Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Application
This action is in reply to the application filed March 12, 2023.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending and elected for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 USC §119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in the present application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 4, 2024, has been considered by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs (or columns and lines) in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP §2111.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites wherein some of the marking devices are disposed the boundary of an obstacle there appears to be an omission of a preposition between “disposed” and “the boundary” such as on, in, along, inside, outside, etc.. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria Step 1
Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework considers whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention – method/process, machine/apparatus, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to a machine. Claim 14 is directed to a machine. Claim 17 is directed to a machine. Claim 20 is directed to a method. Accordingly, the independent claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria Step 2A
Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework considers whether claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea (Prong 1) and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Prong 2).
Step 2A Prong 1
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 update issued by the USPTO as now incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Specifically, independent claim 1 recites the following, with abstract ideas emphasized. (Additional elements are italicized and analyzed in Prong 2):
A smart mowing system operable in a boundary at least defining a working area, comprising:
a smart mowing apparatus for operating in the working area;
a positioning module configured to acquire positioning coordinates of the smart mowing apparatus;
a mapping module configured to make an area map comprising the working area;
a marking device;
a coordinate estimation module configured to estimate approximately real coordinates of the smart mowing apparatus on the area map when a distance between the smart mowing apparatus and the marking device, when disposed on the boundary or in the working area, is less than or equal to a set value to obtain a coordinate pair set comprising the positioning coordinates and the approximately real coordinates; and
a positioning correction module configured to determine a coordinate correction amount according to the coordinate pair set and correct the positioning coordinates of the smart mowing apparatus in operation by using the coordinate correction amount to obtain real coordinates.
The above limitations in bold constitute “a mental process” because it is an observation/evaluation/judgment/analysis that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). For instance, a person can estimate location in a map and determine a difference between coordinates. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Independent claims 14, 17, and 20 are not reproduced as they do not incorporate new features beyond the above-stated abstract ideas. Therefore, the analysis of claim 1 is applied also to those independent claims.
Step 2A Prong 2
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
For the following reasons, the above-identified additional limitations, which are indicated in the italicized portions, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of A smart mowing system operable in a boundary at least defining a working area, comprising: a smart mowing apparatus for operating in the working area; a positioning module configured to acquire positioning coordinates of the smart mowing apparatus; a mapping module configured to make an area map comprising the working area; a marking device; a coordinate estimation module, [used] when a distance between the smart mowing apparatus and the marking device, when disposed on the boundary or in the working area, is less than or equal to a set value to obtain a coordinate pair set comprising the positioning coordinates and the approximately real coordinates; and a positioning correction module these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea amounting to merely instructions for implementation equivalent to “apply it” without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of A smart mowing system operable in a boundary at least defining a working area, comprising: a smart mowing apparatus for operating in the working area; a positioning module configured to acquire positioning coordinates of the smart mowing apparatus; a mapping module configured to make an area map comprising the working area; a marking device; a coordinate estimation module, [used] when a distance between the smart mowing apparatus and the marking device, when disposed on the boundary or in the working area, is less than or equal to a set value to obtain a coordinate pair set comprising the positioning coordinates and the approximately real coordinates; and a positioning correction module these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea amounting to merely instructions for implementation equivalent to “apply it” without significantly more (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims 2 through 13, 15 through 16, and 19 do not provide additional elements or a practical application to become eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claims provide additional limitations describing instructions for implementation equivalent to “apply it” without significantly more. These limitations recite additional abstract ideas, are extra-solution activity, or part of the abstract idea. They do not constitute a practical application of the abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 14, 15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0275666 A1, hereinafter Abramson.
1. Abramson teaches A smart mowing system operable in a boundary at least defining a working area, comprising: a smart mowing apparatus for operating in the working area (see at least Abramson P0002: domestic robots such as robotic vacuum cleaners, lawnmowers and pool cleaners may need to determine their current position and/or orientation. For instance, such robots typically carry a payload (which may include one or more grass-cutting blades, vacuuming nozzles, rotating brushes etc., depending on the function that the payload is intended to provide) across a working area until adequately covered); a positioning module configured to acquire positioning coordinates of the smart mowing apparatus (see at least Abramson P0188: Using the thus-estimated current co-ordinates of the robot's current position (obtained using the navigation system)); a mapping module configured to make an area map comprising the working area (see at least Abramson P0074: it may store various scanning and movement patterns for the robot 100, as well as perimeter maps of the work areas); a marking device (see at least Abramson P0010: such robot systems may additionally comprise: at least one marker object including the predetermined pattern); a coordinate estimation module configured to estimate approximately real coordinates of the smart mowing apparatus on the area map when a distance between the smart mowing apparatus and the marking device, when disposed on the boundary or in the working area, is less than or equal to a set value to obtain a coordinate pair set comprising the positioning coordinates and the approximately real coordinates (see at least Abramson P0131: Turning back to block 606a, and FIG. 6D, there is detailed a process for detecting a location of the camera 258 in the robot 100 with respect to the marker 108, so that the robot 100 determines its position with respect to the marker 108 and P0166: the robot may be moved between 2 angular positions, as different as possible (still within the range the marker is detectable) the examiner interprets within range of detection as an example of a distance less than or equal to the detectable value); and a positioning correction module configured to determine a coordinate correction amount according to the coordinate pair set and correct the positioning coordinates of the smart mowing apparatus in operation by using the coordinate correction amount to obtain real coordinates (see at least Abramson P0134: The process for determining camera location begins at block 606a-l where a direct calculation of an approximate camera matrix is performed. This occurs as world coordinates of target points {X,=(xi, yi, zi)}, and image coordinates of target points {xi=(ui, vi)} are determined. A camera matrix P is approximated, which minimizes the reprojection error of the target points on the image, P0136: The process moves to block 606a-2, where a non-linear optimization of the solution is performed, and P0098: Having determined an estimate of the robot's position and orientation relative to the base station 101, the process moves to block 608, where the CPU 302 performs a calibration of the second navigation system 140 using the first navigation system 130).
2. Abramson teaches the limitations of claim 1 and the area map comprises map grids of the working area and map grids of the boundary (see at least Abramson Fig. 8 showing a grid coordinate system and P0074: it may store various scanning and movement patterns for the robot 100, as well as perimeter maps of the work areas the examiner interprets scanning and movement patterns as an example of map grids of the working area), and the mapping module is capable of marking feature attributes on the map grids in a process of making the area map (see at least Abramson P0077: CPU 302 receives images from the camera 258 or other image obtaining device, and processes these received images. The processed images are compared to images or patterns of the marker 108 stored in the storage/memory 304 the examiner interprets patterns of the marker as examples of feature attributes and storing as an example of marking).
14. Abramson teaches A smart mowing system, comprising a smart mowing apparatus operating in a working area defined by a boundary (see at least Abramson P0002: domestic robots such as robotic vacuum cleaners, lawnmowers and pool cleaners may need to determine their current position and/or orientation. For instance, such robots typically carry a payload (which may include one or more grass-cutting blades, vacuuming nozzles, rotating brushes etc., depending on the function that the payload is intended to provide) across a working area until adequately covered and P0201: the boundary of the working area 107 being defined by the recorded pathway 1010. Or, moreover, the robot might use the markers for such "pinning" when navigating within the working area 107a generally); wherein the smart mowing system further comprises: a positioning module configured to acquire positioning coordinates of the smart mowing apparatus (see at least Abramson P0188: Using the thus-estimated current co-ordinates of the robot's current position (obtained using the navigation system)); a mapping module configured to make an area map comprising the working area (see at least Abramson P0074: it may store various scanning and movement patterns for the robot 100, as well as perimeter maps of the work areas); a coordinate estimation module configured to estimate approximately real coordinates of the smart mowing apparatus on the area map to obtain a coordinate pair set comprising the positioning coordinates and the approximately real coordinates (see at least Abramson P0131: Turning back to block 606a, and FIG. 6D, there is detailed a process for detecting a location of the camera 258 in the robot 100 with respect to the marker 108, so that the robot 100 determines its position with respect to the marker 108); and a positioning correction module configured to determine a coordinate correction amount according to the coordinate pair set and correct the positioning coordinates of the smart mowing apparatus in operation by using the coordinate correction amount to obtain real coordinates (see at least Abramson P0134: The process for determining camera location begins at block 606a-l where a direct calculation of an approximate camera matrix is performed. This occurs as world coordinates of target points {X,=(xi, yi, zi)}, and image coordinates of target points {xi=(ui, vi)} are determined. A camera matrix P is approximated, which minimizes the reprojection error of the target points on the image, P0136: The process moves to block 606a-2, where a non-linear optimization of the solution is performed, and P0098: Having determined an estimate of the robot's position and orientation relative to the base station 101, the process moves to block 608, where the CPU 302 performs a calibration of the second navigation system 140 using the first navigation system 130).
15. Abramson teaches the limitations of claim 14 and the coordinate estimation module is configured to estimate the approximately real coordinates of the smart mowing apparatus on the area map when a distance between the smart mowing apparatus and the boundary is less than or equal to a set value (see at least Abramson P0166: the robot may be moved between 2 angular positions, as different as possible (still within the range the marker is detectable) the examiner interprets within range of detection as an example of a distance less than or equal to the detectable value).
17. Abramson teaches A self-moving apparatus capable of operating in a working area defined by a boundary wherein a marking device is disposed on the boundary or in the working area (see at least Abramson P0200: markers might alternatively (or in addition) be provided within islands within the work area where the robot is not permitted to move), the self-moving apparatus comprising: a positioning module configured to acquire positioning coordinates of the self-moving apparatus (see at least Abramson P0188: Using the thus-estimated current co-ordinates of the robot's current position (obtained using the navigation system)); a mapping module configured to make an area map comprising the working area (see at least Abramson P0074: it may store various scanning and movement patterns for the robot 100, as well as perimeter maps of the work areas); a coordinate estimation module configured to estimate approximately real coordinates of the self-moving apparatus on the area map when a distance between the self-moving apparatus and the marking device is less than or equal to a set value to obtain a coordinate pair set comprising the positioning coordinates and the approximately real coordinates (see at least Abramson P0131: Turning back to block 606a, and FIG. 6D, there is detailed a process for detecting a location of the camera 258 in the robot 100 with respect to the marker 108, so that the robot 100 determines its position with respect to the marker 108 and P0166: the robot may be moved between 2 angular positions, as different as possible (still within the range the marker is detectable) the examiner interprets within range of detection as an example of a distance less than or equal to the detectable value); and a positioning correction module configured to determine a coordinate correction amount according to the coordinate pair set and correct the positioning coordinates of the self-moving apparatus in operation by using the coordinate correction amount to obtain real coordinates (see at least Abramson P0134: The process for determining camera location begins at block 606a-l where a direct calculation of an approximate camera matrix is performed. This occurs as world coordinates of target points {X,=(xi, yi, zi)}, and image coordinates of target points {xi=(ui, vi)} are determined. A camera matrix P is approximated, which minimizes the reprojection error of the target points on the image, P0136: The process moves to block 606a-2, where a non-linear optimization of the solution is performed, and P0098: Having determined an estimate of the robot's position and orientation relative to the base station 101, the process moves to block 608, where the CPU 302 performs a calibration of the second navigation system 140 using the first navigation system 130).
20. Abramson teaches A positioning correction method for a self-moving apparatus, comprising: acquiring positioning coordinates of the self-moving apparatus in an operation process apparatus (see at least Abramson P0188: Using the thus-estimated current co-ordinates of the robot's current position (obtained using the navigation system)); estimating approximately real coordinates of the self-moving apparatus on an area map when a distance between the self-moving apparatus and a marking device of a boundary is less than or equal to a set value to obtain a coordinate pair set comprising the positioning coordinates and the approximately real coordinates (see at least Abramson P0131: Turning back to block 606a, and FIG. 6D, there is detailed a process for detecting a location of the camera 258 in the robot 100 with respect to the marker 108, so that the robot 100 determines its position with respect to the marker 108 and P0166: the robot may be moved between 2 angular positions, as different as possible (still within the range the marker is detectable) the examiner interprets within range of detection as an example of a distance less than or equal to the detectable value); determining a coordinate correction amount according to the coordinate pair set; and correcting the positioning coordinates of the self-moving apparatus in operation by using the coordinate correction amount to obtain real coordinates (see at least Abramson P0134: The process for determining camera location begins at block 606a-l where a direct calculation of an approximate camera matrix is performed. This occurs as world coordinates of target points {X,=(xi, yi, zi)}, and image coordinates of target points {xi=(ui, vi)} are determined. A camera matrix P is approximated, which minimizes the reprojection error of the target points on the image, P0136: The process moves to block 606a-2, where a non-linear optimization of the solution is performed, and P0098: Having determined an estimate of the robot's position and orientation relative to the base station 101, the process moves to block 608, where the CPU 302 performs a calibration of the second navigation system 140 using the first navigation system 130).
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.
Abramson + Barfoot
Claims 3 – 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramson in view of patent publication US 2007/0027612 A1, hereinafter Barfoot.
3. Abramson teaches the limitations of claim 2 and the coordinate estimation module comprises: a coordinate acquisition unit configured to acquire the positioning coordinates of the smart mowing apparatus when the distance between the smart mowing apparatus and the marking device, when disposed on the boundary or in the working area, is less than or equal to the set value (see at least Abramson P0131: Turning back to block 606a, and FIG. 6D, there is detailed a process for detecting a location of the camera 258 in the robot 100 with respect to the marker 108, so that the robot 100 determines its position with respect to the marker 108 and P0166: the robot may be moved between 2 angular positions, as different as possible (still within the range the marker is detectable) the examiner interprets within range of detection as an example of a distance less than or equal to the detectable value); a grid search unit configured to search for target map grids with a boundary attribute within a preset range from the positioning coordinates (see at least Abramson P0111: Turning back to block 602, and FIG. 6B, there is detailed a process for detecting a predetermined pattern associated with a marker 108 provided on the base station 101, at block 602); a coordinate estimation unit configured to set weight values for the target map grids according to distances between the target map grids and the positioning coordinates and perform a weighted summation on the target map grids based on the weight values to obtain the approximately real coordinates (see at least Abramson P0099: the second process 322 may involve continuously summing or integrating changes in the position and/or orientation of the robot 100. As a result, the second navigation system 140 may in effect continuously update its estimate of the robot's position and/or orientation); and a set generation unit configured to add the positioning coordinates and the approximately real coordinates as a pair of coordinates to the coordinate pair set (see at least Abramson Figs. 6A – 6D, particularly elements 606a and 606b showing two estimates of the robot’s position after a matching process in 602 of the marker pattern and locations (see also at least P0031 and P0077 and processes 321 and 322 of Fig. 3A and 4B and P0152)).
Abramson does not explicitly teach weighted summations on the target map grid. However, Barfoot teaches an environmental map coordination system with a coordinate acquisition unit configured to acquire the positioning coordinates of the smart mowing apparatus when the distance between the smart mowing apparatus and the marking device, when disposed on the boundary or in the working area, is less than or equal to the set value (see at least Barfoot P0092: The system includes one or more range-sensing devices (e.g., laser rangefinders) that generate a collection of ranges around a vehicle and computer processing capability to acquire data from said range-sensing devices, P0101: the range-sensing devices are laser rangefinders and for each local map said laser rangefinder readings, logged while the system was on the segment of the path that is contained within a specified boundary for said local map, are used to determine the cell values for said local map and P0108: additional associations 606 are assigned by a procedure of checking for matches between local maps 607 that are sufficiently near to one another (e.g., within a determined threshold distance)); a grid search unit configured to search for target map grids with a boundary attribute within a preset range from the positioning coordinates (see at least Barfoot P0048: the invention includes a means of matching sub-regions of corresponding local metric maps and aligning said local metric maps with respect to one another in a way that minimizes a desirable cost metric and P0063: By matching local sub-maps 607 and using an optimization method, a globally consistent map 608 is produced, which properly represents the passageway environment 601 the examiner interprets sub-region matching and alignment as a boundary attribute as seen in Fig. 6); a coordinate estimation unit configured to set weight values for the target map grids according to distances between the target map grids and the positioning coordinates and perform a weighted summation on the target map grids based on the weight values to obtain the approximately real coordinates (see at least Barfoot P0120: This local optimization can be done by any number of techniques (e.g., by applying a least-squares optimization, weighted least squares, or other suitable optimization technique)); and a set generation unit configured to add the positioning coordinates and the approximately real coordinates as a pair of coordinates to the coordinate pair set (see at least Barfoot P0106: constraints are computed by determining for which local map pairs said constraints should exist (i.e., which local maps should overlap) and then by minimizing an error metric that represents the difference between each local metric map pair and/or for the set of local maps and all existing constraints together, as a whole).
PNG
media_image1.png
829
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Barfoot Fig. 6 displaying the alignment of local maps into a global map using constraints between maps
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 Abramson to incorporate the method of Barfoot in the map-aligning and robot localization field of invention to incorporate the weighted sums and map pairs used in Barfoot’s marker-independent solution for the advantage of optimally matching local data and constructing a global map (see at least Barfoot P0125).
4. The combination of Abramson and Barfoot teaches the limitations of claim 3. Abramson does not explicitly teach a number of coordinate pairs. However Barfoot teaches a number of coordinate pairs in the coordinate pair set is greater than 1 and less than or equal to N, and N is a positive integer (see at least Barfoot Fig. 6 indicating 8 connections (constraints) which link local map pairs together).
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 Abramson to incorporate the method of Barfoot in the map-aligning and robot localization field of invention to incorporate the larger number of map pairs for the advantage of combining the maps for small areas into globally consistent maps (see at least Barfoot P0047).
5. The combination of Abramson and Barfoot teaches the limitations of claim 4 and the positive integer N is greater than or equal to 2 (see at least Barfoot Fig. 6 indicating 8 connections (constraints) which link local map pairs together).
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 Abramson to incorporate the method of Barfoot in the map-aligning and robot localization field of invention to incorporate the larger number of map pairs for the advantage of combining the maps for small areas into globally consistent maps (see at least Barfoot P0047).
6. The combination of Abramson and Barfoot teaches the limitations of claim 3 and the coordinate estimation module continuously updates the coordinate pair set in an operation process of the smart mowing apparatus (see at least Abramson P0187: the robot utilizes the second navigation system 140 (and third, fourth etc. navigation systems, where present) to continuously estimate its current co-ordinates within work area 107a).
Barfoot further reinforces the coordinate estimation module continuously updates the coordinate pair set in an operation process of the smart mowing apparatus (see at least Barfoot P0110: The two steps of "data association" and "alignment" can be repeated in iteration until the desired results are achieved the examiner interprets iteration as an example of continuous updates).
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 Abramson to incorporate the method of Barfoot in the map-aligning and robot localization field of invention to incorporate continuous updates of the pair sets for the advantage of combining the maps more accurately and reaching a convergence threshold for the maps (see at least Barfoot P0110).
7. The combination of Abramson and Barfoot teaches the limitations of claim 3 and the target map grids with the boundary attribute are the map grids on the boundary of the working area or the map grids on the boundary of an obstacle (see at least Barfoot Fig. 6 showing local map grids comprising particularly of boundary alignment).
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 Abramson to incorporate the method of Barfoot in the map-aligning and robot localization field of invention to explicitly combine map grids on the boundary for the advantage of constructing a continuous globally consistent map of robot passageways (see at least Barfoot Claim 12).
8. Abramson teaches the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach a loss function optimization. However, Barfoot teaches the positioning correction module optimizes a loss function between the approximately real coordinates and the real coordinates to acquire the coordinate correction amount for causing the loss function to have a minimum value (see at least Barfoot P0110: The two steps of "data association" and "alignment" can be repeated in iteration until the desired results are achieved. Iterating can be necessary because each time the map is globally aligned, more accurate information is provided by which to decide which local sub-maps truly overlap 607. This iterative process is sometimes called "expectation-maximization (EM)". A convergence criterion may be employed to terminate the iterative process (e.g., when the global error stops improving or drops below a desirable threshold) the examiner interprets a convergence criterion for the global error improvement as indicating a loss function).
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 Abramson to incorporate the method of Barfoot in the map-aligning and robot localization field of invention to use a convergent optimization process for the advantage of optimally matching local data and constructing a global map (see at least Barfoot P0125).
9. The combination of Abramson and Barfoot teaches the limitations of claim 8 and Barfoot teaches the positioning correction module is configured to optimize the loss function by a least squares method (see at least Barfoot P0120: This local optimization can be done by any number of techniques (e.g., by applying a least-squares optimization, weighted least squares, or other suitable optimization technique)).
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 Abramson to incorporate the method of Barfoot in the map-aligning and robot localization field of invention to use a least-square optimization process for the advantage of optimally matching local data and constructing a global map (see at least Barfoot P0125).
16. Abramson teaches the limitations of claim 14 and the coordinate estimation module comprises: a coordinate acquisition unit configured to acquire the positioning coordinates of the smart mowing apparatus when a distance between the smart mowing apparatus and the boundary is less than or equal to a set value (see at least Abramson P0131: Turning back to block 606a, and FIG. 6D, there is detailed a process for detecting a location of the camera 258 in the robot 100 with respect to the marker 108, so that the robot 100 determines its position with respect to the marker 108 and P0166: the robot may be moved between 2 angular positions, as different as possible (still within the range the marker is detectable) the examiner interprets within range of detection as an example of a distance less than or equal to the detectable value); a grid search unit configured to search for target map grids with a boundary attribute within a preset range from the positioning coordinates (see at least Abramson P0111: Turning back to block 602, and FIG. 6B, there is detailed a process for detecting a predetermined pattern associated with a marker 108 provided on the base station 101, at block 602); a coordinate estimation unit configured to set weight values for the target map grids according to distances between the target map grids and the positioning coordinates and perform a weighted summation on the target map grids based on the weight values to obtain the approximately real coordinates (see at least Abramson P0099: the second process 322 may involve continuously summing or integrating changes in the position and/or orientation of the robot 100. As a result, the second navigation system 140 may in effect continuously update its estimate of the robot's position and/or orientation); and a set generation unit configured to add the positioning coordinates and the approximately real coordinates as a pair of coordinates to the coordinate pair set (see at least Abramson Figs. 6A – 6D, particularly elements 606a and 606b showing two estimates of the robot’s position after a matching process in 602 of the marker pattern and locations (see also at least P0031 and P0077 and processes 321 and 322 of Fig. 3A and 4B and P0152)).
Abramson does not explicitly teach weighted summations on the target map grid. However, Barfoot teaches an environmental map coordination system with a coordinate acquisition unit configured to acquire the positioning coordinates of the smart mowing apparatus when a distance between the smart mowing apparatus and the boundary is less than or equal to a set value (see at least Barfoot P0092: The system includes one or more range-sensing devices (e.g., laser rangefinders) that generate a collection of ranges around a vehicle and computer processing capability to acquire data from said range-sensing devices, P0101: the range-sensing devices are laser rangefinders and for each local map said laser rangefinder readings, logged while the system was on the segment of the path that is contained within a specified boundary for said local map, are used to determine the cell values for said local map and P0108: additional associations 606 are assigned by a procedure of checking for matches between local maps 607 that are sufficiently near to one another (e.g., within a determined threshold distance)); a grid search unit configured to search for target map grids with a boundary attribute within a preset range from the positioning coordinates (see at least Barfoot P0048: the invention includes a means of matching sub-regions of corresponding local metric maps and aligning said local metric maps with respect to one another in a way that minimizes a desirable cost metric and P0063: By matching local sub-maps 607 and using an optimization method, a globally consistent map 608 is produced, which properly represents the passageway environment 601 the examiner interprets sub-region matching and alignment as a boundary attribute as seen in Fig. 6); a coordinate estimation unit configured to set weight values for the target map grids according to distances between the target map grids and the positioning coordinates and perform a weighted summation on the target map grids based on the weight values to obtain the approximately real coordinates (see at least Barfoot P0120: This local optimization can be done by any number of techniques (e.g., by applying a least-squares optimization, weighted least squares, or other suitable optimization technique)); and a set generation unit configured to add the positioning coordinates and the approximately real coordinates as a pair of coordinates to the coordinate pair set (see at least Barfoot P0106: constraints are computed by determining for which local map pairs said constraints should exist (i.e., which local maps should overlap) and then by minimizing an error metric that represents the difference between each local metric map pair and/or for the set of local maps and all existing constraints together, as a whole).
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 Abramson to incorporate the method of Barfoot in the map-aligning and robot localization field of invention to incorporate the weighted sums and map pairs used in Barfoot’s marker-independent solution for the advantage of optimally matching local data and constructing a global map (see at least Barfoot P0125).
Abramson + Ouyang
Claims 10 – 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramson in view of patent publication US 2013/0041526 A1, hereinafter Ouyang.
10. Abramson teaches the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach sensing technology in the marking device. However, Ouyang teaches the marking device is a boundary sensor (see at least Ouyang P0003: The invention utilizes ultrasonic, RF, and light sensors to define the mowing area and to track the position of the robotic lawn mower).
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 Abramson to incorporate the method of Ouyang in the work area definition field of invention to use boundary sensors for the advantage of further defining the mowing zone (see at least Ouyang P0003).
11. The combination of Abramson and Ouyang teaches the limitations of claim 10 and the boundary sensor is an infrared sensor, radar, visual sensor, or radio-frequency identification (RFID) apparatus (see at least Ouyang P0003: The invention utilizes ultrasonic, RF, and light sensors to define the mowing area and to track the position of the robotic lawn mower).
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 Abramson to incorporate the method of Ouyang in the work area definition field of invention to use boundary sensors for the advantage of further defining the mowing zone (see at least Ouyang P0003).
12. Abramson teaches the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach signaling technology of the boundary. However, Ouyang teaches the boundary is a non-physical boundary formed by optical signals, electromagnetic signals, or other non-physical signals (see at least Ouyang P0003: The invention utilizes ultrasonic, RF, and light sensors to define the mowing area and to track the position of the robotic lawn mower the examiner interprets ultrasonic definition of the mowing area as an example of a non-physical signal boundary).
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 Abramson to incorporate the method of Ouyang in the work area definition field of invention to use boundary sensors for the advantage of further defining the mowing zone (see at least Ouyang P0003).
13. Abramson teaches the limitations of claim 1 and plural marking devices wherein some of the marking devices are disposed the boundary of an obstacle (see at least Abramson P0200: markers might alternatively (or in addition) be provided within islands within the work area where the robot is not permitted to move the examiner interprets islands within the work area where the robot is not permitted to move as examples of obstacles and Fig. 14 showing a plurality of markers).
Ouyang further enforces plural marking devices wherein some of the marking devices are disposed the boundary of an obstacle (see at least Ouyang Fig. 11 showing numerous stand markers relative to the boundary area and Fig. 14 showing markers around obstacles).
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 Abramson to incorporate the method of Ouyang in the work area definition field of invention to use boundary markers around an obstacle for the advantage of further defining the mowing zone (see at least Ouyang P0003).
18. The combination of Abramson and Ouyang teaches the limitations of claim 12 and the area map comprises map grids of the working area and map grids of the boundary (see at least Abramson Fig. 8 showing a grid coordinate system and P0074: it may store various scanning and movement patterns for the robot 100, as well as perimeter maps of the work areas the examiner interprets scanning and movement patterns as an example of map grids of the working area), and the mapping module is capable of marking feature attributes on the map grids in a process of making the area map (see at least Abramson P0077: CPU 302 receives images from the camera 258 or other image obtaining device, and processes these received images. The processed images are compared to images or patterns of the marker 108 stored in the storage/memory 304 the examiner interprets patterns of the marker as examples of feature attributes and storing as an example of marking).
Abramson + Barfoot + Ouyang
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramson in view of Barfoot and Ouyang.
19. The combination of Abramson and Ouyang teaches the limitations of claim 13 and the coordinate estimation module comprises: a coordinate acquisition unit configured to acquire the positioning coordinates of the self-moving apparatus when the distance between the self-moving apparatus and the marking device is less than or equal to the set value (see at least Abramson P0131: Turning back to block 606a, and FIG. 6D, there is detailed a process for detecting a location of the camera 258 in the robot 100 with respect to the marker 108, so that the robot 100 determines its position with respect to the marker 108 and P0166: the robot may be moved between 2 angular positions, as different as possible (still within the range the marker is detectable) the examiner interprets within range of detection as an example of a distance less than or equal to the detectable value); a grid search unit configured to search for target map grids with a boundary attribute within a preset range from the positioning coordinates (see at least Abramson P0111: Turning back to block 602, and FIG. 6B, there is detailed a process for detecting a predetermined pattern associated with a marker 108 provided on the base station 101, at block 602); a coordinate estimation unit configured to set weight values for the target map grids according to distances between the target map grids and the positioning coordinates and perform a weighted summation on the target map grids based on the weight values to obtain the approximately real coordinates (see at least Abramson P0099: the second process 322 may involve continuously summing or integrating changes in the position and/or orientation of the robot 100. As a result, the second navigation system 140 may in effect continuously update its estimate of the robot's position and/or orientation); and a set generation unit configured to add the positioning coordinates and the approximately real coordinates as a pair of coordinates to the coordinate pair set (see at least Abramson Figs. 6A – 6D, particularly elements 606a and 606b showing two estimates of the robot’s position after a matching process in 602 of the marker pattern and locations (see also at least P0031 and P0077 and processes 321 and 322 of Fig. 3A and 4B and P0152)).
Abramson does not explicitly teach weighted summations on the target map grid. However, B