and Matsuda teaches (references made to Biber) the method according to claim 7 (see above),
wherein step b) comprises: determining the control type from the set of different control types including at least one processing control type and one non-processing control type, wherein the processing control type is determined when the color criterion is met and when the chlorophyll criterion is met, or the non-processing control type is determined when at least one of the color criterion is not met or the chlorophyll criterion is not met (depending on the outcome of the sensor processes being within the expectation norms for the color and chlorophyll measurement ranges, the objects are classified and distinctions between areas to be processed and areas to avoid are made; [0045] and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Biber as modified by Grufman, Greenbaum, Wellington, and Matsuda teaches (references made to Biber) the method according to claim 9 (see above), wherein at least one of:
the processing robot comprises a movement drive system for moving the processing robot on a surface, and wherein step c) comprises: controlling the movement drive system according to the processing control type to move the processing robot to the object or according to the non-processing control type to move the processing robot around the object (a “drive device” moves the robot through vegetative matter and around non-vegetative obstacles; [0025]) , or
the processing robot comprises a movable processing tool for processing a surface and a tool drive system for moving the processing tool (“cutting blade” which is “stopped” and therefore was previously moving; [0025], and wherein step c) comprises:
controlling the tool drive system according to the processing control type activating the tool drive system to process the object or according to the non-processing control type deactivating the tool drive system to not process the object (the “cutting blade” can be stopped, i.e. deactivated, when a collision with a non-vegetative obstacle is imminent; [0025]).
Regarding claim 11, Biber as modified by Grufman, Greenbaum, and Wellington (references made to Biber) teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein the processing robot comprises a processing tool for processing a surface, wherein the processing tool defines a processing region (“cutting blades” are found on the “underside” of the lawnmower; [0046]), and
wherein step a) comprises: acquiring at least one of the color information about the color or the chlorophyll information about the chlorophyll content of the object in an acquisition region (sensors are “provided in any number of positions on the lawn mower” in order to “scan a predetermined area of the substrate”; [0047]).
However, Biber as modified does not explicitly teach the acquisition region is outside the processing region.
Matsuda teaches the acquisition region is outside the processing region (the “cutter blades” are in an enclosed space with a “top wall” and “side wall” while the sensors to acquire lawn condition information are a part of the “side wall” border of this space; [0028] and [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the work of Biber regarding the placement of the acquisition and processing regions to include the work of Matsuda which explicitly defines the acquisition region outside of the contained processing region. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of protecting the sensor acquisition methods from the actions of processing described as lawnmowing/cutting.
Regarding claim 12, Biber as modified by Grufman, Greenbaum, Wellington, and Matsuda teaches (references made to Matsuda) the method of claim 11 (see above)
wherein the acquisition region is in front of the processing region (emphasizes the sensors to be “disposed forwardly of the mower deck”; [0029]).
Regarding claim 14, Biber as modified by Grufman, Greenbaum, Wellington, and Matsuda teaches (references made to Biber) the method according to claim 2 (see above),
wherein the acquisition of at least one of the color information, the chlorophyll information, or the temperature information is executed by the processing robot (the sensors which perform the acquisition information are a part of the robot; [0047], [0054], Fig. 2a, Fig. 2b, and Fig. 4).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber in view of Grufman, further in view of Greenbaum, further in view of Wellington, further in view of Matsuda, and further in view of Frank et al. (U.S. 2019/0154512 A1; hereinafter “Frank”).
Regarding claim 3, Biber as modified by Grufman, Greenbaum, Wellington, and Matsuda teaches (references are to Matsuda) the method according to claim 2 wherein the temperature measuring principle is independent of at least one of the color measuring principle or the chlorophyll measuring principle (a “temperature determination device” that is “in a housing of its own” separate from the “chlorophyll meter”; [0029]).
However, Biber as modified does not explicitly teach the temperature measuring principle is based on a measurement of infrared thermal radiation.
Frank teaches a temperature measuring device which is based on a measurement principle that uses infrared thermal radiation (identifies a method for using “an infrared measurement” system that “establishes a temperature of a system”; [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the work of Biber and the temperature measuring principle as taught by Matsuda to include the work of Frank which offers a method for determining the temperature of a surface using infrared thermal radiation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of determining the temperature of a surface by means of a contactless temperature measurement system.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber in view of Grufman, further in view of Greenbaum, further in view of Wellington, further in view of Matsuda, and further in view of Einecke et al. (U.S. 2013/0190965 A1; hereinafter “Einecke”).
Regarding claim 8, Biber as modified by Grufman, Greenbaum, and Matsuda teaches the method according to claim 2.
Biber further teaches …wherein step b) comprises determining the control type considering the object as:
at least one of grass or a plant when the color criterion is met and when the chlorophyll criterion is met, …or a thing or an animal or a human when the color criterion is not met and if the chlorophyll criterion is not met (examples of plant and non-plant items to be detected by the color and chlorophyll readings are provided in the description; [0038], [0039], and Fig. 1)…
In addition, Wellington further teaches (see Biber as previously modified by Wellington in the rejection of claim 1) …a green-colored thing or a green-colored animal or a green-colored human when the color criterion is met and when the chlorophyll criterion is not met…; a chlorophyll-including thing or a chlorophyll-including animal or a chlorophyll-including human when the color criterion is not met and when the chlorophyll criterion is met (references to four classes of “ground”, “penetrable vegetation”, “non-penetrable vegetation”, “obstacle”, and “free space”, in which the “non-penetrable vegetation” could include chlorophyll-including objects that do not meet the requirement for being green among other dense vegetation states and the “obstacle” classification could include green-colored objects that do not meet the chlorophyll requirements; [0094], Fig. 1 and Fig. 2)…
However, Biber as modified by Grufman, Greenbaum, Wellington, and Matsuda does not explicitly teach the classification of …at least one of grass or a plant in a sun/shade transition if the temperature criterion is additionally met; … a thing when the temperature criterion is additionally not met or as an animal or a human when the temperature criterion is additionally met…
Einecke, which offers yet another embodiment of an autonomous lawn mower, teaches …at least one of grass or a plant in a sun/shade transition if the temperature criterion is additionally met; … a thing when the temperature criterion is additionally not met or as an animal or a human when the temperature criterion is additionally met… (determines that “heat emitting obstacles” can be exemplified as “persons or animals”; [0029]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the work of Biber regarding the advanced classification of objects in a terrain space to include the temperature criterion taught by Einecke with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of broadening the classification space to further identify the role of temperature requirements in classifying obstacles in the terrain space.
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 SIDNEY L MOLNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-2276. The examiner can normally be reached 8 A.M. to 3 P.M. EST Monday-Friday business hours.
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, Jonathan (Wade) Miles can be reached on (571) 270-7777. 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.
/S.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 4162
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656