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 .
This is a Final rejection is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 23 July 2025. Claims 1-18 are currently pending, as discussed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. Amendments to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive, objection to the specification set forth in office action of 4/23/2025 have been withdrawn. Amendment to claim 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Objection to claim 16 is with dawn. Arguments concerning 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) interpretation has been fully considered and are not persuasive. Interpretation of "a controller" includes a general placeholder, is followed by a functional language "configured to cause the robotic work tool to exit the charging station" and “controller” does not does not provide sufficient structure in Prong C of MPEP 2181 therefore "controller" is interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112f is sustained. Amendments to claim 4, 5, 6, 9 and 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection to claims 4, 5, 6, 9 and 14 have been withdrawn. Arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner reformulates a new obviousness rejection necessitated by the amendments.
Examiner’s Response- Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Regarding arguments to amended claim 1, Lundkvist does not need to teach satellite navigation. Satellite navigation is taught by secondary reference Gustavsson. Claimed language does not require “switching from magnetic based navigation to satellite-based navigation responsive to the guide line/wire and boundary line/wire intersection”. Claimed language only requires “navigate in the operational area based on satellite navigation” which is taught by Gustavsson and Lundkvist teaches “release point to navigate in the operational area is a crossing between the guide wire and a boundary wire” and the combination of the two references cure the deficiencies of Lundkvist. Regarding arguments to amended claim 18, updating the release point is taught by Futagawa and satellite reception reliability is taught by Shao and satellite navigation capability is taught by secondary reference Gustavsson. Shao teaches switching between inertial navigation to satellite navigation based on reliable satellite signal and it would be obvious to combine that switching capability with other navigation methods like a magnetic guide wire.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a controller in claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 14
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for a controller:
" The controller 110 may be implemented using instructions that enable hardware functionality, for example, by using executable computer program instructions in a general-purpose or special-purpose processor that may be stored on the memory 120 to be executed by such a processor", [¶ 43]
"The controller 110 may be implemented using any suitable, available processor or Programmable Logic Circuit (PLC)", [¶ 45]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3, 7-9, 11-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUTAGAWA MASAYASU et al. (JP 2016207158 A) in view of Gustavsson; Jakob et al. (US 20180129199 A1) and Lundkvist; André et al. (WO2021244594A1).
Regarding claim 1, Futagawa teaches, A robotic work tool system (200) comprising a charging station (210), a wire (220) leading to/from the charging station (210) and a robotic work tool (100) (lawn mower robot 1 and charging station 60 connected a wire 50, see at least [¶ 28-32, Fig. 3]) arranged to operate in an operational area (205) (the lawn mower robot performs lawn mowing work inside area defined by the wire 50, see at least [¶ 39, Fig. 3]), the robotic work tool (100) comprising one or more magnetic sensors (170) (magnetic sensor 23, see at least [¶ 37, Fig. 2]), a satellite navigation sensor (175) (GPS signal receiving unit 22, see at least [¶ 159, Fig. 2]) and a controller (110) (control unit 16, see at least [¶ 22, Fig. 2]), wherein the controller (110) is configured to:
cause the robotic work tool (100) to exit the charging station (210) and then cause the robotic work tool (100) to follow the wire (220) (Fig.3 depicts the lawnmower robot 1(b), departing the charging station 60 in a second driving mode which is a mode where the mower follows the wire 50, see at least [¶ 54, Fig. 3]: “the lawnmower robot 1 can also perform a second task of starting from the charging station 60 in a second driving mode, forcibly passing through area C along the area wire 50, moving into area B”) navigating based on the one or more magnetic sensors (170) (the lawnmower 1, navigates using its magnetic sensor 23 to detect the magnetic field from the wire 50, see at least [¶ 36-37]);
determine that a release point (RP) has been reached, and in response thereto cause the robotic work tool (100) to navigate in the operational area (205) (Fig. 3 (b) depicts when the lawnmower robot 1 reaches a release point D switches driving modes and begins navigating the operational area B and mowing the area, see at least [¶ 36-37]: “as shown in Figure 3 (b), the lawnmower robot 1 is forced to start in the second driving mode from the charging station 60 in area A toward area B along the area wire 50 until it has passed through area C, and when it reaches area B, it detects a milestone event, and at that stage (point D where the milestone event occurs), it automatically switches to the first driving mode and begins mowing the lawn within area B”), wherein the wire is a guide wire (the area wire 50 is interpreted as a guide wire since it guides the robot to the charging station, see at least [¶43, Fig. 3, Futagawa]:” When the mowing operation is completed, the lawnmower robot 1 stops the operation and returns to the charging station 60 by moving along the territory wire 50”), and wherein the release point to navigate in the operational area is a crossing between the guide wire and a boundary wire.
Futagawa does not explicitly teach navigate in the operational area based on the satellite navigation sensor (175) and wherein the release point to navigate in the operational area based on the satellite navigation sensor is a crossing between the guide wire and a boundary wire.
Gustavsson, directed to error detection and resetting of a robotic work tool teaches navigate in the operational area based on the satellite navigation sensor (175) (the robotic lawnmower 100 uses satellite navigation, see at least [¶ 44, Fig. 2A]: “For its operation within the work area 205, in the embodiment of FIG. 2A, the robotic lawnmower 100 mainly uses the satellite navigation device 190, supported by the deduced reckoning navigation sensor 195 as will be described in some more detail further below”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Futagawa’s method of mowing the lawn in area B to incorporate the teachings of Gustavsson which teaches navigate in the operational area based on the satellite navigation sensor (175) since they are both related to methods of controlling automatic lawn mowers and incorporation of the teachings of Gustavsson would increase the efficiency and reliability of the overall system by utilizing satellite navigation instead of using a random method for cutting the lawn as to not repeat cut areas and saving energy and work time.
Lundkvist, directed to a robotic mower teaches, wherein the release point is a crossing between the guide wire (220B) and a boundary wire (220A) (Fig. 23 depicts a release point at the intersection of the guide line 7 and the boundary line 2 and Fig. 24 depicts the method of controlling the robotic mower to release the mower at the crossing point between the guide line 7 and boundary line 2, see at least [¶165, Fig. 23, Fig. 24, Lundkvist]:” [describing Fig. 24] step S23, controlling the automatic lawn mower 1 to follow the guide line 7 until it reaches the target location; step S24, after arriving at the target location, controlling the automatic lawn mower 1 to start mowing in the working area defined by the boundary line 2”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the invention of Futagawa and Gustavsson to incorporate the teachings of Lundkvist which teaches wherein the release point is a crossing between the guide wire (220B) and a boundary wire (220A) since they are both related automatic lawnmowers and incorporation of the teachings of Lundkvist would increase the efficiency of the overall system in a case where the entrance of the charging station is not positioned directly on the boundary wire and requires a guide wire to allow the robot to find the entrance of the charging station.
Regarding claim 3, Futagawa in view of Gustavsson and Lundkvist teach, the robotic work tool system (200) according to claim 1.
Gustavsson, directed to error detection and resetting of a robotic work tool teaches, wherein the controller (110) is further configured to prioritize input from the satellite sensor (175) when navigating the operational area (205) (the robotic lawnmower 100 prioritizes satellite navigation, see at least [¶ 44, Fig. 2A]: “For its operation within the work area 205, in the embodiment of FIG. 2A, the robotic lawnmower 100 mainly uses the satellite navigation device 190, supported by the deduced reckoning navigation sensor 195 as will be described in some more detail further below”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the invention of Futagawa, Gustavsson and Lundkvist, to further incorporate the teachings of Gustavsson which teaches wherein the controller (110) is further configured to prioritize input from the satellite sensor (175) when navigating the operational area (205) since they are both related to methods of controlling automatic lawn mowers and incorporation of the teachings of Gustavsson would increase the efficiency and reliability of the overall system by utilizing satellite navigation instead of using a random method for cutting the lawn as to not repeat cut areas and saving energy and work time.
Regarding claim 7, Futagawa in view of Gustavsson and Lundkvist teaches the robotic work tool system (200) according to claim 1, wherein the release point is at a specified distance along the wire (220) (the release point is updated at the location that a milestone event occurs along the wire which could be a predetermined distance, see at least [¶ 85, Fig. 2b, Futagawa]:” the milestone event may be set to occur when the travel distance …reaches a predetermined distance”).
Regarding claim 8, Futagawa in view of Gustavsson and Lundkvist teaches the robotic work tool system (200) according to claim 7, wherein the specified distance is a length distance (the release point is updated at the location E, that a milestone event where the lawnmower robot 1 has traveled a length distance of 70m, see at least [¶ 120, Fig. 5, Futagawa]:” In this embodiment, a milestone event occurs when the lawnmower robot 1 leaves the charging station 60 in the second travel mode and travels a distance of 70 m. Specifically, the event monitoring unit 163 monitors the distance traveled by the lawnmower robot 1 after it departs from the charging station 60”).
Regarding claim 9, Futagawa in view of Gustavsson and Lundkvist teaches the robotic work tool system (200) according to claim 7, wherein the specified distance is a time distance (the release point is updated at the location E, that a milestone event where the lawnmower robot 1 has traveled a running time, see at least [¶113, Fig. 5, Futagawa]:” in this embodiment, an example has been described in which the condition for the milestone event to occur is set based on the running time of the lawnmower robot 1 after it departs from the charging station 60”).
Regarding claim 12, Futagawa in view of Gustavsson and Lundkvist teaches the robotic work tool system (200) according to claim 1, wherein the wire is a boundary wire (220A) (the area wire 50 is also a boundary wire since it outlines the work area of the lawnmower robot 1, see at least [¶39, Fig. 3, Futagawa]:” The lawnmower robot 1 performs lawnmowing work while moving randomly inside the area defined by the area wire 50”).
Regarding claim 13, Futagawa in view of Gustavsson and Lundkvist teaches the robotic work tool system (200) according to claim 12, wherein the release point is a corner formed by the boundary wire (220A) (Fig. 6 depicts release point F which is at a boundary corner based occurrence of milestone event number of turns reached, see at least [¶147, Fig. 6, Futagawa]:” When the event monitoring unit 163 detects that the lawnmower robot 1 has made four turns, it transmits and instructs the work control unit 162, the driving mode switching unit 164, etc. to notify them of the occurrence of a milestone event and to issue an instruction to switch driving modes and to start mowing work”).
Regarding claim 14, Futagawa in view of Gustavsson and Lundkvist teaches the robotic work tool system (200) according to claim 1, wherein the charging station (210) comprises a signal generator (211) that is configured to generate a control signal (225) and to transmit the control signal (225) through the wire (220) thereby generating a magnetic field (226) which the electromagnetic sensor(s) (170) is configured to detect (the charging station 60 must have a signal generator to apply an alternating current to the area wire 50, which produces a magnetic field which the lawn mower robot 1 detects with its magnetic sensor 23, see at least [¶30-35, Futagawa]:” The charging station 60 applies a signal (alternating current) to the area wire 50, both ends of which are connected to different terminals. As a result, a magnetic field is generated around the regional wire 50 due to the alternating current flowing through the regional wire 50 … While the lawnmower robot 1 is moving, the magnetic sensor 23 detects the alternating current flowing through the zone wire 50 as a change in the magnetic field”).
Regarding claim 15, Futagawa in view of Gustavsson and Lundkvist teaches the robotic work tool system (200) according to claim 1, wherein the satellite navigation sensor is a GPS sensor (175) (Fig. 2 depicts the lawnmower robot 1 having a GPS signal receiving unit 22, see at least [¶22, Fig. 2, Futagawa]).
Regarding claim 17, Futagawa in view of Gustavsson and Lundkvist teaches the robotic work tool system (200) according to claim 1, wherein the robotic work tool (100) is a robotic lawnmower (100) (Fig. 2 depicts the lawnmower robot 1, see at least [¶22, Fig. 2, Futagawa]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUTAGAWA MASAYASU et al. (JP 2016207158 A) in view of Gustavsson; Jakob et al. (US 20180129199 A1) and Lundkvist; André et al. (WO2021244594A1) as applied to claims 1, 3, 7-9, 12-15, and 17 and further in view of Von Novak, III; William Henry et al. (US 20180009527 A1)
Regarding claim 2, Futagawa in view of Gustavsson and Lundkvist teaches the robotic work tool system (200) according to claim 1.
Futagawa in view of Gustavsson and Lundkvist does not explicitly teach wherein the controller (110) is further configured to prioritize input from the one or more magnetic sensors (170) when following the wire (220).
Von Novak, directed to devices and methods for navigating an unmanned autonomous vehicle teaches, wherein the controller (110) is further configured to prioritize input from the one or more magnetic sensors (170) when following the wire (220) (the UAV uses the magnetic field sensor over the GPS to navigate when close to the charging station, see at least [¶30-31, Von Novak]:” The ranges of UAVs are typically limited by their stored power supplies. While wireless charging stations may be well suited to address this limitation, current UAV navigation devices and methods (such as GPS, inertial navigation, radio navigation, and other standard systems) are not sufficiently accurate to obtain centimeter-level accuracy required to properly dock a UAV with a wireless charging station… In some embodiments, the UAV may use a navigation system (such as GPS) to maneuver relatively close to (e.g., within a few meters) of the charging station. When close enough, the UAV may sense the magnetic field (“H-field”) emanating from the charging station using a three-dimensional (3D) magnetic field sensor, and may navigate close enough to the center of the charging station based on a magnetic field vector and strength”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the invention of Futagawa and Gustavsson, to incorporate the teachings of Von Novak which teaches wherein the controller (110) is further configured to prioritize input from the one or more magnetic sensors (170) when following the wire (220) since they are both related to methods of controlling unmanned autonomous vehicles and incorporation of the teachings of Von Novak would increase the accuracy of the overall system by using magnetic field detection along the wire for precise navigation.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUTAGAWA MASAYASU et al. (JP 2016207158 A) in view of Gustavsson; Jakob et al. (US 20180129199 A1) and Lundkvist; André et al. (WO2021244594A1) as applied to claims 1, 3, 7-9, 12-15, and 17 and further in view of Shao; Yong et al. (US 20190041869 A1) .
Regarding claim 4 Futagawa in view of Gustavsson and Lundkvist teaches, the robotic work tool system (200) according to claim 1,
Futagawa teaches determine an update to the release point to be a point where a milestone event occurs along the wire (220) (the release point is updated at the location that a milestone event occurs along the wire, see at least [¶ 83-85, Fig. 2b, Futagawa]:” The event monitoring unit 163 detects a milestone event that occurs while the second driving mode is being executed, and notifies the driving mode switching unit 164 that the occurrence of the milestone event has been detected).
Futagawa in view of Gustavsson and Lundkvist does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to note where satellite reception is reliably received and to determine an update to the release point to be a point where satellite reception is reliably received along the wire (220).
Shao, directed to methods for controlling a self-moving automatic working system teaches wherein the controller is further configured to note where satellite reception is reliably received (Fig.1 depicts shaded regions 9 and 11 where there is low quality satellite signal, see at least [¶ 111, Fig. 1]: “Quality of location information output by the satellite navigation apparatus varies as a working environment changes. When the automatic mower is located in an open working area, the mobile station 15 can receive navigation signals of a plurality of satellites, and when communication between the mobile station 15 and the base station 17 is not blocked, the quality of the location information output by the satellite navigation apparatus is high. When the automatic mower is located in a shaded area, where the shaded area may be an area near a building or an area shaded by a tree or eaves, the mobile station 15 can only receive navigation signals of a few satellites or cannot receive a navigation signal of a satellite. Consequently, quality of location information output by the satellite navigation apparatus is degraded”) and to determine a point to be a point where satellite reception is reliably received (Fig.1 a flowchart demonstrates a point where satellite reception is reliably received, see at least [¶ 121-127, Fig. 5, Shao]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the invention of Futagawa and Gustavsson and Lundkvist, to incorporate the teachings of Shao which teaches wherein the controller is further configured to note where satellite reception is reliably received and to determine a point to be a point where satellite reception is reliably received and modify the milestone occurrence of Futagawa to be a point where satellite reception is reliably received since they are both related to methods of controlling automatic lawn mowers and incorporation of the teachings of Shao would increase the efficiency and reliability of the overall system by verifying reliable satellite coverage so that the mowing robot can maintain spatial awareness of its work task saving energy and time.
Regarding claim 16 Futagawa in view of Gustavsson and Lundkvist teach the robotic work tool system (200) according to claim 1.
Futagawa in view of Gustavsson and Lundkvist does not explicitly teach wherein the satellite navigation sensor is an RTK sensor (175).
Shao, directed to methods for controlling a self-moving automatic working system teaches wherein the satellite navigation sensor is a RTK sensor (175) (The invention uses RTK algorithm to determine precise positioning, see at least [¶ 4, Shao]:” In the differential global positioning system (DGPS), a monitoring receiver is mounted at a precise known location to calculate a range error of each GPS satellite that can be tracked by the monitoring receiver. This error is usually referred to as a pseudo range correction (PRC) value, and the PRC value is transmitted to a user receiver for error correction, so as to improve positioning precision. Currently, a base station and a mobile station of the DGPS need to receive signals of at least four satellites together, so as to use a real-time kinematic (RTK) algorithm to implement precise positioning, and when there is blocking of an obstacle such as a house, and the base station and the mobile station cannot receive signals of at least four satellites together, there is a dead zone, and precise positioning cannot be performed.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the invention of Futagawa and Gustavsson and Lundkvist, to incorporate the teachings of Shao which teaches wherein the satellite navigation sensor is a RTK sensor (175) since they are both related to methods of controlling automatic lawn mowers and incorporation of the teachings of Shao would increase the efficiency and reliability of the overall system by using RTK algorithm to implement precise positioning of the mowing robot to complete work tasks more accurately and efficiently and saving time.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUTAGAWA MASAYASU et al. (JP 2016207158 A) in view of Gustavsson; Jakob et al. (US 20180129199 A1), Lundkvist; André et al. (WO2021244594A1) and Shao; Yong et al. (US 20190041869 A1) as applied to claims 4 and 16 and further in view of NASA (https://cddis.nasa.gov/Data_and_Derived_Products/GNSS/broadcast_ephemeris_data.html).
Regarding claim 5, Futagawa in view of Gustavsson, Lundkvist and Shao teach the robotic work tool system (200) according to claim 4, wherein the controller is further configured to note where satellite reception is reliably received and to determine an updated release point to be a point where satellite reception is reliably received along the wire (220).
Futagawa in view of Gustavsson, Lundkvist and Shao do not explicitly teach to note where satellite reception is reliably received during a time of the day and to determine an updated release point to be a point where satellite reception is reliably received along the wire (220) for the time of the day
NASA, directed to public broadcast of GNSS ephemeris data teaches, publicly available hourly GNSS ephemeris data (see at least [Webpage, NASA]:” A large percentage of the GNSS sites provide broadcast navigation data in addition to observation data. The CDDIS creates daily broadcast ephemeris files from these site-specific files transmitted by the stations; these files (one for GPS, a second for GLONASS) contain the unique GPS or GLONASS satellite ephemeris messages for each day. A similar file is created at the start of the UTC day and updated on an hourly basis from the hourly broadcast navigation files. Users can therefore download a single file each day or hour, which contains all broadcast ephemeris messages required for post-processing”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the invention of Futagawa, Gustavsson, Lundkvist and Shao, to incorporate the teachings of NASA which teaches publicly available hourly GNSS ephemeris data and modify the milestone occurrence of Futagawa to be a point where satellite reception is reliably received during a time of day since they are both related GPS satellite accuracy for navigation and incorporation of the teachings of NASA would increase the efficiency and reliability of the overall system by verifying reliable satellite coverage so that the mowing robot can maintain spatial awareness of its work task saving energy and time.
Regarding claim 6, Futagawa in view of Gustavsson, Lundkvist and Shao teach the robotic work tool system (200) according to claim 4, wherein the controller is further configured to note where satellite reception is reliably received and to determine an updated release point to be a point where satellite reception is reliably received along the wire (220).
Futagawa in view of Gustavsson, Lundkvist and Shao do not explicitly teach to note where satellite reception is reliably received during a time of the year and to determine an updated release point to be a point where satellite reception is reliably received along the wire (220) for the time of the year.
NASA, directed to public broadcast of GNSS ephemeris data teaches, publicly available daily GNSS ephemeris data (see at least [Webpage, NASA]:” A large percentage of the GNSS sites provide broadcast navigation data in addition to observation data. The CDDIS creates daily broadcast ephemeris files from these site-specific files transmitted by the stations; these files (one for GPS, a second for GLONASS) contain the unique GPS or GLONASS satellite ephemeris messages for each day. A similar file is created at the start of the UTC day and updated on an hourly basis from the hourly broadcast navigation files. Users can therefore download a single file each day or hour, which contains all broadcast ephemeris messages required for post-processing”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the invention of Futagawa, Gustavsson, Lundkvist and Shao, to incorporate the teachings of NASA which teaches publicly available daily GNSS ephemeris data and modify the milestone occurrence of Futagawa to be a point where satellite reception is reliably received during a time of year based on historical daily ephemeris data since they are both related GPS satellite accuracy for navigation and incorporation of the teachings of NASA would increase the efficiency and reliability of the overall system by verifying reliable satellite coverage for the time of year so that the mowing robot can maintain spatial awareness of its work task saving energy and time.
Claims 18 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUTAGAWA MASAYASU et al. (JP 2016207158 A) in view of Gustavsson; Jakob et al. (US 20180129199 A1) and Shao; Yong et al. (US 20190041869 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Futagawa teaches a method for use in a robotic work tool system (200) comprising a charging station (210), a wire (220) leading to/from the charging station (210) (lawn mower robot 1 and charging station 60 connected a wire 50, see at least [¶ 28-32, Fig. 3]) and a robotic work tool (100) arranged to operate in an operational area (205) (the lawn mower robot performs lawn mowing work inside area defined by the wire 50, see at least [¶ 39, Fig. 3]), the robotic work tool (100) comprising one or more magnetic sensors (170) (magnetic sensor 23, see at least [¶ 37, Fig. 2]), and a satellite navigation sensor (175) (GPS signal receiving unit 22, see at least [¶ 159, Fig. 2]), wherein the method comprises:
exiting the charging station (210) and then following the wire (220) (Fig.3 depicts the lawnmower robot 1(b), departing the charging station 60 in a second driving mode which is a mode where the mower follows the wire 50, see at least [¶ 54, Fig. 3]: “the lawnmower robot 1 can also perform a second task of starting from the charging station 60 in a second driving mode, forcibly passing through area C along the area wire 50, moving into area B”) navigating based on the one or more magnetic sensors (170) (the lawnmower 1, navigates using its magnetic sensor 23 to detect the magnetic field from the wire 50, see at least [¶ 36-37]);
determining that a release point (RP) has been reached, and in response thereto navigating in the operational area (205) (Fig. 3 (b) depicts when the lawnmower robot 1 reaches a release point D switches driving modes and begins navigating the operational area B and mowing the area, see at least [¶ 36-37]: “as shown in Figure 3 (b), the lawnmower robot 1 is forced to start in the second driving mode from the charging station 60 in area A toward area B along the area wire 50 until it has passed through area C, and when it reaches area B, it detects a milestone event, and at that stage (point D where the milestone event occurs), it automatically switches to the first driving mode and begins mowing the lawn within area B”) based on the satellite navigation sensor (175).
Futagawa does not explicitly teach navigating in the operational area based on the satellite navigation sensors wherein the method further comprises determining where satellite reception is reliably received and determining an update to the release point to be a point where satellite reception is reliably received along the wire.
Gustavsson, directed to error detection and resetting of a robotic work tool teaches navigating in the operational area based on the satellite navigation sensor (175) (the robotic lawnmower 100 uses satellite navigation, see at least [¶ 44, Fig. 2A]: “For its operation within the work area 205, in the embodiment of FIG. 2A, the robotic lawnmower 100 mainly uses the satellite navigation device 190, supported by the deduced reckoning navigation sensor 195 as will be described in some more detail further below”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Futagawa’s method of mowing the lawn in area B to incorporate the teachings of Gustavsson which teaches based on the satellite navigation sensor (175) since they are both related to methods of controlling automatic lawn mowers and incorporation of the teachings of Gustavsson would increase the efficiency and reliability of the overall system by utilizing satellite navigation instead of using a random method for cutting the lawn as to not repeat cut areas and saving energy and work time.
Shao, directed to methods for controlling a self-moving automatic working system teaches wherein the controller is further configured to note where satellite reception is reliably received (Fig.1 depicts shaded regions 9 and 11 where there is low quality satellite signal, see at least [¶ 111, Fig. 1]: “Quality of location information output by the satellite navigation apparatus varies as a working environment changes. When the automatic mower is located in an open working area, the mobile station 15 can receive navigation signals of a plurality of satellites, and when communication between the mobile station 15 and the base station 17 is not blocked, the quality of the location information output by the satellite navigation apparatus is high. When the automatic mower is located in a shaded area, where the shaded area may be an area near a building or an area shaded by a tree or eaves, the mobile station 15 can only receive navigation signals of a few satellites or cannot receive a navigation signal of a satellite. Consequently, quality of location information output by the satellite navigation apparatus is degraded”) and to determine a point to be a point where satellite reception is reliably received (Fig.1 a flowchart demonstrates a point where satellite reception is reliably received, see at least [¶ 121-127, Fig. 5, Shao]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the invention of Futagawa and Gustavsson, to incorporate the teachings of Shao which teaches wherein the controller is further configured to note where satellite reception is reliably received and to determine a point to be a point where satellite reception is reliably received and modify the milestone occurrence of Futagawa to be a point where satellite reception is reliably received since they are both related to methods of controlling automatic lawn mowers and incorporation of the teachings of Shao would increase the efficiency and reliability of the overall system by verifying reliable satellite coverage so that the mowing robot can maintain spatial awareness of its work task saving energy and time.
Regarding claim 10, Futagawa in view of Gustavsson and Shao teaches the method according to claim 18, wherein the wire is a guide wire (220B) (the area wire 50 is interpreted as a guide wire since it guides the robot to the charging station, see at least [¶43, Fig. 3, Futagawa]:” When the mowing operation is completed, the lawnmower robot 1 stops the operation and returns to the charging station 60 by moving along the territory wire 50”).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUTAGAWA MASAYASU et al. (JP 2016207158 A) in view of Gustavsson; Jakob et al. (US 20180129199 A1) and Shao; Yong et al. (US 20190041869 A1) as applied to claims 18 and 10 and further in view of Lundkvist; André et al. (WO2021244594A1).
Regarding claim 11, Futagawa in view of Gustavsson and Shao teach method according to claim 10.
Futagawa in view of Gustavsson do not explicitly teach wherein the release point is a crossing between the guide wire (220B) and a boundary wire (220A)
Lundkvist, directed to a robotic mower teaches, wherein the release point is a crossing between the guide wire (220B) and a boundary wire (220A) (Fig. 23 depicts a release point at the intersection of the guide line 7 and the boundary line 2 and Fig. 24 depicts the method of controlling the robotic mower to release the mower at the crossing point between the guide line 7 and boundary line 2, see at least [¶165, Fig. 23, Fig. 24, Lundkvist]:” [describing Fig. 24] step S23, controlling the automatic lawn mower 1 to follow the guide line 7 until it reaches the target location; step S24, after arriving at the target location, controlling the automatic lawn mower 1 to start mowing in the working area defined by the boundary line 2”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the invention of Futagawa, Gustavsson and Shao to incorporate the teachings of Lundkvist which teaches wherein the release point is a crossing between the guide wire (220B) and a boundary wire (220A) since they are both related automatic lawnmowers and incorporation of the teachings of Lundkvist would increase the efficiency of the overall system in a case where the entrance of the charging station is not positioned directly on the boundary wire and requires a guide wire to allow the robot to find the entrance of the charging station.
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 IRENE C KHUU whose telephone number is (703)756-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0900-1730.
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.Khuu, Irene
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571)272-4896. 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.
/IRENE C KHUU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664