Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 12/24/2025, for application number 18/320,345 filed on 05/19/2023, in which claims 1-20 were previously presented for examination.
Claims 1, 8, and 20 are amended.
Claims 6 and 12 are canceled.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 12/24/2025 in response to the Non-Final office action mailed on 09/26/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the Claim Objections: The objection to the claim is withdrawn, as the amended claim has properly addressed the objection recited in the Non-Final office action.
Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 112(a): The rejections of claims for failing to comply with the written description requirement are maintained as indicated in the rejection attached below in the Final-office action.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the limitation “uniform” is not persuasive because Applicant did not provide any reason why para. [0107]-[0108] and [0045] of the specification as originally filed indicate the limitation. Examiner notes that a predetermined distance is not inherently uniform and nothing in the specification indicates that the distance is uniform. For at least the foregoing reasons, and the rejections outlined below, the rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) are maintained.
Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 103: With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant has amended the independent claims to incorporate the subject matter of claims 6 and 12, and claims 6 and 12 are subsequently canceled. The Office has supplied further analysis as attached below in the FINAL office action based on the previously cited prior art. For at least the foregoing reasons, and the rejections outlined below, the prior art rejections are maintained.
FINAL OFFICE ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 20 recite “uniform and predetermined distance.” The specification as originally filed states that “The second to-be-processed boundary may be obtained by expanding the first to-be-processed boundary outward to delineate the maximum boundary of the working area as the second to-be-processed boundary to avoid the lawnmower moving beyond the maximum boundary of the working area during subsequent processing of S102, resulting in affecting other users” in para. [0045], “expanding the first preset boundary outward by a second preset distance as a second preset boundary” in para. [0107], and “The second preset distance is usually no more than 1 meter. The second preset boundary is the maximum boundary that defines the working area of the lawnmower” in para. [0108]. However, nothing in the specification suggests that the predetermined distance is “uniform.”
Initially, “predetermined” does not inherently mean “uniform,” and also “maximum distance” does not inherently mean the distance to be “uniform” (see “Predetermine.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/predetermine. Accessed 5 Feb. 2026.; see “Maximum.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maximum. Accessed 5 Feb. 2026.).
Further, para. [0050] states that “the preset distance does not exceed 1 meter” and also para. [0108] states that “The second preset distance is usually no more than 1 meter.” The provided examples of the preset distance refer to a numerical range rather than a fixed number.
Moreover, FIG. 2 (reproduced below) does not show a uniform distance between the first to-be-processed boundary and the second to-be-processed boundary. For example, the distance of the top portion is greater than the distance of the bottom portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
367
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 2 of the instant application as originally filed (annotated)
Additionally, the specification as originally filed states in paragraph [0050] that “Based on the error value of the positioning information of the lawnmower, the preset distance expanded from the first to-be-processed boundary may be dynamically adjusted. For example, when a positioning signal is of good quality, the expanded distance may be dynamically increased; conversely, the expanded distance needs to be dynamically reduced to prevent affecting other users due to a poor positioning signal” (emphasis added). When the preset distance is dynamically adjusted, the preset distance is not necessarily uniform, and the distance changes depending on the quality of positioning signal.
Therefore, nothing in the application as originally filed suggests that the “distance” is “uniform.”
Accordingly, the limitation “uniform and predetermined distance” is not disclosed in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-5, 7, 9-11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claims and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 20 recite the limitation “the positioning information.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 2-5, 7, 9-11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim(s) and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bousani et al. (US 2021/0373562 A1, which is found in the IDS submission on 04/12/2024) in view of Nishii (JP 2021078490 A) further in view of Mårtensson et al. (US 2021/0274705 A1, which is found in the IDS submission on 05/19/2023) and Juel (US 2022/0124973 A1). The rejections below are based on the machine translation of Nishii, a copy of which is attached to the previous Office Action as also indicated in the 892 form.
Regarding claim 1, Bousani et al. discloses a method for establishing a boundary of a working area of a lawnmower, the method comprising:
acquiring a first to-be-processed boundary of the working area of the lawnmower (Bousani et al. at para. [0068]: “the safety boundary 310 may be defined using methods including, but not limited to, guiding the system along a boundary, pre-loading boundary conditions to the system, guiding the system via remote control, placing markers, such as temporary lines in the grass, visible tags on sticks, electronic signal beacons, and the like”), and expanding the first to-be-processed boundary outward by (Bousani et al. at para. [0051]: “The precision boundary may be initially set based on the outer bounds observed by the robotic device during exploration”; para. [0070]: “The precision boundary 420 may be larger than … the safety boundary 410 for any or all segments of the defined path”; It is noted that Bousani et al. discloses the precision boundary 420 to be larger than any or all segments of the safety boundary 410 as described in para. [0070] and also shown in FIG. 4);
controlling the lawnmower to move along the second to-be-processed boundary, acquiring environmental information of the lawnmower within the second to-be-processed boundary with a sensor of the lawnmower (Bousani et al. at FIG. 4 and para. [0045]: “the sensor data collected by the image sensor 160 may be applied to fine-tune boundary edges, for example as described with respect to FIG. 4”; Claim 1: “exploring an area defined by a first boundary, wherein the exploration includes causing a robotic device to navigate and capture sensor signals within the area defined by the first boundary”), to determine a boundary of a non-working area in the environmental information (Bousani et al. at para. [0072]: “Where obstacles block the system's path, a robotic mowing system (e.g., the robotic mowing system 100, FIG. 1) may be configured to automatically generate, or to suggest, path portions which allow the system to mow as close as possible to the boundary 420 in order to maximize the chance that every last inch of grass is mowed without colliding into the obstacles”), the non-working area indicating an area where the lawnmower is unable to perform mowing work (Bousani et al. at para. [0072]: “the precision boundary 420 may be adjusted to account for these physical barriers”); and
(Bousani et al. at para. [0070]: “a path which allows for mowing the edges defined by the precision boundary 420 without incursion into any prohibited zones such as a prohibited zone 430”; para. [0074]: “the robotic mower system may be configured to automatically generate, or to suggest, path segments which include the furthest safe mowing points, without any passage into zones containing potential discontinuity? 440”; Claim 3: “causing the robotic device to navigate along a set of coordinates defining a path, wherein the second boundary is fine-tuned based on the navigation along the path”; The robotic mower moves along a portion of the precision boundary 420 where there is no potential discontinuity 440 or the prohibited zone 430 is detected, such as the left vertical portion of the precision boundary 420 as annotated in FIG. 4 as reproduced below); and establishing the boundary of the working area of the lawnmower based on the second to-be-processed boundary and the third to-be-processed boundary (Bousani et al. at para. [0073]: “the discontinuity 440 to be included in the precision boundary 420 is determined via visual analysis of the discontinuity 440. As obstructive barriers may be recognized by certain characteristics, such as a height which the robotic mowing system cannot surmount, the detection of these features may allow for the automatic creation of a precision boundary 420 abutting the obstacle”; para. [0076]: “no-go zones may be detected by visual inspection of the land 400 over which the system travels”; It is noted that the fine-tuned precision boundary 420 is a combination of “the second to-be-processed boundary” and “the third to-be-processed boundary”),
However, Bousani et al. does not explicitly state a uniform and predetermined distance and controlling, based on the boundary of the non-working area, the lawnmower to move along the boundary of the non-working area to acquire a third to-be-processed boundary to avoid the non-working area,
wherein the method further comprises:
determining the uniform and predetermined distance based on an error value of the positioning information of the lawnmower, wherein the error value is an error value between the positioning information and an actual location of the lawnmower.
In the same field of endeavor, Nishii teaches a uniform and predetermined distance (Nishii at FIGS. 9-11 and para. [0085]: “the control unit 4 (adjustment unit 35) adjusts the headland area 82 according to the adjustment of the central work area 81 (step S202). As the adjustment of the headland area 82, the second headland area 84B, or the first headland area 84A and the second headland area 84B are adjusted” “the width W5 of the second headland area 84B in the second direction is changed so as to be smaller than the width W3 of the central work area 81 before adjustment, but this width W5 is the work width W1 of the tractor 1”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bousani et al. by adding the uniform and predetermined distance of Nishii with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Bousani et al. in view of Nishii is to allow a work vehicle to perform work in an area set in a field without lowering work efficiency (see Nishii at para. [0008]).
However, Bousani et al. in view of Nishii does not explicitly state controlling, based on the boundary of the non-working area, the lawnmower to move along the boundary of the non-working area to acquire a third to-be-processed boundary to avoid the non-working area,
wherein the method further comprises:
determining the uniform and predetermined distance based on an error value of the positioning information of the lawnmower, wherein the error value is an error value between the positioning information and an actual location of the lawnmower.
In the same field of endeavor, Mårtensson et al. teaches controlling, based on the boundary of the non-working area, the lawnmower to move along the boundary of the non-working area to acquire a third to-be-processed boundary to avoid the non-working area (Mårtensson et al. at para. [0049]: “Boundaries comprising of a plurality of non-movable boundary segments 160 may be used, for example, to set boundaries around a pool or around flowers, as illustrated in FIG. 3”; para. [0050]: “one way of defining the work area perimeter 150 is to use the so-called "walk-the-dog"-approach. As previously described, the "walk-the-dog" approach is a procedure where a boundary definition unit is moved around the work area 105 to set the boundaries, i.e. the work area perimeter 150, for the area”),
wherein the method further comprises:
determining the uniform and predetermined distance (Mårtensson et al. at para. [0057]: “The threshold distance may be the same threshold distance for both the safety perimeter 330 and the object 370”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bousani et al. in view of Nishii by adding controlling, based on the boundary of the non-working area, the lawnmower to move along the boundary of the non-working area to acquire a third to-be-processed boundary to avoid the non-working area, and determining the uniform and predetermined distance of Mårtensson et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al. is to easily define work area with a high precision around the non-working area (see Mårtensson et al. at para. [0027]).
However, Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al. does not explicitly state:
determining the uniform and predetermined distance based on an error value of the positioning information of the lawnmower, wherein the error value is an error value between the positioning information and an actual location of the lawnmower.
In the same field of endeavor, Juel teaches:
determining the uniform and predetermined distance based on an error value of the positioning information of the lawnmower, wherein the error value is an error value between the positioning information and an actual location of the lawnmower (Juel at para. [0079]: “the robotic tool 14 estimates, based on the received GNSS signals, a GNSS positioning error E”; para. [0080]: “the robotic tool determines, based on the GNSS position P and the GNSS positioning error E, whether a distance to the boundary 13/boundary wire 15 at least exceeds a limit distance” “the limit distance may be determined based on the GNSS positioning error E; in particular, the limit distance may be set to correspond to the GNSS positioning error E”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al. by adding the error value of the positioning information of the lawnmower of Juel with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al. and Juel is to provide a safe, reliable robotic lawnmower providing a good surface coverage by compensating positioning information error (see Juel at para. [0002] and [0006]).
PNG
media_image2.png
807
834
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIG. 4 of Bousani et al. (annotated)
Regarding claim 2, Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al. and Juel teaches the method according to claim 1.
Bousani et al. further discloses wherein the acquiring a first to-be-processed boundary of the working area of the lawnmower, comprises:
controlling the lawnmower to move along an edge of the working area based on a movement instruction set by a user, and acquiring positioning information of the lawnmower during the movement (Bousani et al. at para. [0047]: “user inputs may be received, and the safety boundary is determined based on the user inputs such that the robotic mower system will not move more than a threshold distance beyond the safety boundary. The user inputs may further indicate a margin to be used as such a threshold distance”; para. [0067]: “When the safety boundary 310 is defined, the boundary position is recorded. Recording the boundary position may include recording the locations of points along the outline of the boundary on a map utilized by a robotic mowing system (e.g., a map stored in the memory 120 of the robotic mowing system 100, FIG. 1)”); and
determining the first to-be-processed boundary based on the positioning information of the lawnmower (para. [0068]: “the safety boundary 310 may be defined using methods including, but not limited to, guiding the system along a boundary, pre-loading boundary conditions to the system, guiding the system via remote control, placing markers, such as temporary lines in the grass, visible tags on sticks, electronic signal beacons, and the like”).
Regarding claim 3, Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al. and Juel teaches the method according to claim 1.
Bousani et al. further discloses wherein the sensor comprises a lawn detection sensor (Bousani et al. at para. [0060]: “In an embodiment in which the physical bounds which do not block movement used for determining the precision boundary include the end of a patch of grass, such physical bounds may be detected using images captured by the robotic device”), and the acquiring environmental information of the lawnmower within the second to-be-processed boundary with the sensor of the lawnmower, to determine the boundary of the non-working area in the environmental information, comprises:
acquiring the environmental information of the lawnmower within the second to-be-processed boundary with the lawn detection sensor, to determine a boundary of a non-lawn area in the environmental information (Bousani et al. at para. [0060]: “it has been identified that the colors and other aspects of appearance of grass differ from other types of materials and this distinction can be used to identify these types of physical bounds which are indicative of areas that should not be mowed”).
Regarding claim 4, Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al. and Juel teaches the method according to claim 3.
Bousani et al. further discloses wherein the sensor further comprises a collision detection sensor (Bousani et al. at para. [0039]: “the robotic mower system 100 may include one or more dedicated image sensors (not shown) configured to gather environmental data pertinent to motion or mowing operations”; para. [0041]: “The safety boundary may be constructed using the images captured by the image sensor 160, including data concerning visually-detectable obstacles”), and the acquiring environmental information of the lawnmower within the second to-be-processed boundary with the sensor of the lawnmower, to determine the boundary of the non-working area in the environmental information, comprises:
acquiring the environmental information of the lawnmower within the second to-be-processed boundary with the collision detection sensor, to determine a boundary of an obstacle area in the environmental information (Bousani et al. at para. [0072]: “Where obstacles block the system's path, a robotic mowing system (e.g., the robotic mowing system 100, FIG. 1) may be configured to automatically generate, or to suggest, path portions which allow the system to mow as close as possible to the boundary 420 in order to maximize the chance that every last inch of grass is mowed without colliding into the obstacles”).
Regarding claim 5, Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al. and Juel teaches the method according to claim 3.
Bousani et al. further discloses wherein the sensor further comprises a depth detection sensor (Bousani et al. at para. [0039]: “the robotic mower system 100 may include one or more dedicated image sensors (not shown) configured to gather environmental data pertinent to motion or mowing operations”; para. [0041]: “The safety boundary may be constructed using the images captured by the image sensor 160, including data concerning visually-detectable obstacles”; para. [0077]: “the navigation coordinates configured with the system may be augmented with determined boundaries. In an embodiment, this can be achieved by reconstructing the 3D geometry from the camera views”), and the acquiring environmental information of the lawnmower within the second to-be-processed boundary with the sensor of the lawnmower, to determine the boundary of the non-working area in the environmental information, comprises:
acquiring the environmental information of the lawnmower within the second to-be-processed boundary with the depth detection sensor, to determine a boundary of a recessed area that the lawnmower is unable to pass through in the environmental information (Bousani et al. at para. [0072]: “Where obstacles block the system's path, a robotic mowing system (e.g., the robotic mowing system 100, FIG. 1) may be configured to automatically generate, or to suggest, path portions which allow the system to mow as close as possible to the boundary 420 in order to maximize the chance that every last inch of grass is mowed without colliding into the obstacles”; para. [0073]: “The obstacles considered in such a configuration may include, but are not limited to, curbs, rock walls, garden edging, and any solid divider which defines the edge of the lawn”).
Regarding claim 7, Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al. and Juel teaches the method according to claim 1.
Bousani et al. further discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer instructions, wherein, the computer instructions are used to cause the computer to perform the method according to claim 1 (Bousani et al. at para. [0080]: “The various embodiments disclosed herein can be implemented as hardware, firmware, software, or any combination thereof. Moreover, the software is preferably implemented as an application program tangibly embodied on a program storage unit or computer readable medium consisting of parts, or of certain devices and/or a combination of devices”).
Regarding claim 8, Bousani et al. discloses a lawnmower, comprising:
one or more processors; and
a memory storing a program;
wherein, the program comprises instructions, the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform a method for establishing a boundary of a working area of a lawnmower (Bousani et al. at para. [0080]: “The various embodiments disclosed herein can be implemented as hardware, firmware, software, or any combination thereof. Moreover, the software is preferably implemented as an application program tangibly embodied on a program storage unit or computer readable medium consisting of parts, or of certain devices and/or a combination of devices”), the method comprising:
acquiring a first to-be-processed boundary of the working area of the lawnmower (Bousani et al. at para. [0068]: “the safety boundary 310 may be defined using methods including, but not limited to, guiding the system along a boundary, pre-loading boundary conditions to the system, guiding the system via remote control, placing markers, such as temporary lines in the grass, visible tags on sticks, electronic signal beacons, and the like”), and expanding the first to-be-processed boundary outward a (Bousani et al. at para. [0051]: “The precision boundary may be initially set based on the outer bounds observed by the robotic device during exploration”; para. [0070]: “The precision boundary 420 may be larger than … the safety boundary 410 for any or all segments of the defined path”);
controlling the lawnmower to move along the second to-be-processed boundary, acquiring environmental information of the lawnmower within the second to-be-processed boundary with a sensor of the lawnmower (Bousani et al. at FIG. 4 and para. [0045]: “the sensor data collected by the image sensor 160 may be applied to fine-tune boundary edges, for example as described with respect to FIG. 4”; Claim 1: “exploring an area defined by a first boundary, wherein the exploration includes causing a robotic device to navigate and capture sensor signals within the area defined by the first boundary”), to determine a boundary of a non-working area in the environmental information (Bousani et al. at para. [0072]: “Where obstacles block the system's path, a robotic mowing system (e.g., the robotic mowing system 100, FIG. 1) may be configured to automatically generate, or to suggest, path portions which allow the system to mow as close as possible to the boundary 420 in order to maximize the chance that every last inch of grass is mowed without colliding into the obstacles”), the non-working area indicating an area where the lawnmower is unable to perform mowing work (Bousani et al. at para. [0072]: “the precision boundary 420 may be adjusted to account for these physical barriers”); and
(Bousani et al. at para. [0070]: “a path which allows for mowing the edges defined by the precision boundary 420 without incursion into any prohibited zones such as a prohibited zone 430”; para. [0074]: “the robotic mower system may be configured to automatically generate, or to suggest, path segments which include the furthest safe mowing points, without any passage into zones containing potential discontinuity? 440”; Claim 3: “causing the robotic device to navigate along a set of coordinates defining a path, wherein the second boundary is fine-tuned based on the navigation along the path”; The robotic mower moves along a portion of the precision boundary 420 where there is no potential discontinuity 440 or the prohibited zone 430 is detected, such as the left vertical portion of the precision boundary 420 as annotated in FIG. 4 as reproduced below); and establishing the boundary of the working area of the lawnmower based on the part of the second to-be-processed boundary and the third to-be-processed boundary (Bousani et al. at para. [0073]: “the discontinuity 440 to be included in the precision boundary 420 is determined via visual analysis of the discontinuity 440. As obstructive barriers may be recognized by certain characteristics, such as a height which the robotic mowing system cannot surmount, the detection of these features may allow for the automatic creation of a precision boundary 420 abutting the obstacle”; para. [0076]: “no-go zones may be detected by visual inspection of the land 400 over which the system travels”; Claim 3: “causing the robotic device to navigate along a set of coordinates defining a path, wherein the second boundary is fine-tuned based on the navigation along the path”; It is noted that the fine-tuned precision boundary 420 is a combination of “the second to-be-processed boundary” and “the third to-be-processed boundary”),
However, Bousani et al. does not explicitly state a uniform and predetermined distance and controlling, based on the boundary of the non-working area, the lawnmower to move along the boundary of the non-working area to acquire a third to-be-processed boundary to avoid the non-working area,
wherein the method further comprises:
determining the uniform and predetermined distance based on an error value of the positioning information of the lawnmower, wherein the error value refers to an error value between the positioning information and an actual location of the lawnmower.
In the same field of endeavor, Nishii teaches a uniform and predetermined distance (Nishii at FIGS. 9-11 and para. [0085]: “the control unit 4 (adjustment unit 35) adjusts the headland area 82 according to the adjustment of the central work area 81 (step S202). As the adjustment of the headland area 82, the second headland area 84B, or the first headland area 84A and the second headland area 84B are adjusted” “the width W5 of the second headland area 84B in the second direction is changed so as to be smaller than the width W3 of the central work area 81 before adjustment, but this width W5 is the work width W1 of the tractor 1”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lawnmower of Bousani et al. by adding the uniform and predetermined distance of Nishii with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawnmower of Bousani et al. in view of Nishii is to allow a work vehicle to perform work in an area set in a field without lowering work efficiency (see Nishii at para. [0008]).
However, Bousani et al. in view of Nishii does not explicitly state controlling, based on the boundary of the non-working area, the lawnmower to move along the boundary of the non-working area to acquire a third to-be-processed boundary to avoid the non-working area,
wherein the method further comprises:
determining the uniform and predetermined distance based on an error value of the positioning information of the lawnmower, wherein the error value refers to an error value between the positioning information and an actual location of the lawnmower.
In the same field of endeavor, Mårtensson et al. teaches controlling, based on the boundary of the non-working area, the lawnmower to move along the boundary of the non-working area to acquire a third to-be-processed boundary to avoid the non-working area (Mårtensson et al. at para. [0049]: “Boundaries comprising of a plurality of non-movable boundary segments 160 may be used, for example, to set boundaries around a pool or around flowers, as illustrated in FIG. 3”; para. [0050]: “one way of defining the work area perimeter 150 is to use the so-called "walk-the-dog"-approach. As previously described, the "walk-the-dog" approach is a procedure where a boundary definition unit is moved around the work area 105 to set the boundaries, i.e. the work area perimeter 150, for the area”),
wherein the method further comprises:
determining the uniform and predetermined distance (Mårtensson et al. at para. [0057]: “The threshold distance may be the same threshold distance for both the safety perimeter 330 and the object 370”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lawnmower of Bousani et al. in view of Nishii by adding controlling, based on the boundary of the non-working area, the lawnmower to move along the boundary of the non-working area to acquire a third to-be-processed boundary to avoid the non-working area, and determining the uniform and predetermined distance of Mårtensson et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawnmower of Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al. is to easily define work area with a high precision around the non-working area (see Mårtensson et al. at para. [0027]).
However, Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al. does not explicitly state:
determining the uniform and predetermined distance based on an error value of the positioning information of the lawnmower, wherein the error value refers to an error value between the positioning information and an actual location of the lawnmower.
In the same field of endeavor, Juel teaches:
determining the uniform and predetermined distance based on an error value of the positioning information of the lawnmower, wherein the error value refers to an error value between the positioning information and an actual location of the lawnmower (Juel at para. [0079]: “the robotic tool 14 estimates, based on the received GNSS signals, a GNSS positioning error E”; para. [0080]: “the robotic tool determines, based on the GNSS position P and the GNSS positioning error E, whether a distance to the boundary 13/boundary wire 15 at least exceeds a limit distance” “the limit distance may be determined based on the GNSS positioning error E; in particular, the limit distance may be set to correspond to the GNSS positioning error E”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lawnmower of Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al. by adding the error value of the positioning information of the lawnmower of Juel with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawnmower of Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al. and Juel is to provide a safe, reliable robotic lawnmower providing a good surface coverage by compensating positioning information error (see Juel at para. [0002] and [0006]).
PNG
media_image2.png
807
834
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIG. 4 of Bousani et al. (annotated)
Regarding claim 9, Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al. and Juel teaches the lawnmower according to claim 8.
Bousani et al. further discloses wherein the sensor comprises a lawn detection sensor (Bousani et al. at para. [0060]: “In an embodiment in which the physical bounds which do not block movement used for determining the precision boundary include the end of a patch of grass, such physical bounds may be detected using images captured by the robotic device”), and the acquiring environmental information of the lawnmower within the second to-be-processed boundary with the sensor of the lawnmower, to determine the boundary of the non-working area in the environmental information, comprises:
acquiring the environmental information of the lawnmower within the second to-be-processed boundary with the lawn detection sensor, to determine a boundary of a non-lawn area in the environmental information (Bousani et al. at para. [0060]: “it has been identified that the colors and other aspects of appearance of grass differ from other types of materials and this distinction can be used to identify these types of physical bounds which are indicative of areas that should not be mowed”).
Regarding claim 10, Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al. and Juel teaches the lawnmower according to claim 9.
Bousani et al. further discloses wherein the sensor further comprises a collision detection sensor (Bousani et al. at para. [0039]: “the robotic mower system 100 may include one or more dedicated image sensors (not shown) configured to gather environmental data pertinent to motion or mowing operations”; para. [0041]: “The safety boundary may be constructed using the images captured by the image sensor 160, including data concerning visually-detectable obstacles”), and the acquiring environmental information of the lawnmower within the second to-be-processed boundary with the sensor of the lawnmower, to determine the boundary of the non-working area in the environmental information, comprises:
acquiring the environmental information of the lawnmower within the second to-be-processed boundary with the collision detection sensor, to determine a boundary of an obstacle area in the environmental information (Bousani et al. at para. [0072]: “Where obstacles block the system's path, a robotic mowing system (e.g., the robotic mowing system 100, FIG. 1) may be configured to automatically generate, or to suggest, path portions which allow the system to mow as close as possible to the boundary 420 in order to maximize the chance that every last inch of grass is mowed without colliding into the obstacles”).
Regarding claim 11, Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al. and Juel teaches the lawnmower according to claim 9.
Bousani et al. further discloses wherein the sensor further comprises a depth detection sensor (Bousani et al. at para. [0039]: “the robotic mower system 100 may include one or more dedicated image sensors (not shown) configured to gather environmental data pertinent to motion or mowing operations”; para. [0041]: “The safety boundary may be constructed using the images captured by the image sensor 160, including data concerning visually-detectable obstacles”; para. [0077]: “the navigation coordinates configured with the system may be augmented with determined boundaries. In an embodiment, this can be achieved by reconstructing the 3D geometry from the camera views”), and the acquiring environmental information of the lawnmower within the second to-be-processed boundary with the sensor of the lawnmower, to determine the boundary of the non-working area in the environmental information, comprises:
acquiring the environmental information of the lawnmower within the second to-be-processed boundary with the depth detection sensor, to determine a boundary of a recessed area that the lawnmower is unable to pass through in the environmental information (Bousani et al. at para. [0072]: “Where obstacles block the system's path, a robotic mowing system (e.g., the robotic mowing system 100, FIG. 1) may be configured to automatically generate, or to suggest, path portions which allow the system to mow as close as possible to the boundary 420 in order to maximize the chance that every last inch of grass is mowed without colliding into the obstacles”; para. [0073]: “The obstacles considered in such a configuration may include, but are not limited to, curbs, rock walls, garden edging, and any solid divider which defines the edge of the lawn”).
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al., Juel, and Fukuda et al. (US 2017/0322559 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al. and Juel teaches the lawnmower according to claim 8.
Bousani et al. further discloses
controlling the lawnmower to move along the boundary of the working area of the lawnmower which is established based on the part of the second to-be-processed boundary and the third to-be-processed boundary (Bousani et al. at para. [0073]: “the discontinuity 440 to be included in the precision boundary 420 is determined via visual analysis of the discontinuity 440. As obstructive barriers may be recognized by certain characteristics, such as a height which the robotic mowing system cannot surmount, the detection of these features may allow for the automatic creation of a precision boundary 420 abutting the obstacle”; para. [0076]: “no-go zones may be detected by visual inspection of the land 400 over which the system travels”; Claim 3: “causing the robotic device to navigate along a set of coordinates defining a path, wherein the second boundary is fine-tuned based on the navigation along the path”; It is noted that the fine-tuned precision boundary 420 is a combination of “the second to-be-processed boundary” and “the third to-be-processed boundary”).
However, Bousani et al. does not explicitly state wherein at least one side of a front end of the lawnmower is mounted with a cutting deck and determining a to-be-processed boundary within the boundary of the working area with a detection unit and a positioning unit in the lawnmower, wherein the to-be-processed boundary is a boundary of an area where the lawnmower is unable to perform mowing work, the detection unit is configured to detect the area where the lawnmower is unable to perform mowing work within the boundary of the working area, and the positioning unit is configured to acquire the boundary of the area where the lawnmower is unable to perform mowing work as the to-be-processed boundary; and
updating the boundary of the working area as a boundary movement path of the lawnmower based on the to-be-processed boundary, and controlling the side of the lawnmower where the cutting deck is mounted to move along the boundary movement path to perform mowing work at the working boundary.
Mårtensson et al. further teaches determining a to-be-processed boundary within the boundary of the working area with a detection unit and a positioning unit in the lawnmower (Mårtensson et al. at para. [0056]: “The boundary detection unit 170 comprising at least one sensor unit 180 may achieve the collision or contact-less sensing” and “The at least one sensor unit 180 may be, for example, at least one of a camera, a radar sensor, a lidar sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, a compass and, a position unit”), wherein the to-be-processed boundary is a boundary of an area where the lawnmower is unable to perform mowing work, the detection unit is configured to detect the area where the lawnmower is unable to perform mowing work within the boundary of the working area, and the positioning unit is configured to acquire the boundary of the area where the lawnmower is unable to perform mowing work as the to-be-processed boundary (Mårtensson et al. at para. [0049]: “Boundaries comprising of a plurality of non-movable boundary segments 160 may be used, for example, to set boundaries around a pool or around flowers, as illustrated in FIG. 3”; para. [0050]: “one way of defining the work area perimeter 150 is to use the so-called "walk-the-dog"-approach. As previously described, the "walk-the-dog" approach is a procedure where a boundary definition unit is moved around the work area 105 to set the boundaries, i.e. the work area perimeter 150, for the area”); and
updating the boundary of the working area as a boundary movement path of the lawnmower based on the to-be-processed boundary (Mårtensson et al. at para. [0054]: “After it has been determined if the detected position of the boundary segment 155, 160 is closer than a threshold distance to the safety perimeter 330, the at least one controller 110, 210 is configured to redefine the detected boundary segment 155, 160 of the work area perimeter 150 based on the determination whether the boundary segment 155, 160 is closer than the threshold distance to the safety perimeter 330”), and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lawnmower of Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al. and Juel by adding controlling the lawnmower to move along the built boundary of the working area of the lawnmower as taught by Mårtensson et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawnmower of Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al. and Juel is to easily define work area with a high precision (see Mårtensson et al. at para. [0027]).
However, Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al. and Juel does not explicitly state wherein at least one side of a front end of the lawnmower is mounted with a cutting deck and controlling the side of the lawnmower where the cutting deck is mounted to move along the boundary movement path to perform mowing work at the working boundary.
In the same field of endeavor, Fukuda et al. teaches wherein at least one side of a front end of the lawnmower is mounted with a cutting deck (Fukuda et al. at FIG. 1 and para. [0049]: “The mowing device 20 includes, for example, a mower deck 21, unillustrated right-and-left mower motors, and right-and-left mower blades 22 (22R, 22L) for mowing grass”) and controlling the side of the lawnmower where the cutting deck is mounted to move along the boundary movement path to perform mowing work at the working boundary (Fukuda et al. at para. [0049]: “A mowing width W in a horizontal direction within which grass is mown by the mowing device 20 while traveling is a width between a right edge of a track of rotation at an end of the right mower blade 22R and a left edge of a track of rotation at an end of the left mower blade 22L. The mowing width W substantially equals to a width of the mower deck in the horizontal direction”; para. [0065]: “The route R includes a plurality of straight parallel routes R1 (R1a to R1f) formed at predetermined parallel intervals and a plurality of semicircular turning routes R2 (R2a to R2e) connecting the adjacent parallel routes R1. An interval between adjacent parallel routes R1 is substantially equal to the mowing width W of the mowing device 20”; para. [0066]: “the interval between adjacent parallel routes R1 is substantially equal to the mowing width W of the mowing device 20. Therefore, R1f when traveling along the parallel routes Rib to excluding the parallel route R1a extending from the traveling starting-point 51, the mowing vehicle 1 travels in a state of being adjacent to an area with grass mown”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lawnmower taught by Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al. and Juel by modifying the lawnmower with the cutting deck and controlling the side of the lawnmower where the cutting deck is mounted to move along the boundary movement path to perform mowing work at the working boundary as taught by Fukuda et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawnmower taught by Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al., Juel, and Fukuda et al. is to accurately detect a working boundary between a working area and a non-working area (see Fukuda et al. at para. [0006]).
Regarding claim 14, Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al., Juel, and Fukuda et al. teaches the lawnmower according to claim 13.
Mårtensson et al. further teaches wherein the controlling the lawnmower to move along the boundary of the working area of the lawnmower which is established based on the part of the second to-be-processed boundary and the third to-be-processed boundary, comprises:
determining, based on current positioning information of the lawnmower and the boundary of the working area, a coordinate point on the boundary of the working area nearest to the current positioning of the lawnmower (Mårtensson et al. at para. [0044]: “the robotic work tool system 200 for enabling the controller 110, 210 to determine current positions for the boundary detection unit 170”; para. [0050]: “When the boundary definition unit 170 is moved around the area, a virtual boundary is created for the area. By dropping points, i.e. defining positions, when the boundary definition unit 170 is moved around the area, the virtual boundary may be defined”); and
controlling the lawnmower to move to the coordinate point to cause the lawnmower to move along the boundary of the working area (Mårtensson et al. at para. [0054]: “After the definition of the work area perimeter 150, the boundary definition unit 170 may be set to a "challenge mode" to start the process of redefining the work area perimeter 150” and “During this time, the at least one boundary definition unit 170 is moved within the work area 105 surrounded by the work area perimeter 150 and is configured to detect a position of a boundary segment 155, 160 of the work area perimeter 150”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lawnmower taught by Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al., Juel, and Fukuda et al. by adding determining the coordinate point as taught by Mårtensson et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawnmower taught by Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al., Juel, and Fukuda et al. is to easily define work area with a high precision (see Mårtensson et al. at para. [0027]).
Regarding claim 15, Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al., Juel, and Fukuda et al. teaches the lawnmower according to claim 13.
Fukuda et al. further teaches wherein the method for mowing at a working boundary performed by the processor further comprises: performing smoothing processing on the boundary movement path to obtain a first boundary movement path (Fukuda et al. at para. [0078]: “Before carrying out the filtering with the Gabor filter, filtering for removing noise from an image may also be carried out”), controlling the side of the lawnmower where the cutting deck is mounted to move along the first boundary movement path to perform mowing work at the working boundary (Fukuda et al. at para. [0049]: “A mowing width W in a horizontal direction within which grass is mown by the mowing device 20 while traveling is a width between a right edge of a track of rotation at an end of the right mower blade 22R and a left edge of a track of rotation at an end of the left mower blade 22L. The mowing width W substantially equals to a width of the mower deck in the horizontal direction”; para. [0065]: “The route R includes a plurality of straight parallel routes R1 (R1a to R1f) formed at predetermined parallel intervals and a plurality of semicircular turning routes R2 (R2a to R2e) connecting the adjacent parallel routes R1. An interval between adjacent parallel routes R1 is substantially equal to the mowing width W of the mowing device 20”; para. [0066]: “the interval between adjacent parallel routes R1 is substantially equal to the mowing width W of the mowing device 20. Therefore, R1f when traveling along the parallel routes Rib to excluding the parallel route R1a extending from the traveling starting-point 51, the mowing vehicle 1 travels in a state of being adjacent to an area with grass mown”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lawnmower taught by Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al., Juel, and Fukuda et al. by adding smoothing processing as taught by Fukuda et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawnmower taught by Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al., Juel, and Fukuda et al. is to accurately detect a working boundary between a working area and a non-working area (see Fukuda et al. at para. [0006]).
Regarding claim 16, Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al., Juel, and Fukuda et al. teaches the lawnmower according to claim 15.
Fukuda et al. further teaches wherein the method for mowing at a working boundary performed by the processor further comprises: translating the first boundary movement path inward by a first preset distance to obtain a second boundary movement path, wherein the first preset distance is less than a length of the cutting deck of the lawnmower (Fukuda et al. at para. [0067]: “the interval between the adjacent parallel routes R1 is preferably narrower than the mowing width W of the mowing device 20”); and controlling the side of the lawnmower where the cutting deck is mounted to move along the second boundary movement path to perform mowing work at the working boundary (Fukuda et al. at para. [0049]: “A mowing width W in a horizontal direction within which grass is mown by the mowing device 20 while traveling is a width between a right edge of a track of rotation at an end of the right mower blade 22R and a left edge of a track of rotation at an end of the left mower blade 22L. The mowing width W substantially equals to a width of the mower deck in the horizontal direction”; para. [0065]: “The route R includes a plurality of straight parallel routes R1 (R1a to R1f) formed at predetermined parallel intervals and a plurality of semicircular turning routes R2 (R2a to R2e) connecting the adjacent parallel routes R1. An interval between adjacent parallel routes R1 is substantially equal to the mowing width W of the mowing device 20”; para. [0066]: “the interval between adjacent parallel routes R1 is substantially equal to the mowing width W of the mowing device 20. Therefore, R1f when traveling along the parallel routes Rib to excluding the parallel route R1a extending from the traveling starting-point 51, the mowing vehicle 1 travels in a state of being adjacent to an area with grass mown”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lawnmower taught by Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al., Juel, and Fukuda et al. by adding translating the first boundary movement path inward by a first preset distance as taught by Fukuda et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawnmower taught by Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al., Juel, and Fukuda et al. is to accurately detect a working boundary between a working area and a non-working area (see Fukuda et al. at para. [0006]).
Regarding claim 17, Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al., Juel, and Fukuda et al. teaches the lawnmower according to claim 13.
Bousani et al. further discloses wherein the detection unit comprises a lawn detection sensor (Bousani et al. at para. [0060]: “In an embodiment in which the physical bounds which do not block movement used for determining the precision boundary include the end of a patch of grass, such physical bounds may be detected using images captured by the robotic device”), and the determining a to-be-processed boundary within the boundary of the working area with the detection unit and the positioning unit in the lawnmower, comprises:
acquiring a boundary of a non-lawn area within the boundary of the working area as the to-be-processed boundary, with the lawn detection sensor and the positioning unit (Bousani et al. at para. [0060]: “it has been identified that the colors and other aspects of appearance of grass differ from other types of materials and this distinction can be used to identify these types of physical bounds which are indicative of areas that should not be mowed”; para. [0067]: “When the safety boundary 310 is defined, the boundary position is recorded. Recording the boundary position may include recording the locations of points along the outline of the boundary on a map utilized by a robotic mowing system (e.g., a map stored in the memory 120 of the robotic mowing system 100, FIG. 1)”).
Regarding claim 18, Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al., Juel, and Fukuda et al. teaches the lawnmower according to claim 17.
Bousani et al. further discloses wherein the detection unit further comprises a collision detection sensor (Bousani et al. at para. [0039]: “the robotic mower system 100 may include one or more dedicated image sensors (not shown) configured to gather environmental data pertinent to motion or mowing operations”; para. [0041]: “The safety boundary may be constructed using the images captured by the image sensor 160, including data concerning visually-detectable obstacles”), and the determining a to-be-processed boundary within the boundary of the working area with the detection unit and the positioning unit in the lawnmower, comprises:
acquiring a boundary of an obstacle area within the boundary of the working area as the to-be-processed boundary, with the collision detection sensor and the positioning unit (Bousani et al. at para. [0067]: “When the safety boundary 310 is defined, the boundary position is recorded. Recording the boundary position may include recording the locations of points along the outline of the boundary on a map utilized by a robotic mowing system (e.g., a map stored in the memory 120 of the robotic mowing system 100, FIG. 1)”; para. [0072]: “Where obstacles block the system's path, a robotic mowing system (e.g., the robotic mowing system 100, FIG. 1) may be configured to automatically generate, or to suggest, path portions which allow the system to mow as close as possible to the boundary 420 in order to maximize the chance that every last inch of grass is mowed without colliding into the obstacles”).
Regarding claim 19, Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al., Juel, and Fukuda et al. teaches the lawnmower according to claim 17.
Bousani et al. further discloses wherein the detection unit further comprises a depth detection sensor (Bousani et al. at para. [0039]: “the robotic mower system 100 may include one or more dedicated image sensors (not shown) configured to gather environmental data pertinent to motion or mowing operations”; para. [0041]: “The safety boundary may be constructed using the images captured by the image sensor 160, including data concerning visually-detectable obstacles”; para. [0077]: “the navigation coordinates configured with the system may be augmented with determined boundaries. In an embodiment, this can be achieved by reconstructing the 3D geometry from the camera views”), and the determining a to-be-processed boundary within the boundary of the working area with the detection unit and the positioning unit in the lawnmower, comprises:
acquiring a boundary of a recessed area that the lawnmower is unable to pass through within the boundary of the working area as the to-be-processed boundary, with the depth detection sensor and the positioning unit (Bousani et al. at para. [0067]: “When the safety boundary 310 is defined, the boundary position is recorded. Recording the boundary position may include recording the locations of points along the outline of the boundary on a map utilized by a robotic mowing system (e.g., a map stored in the memory 120 of the robotic mowing system 100, FIG. 1)”; para. [0072]: “Where obstacles block the system's path, a robotic mowing system (e.g., the robotic mowing system 100, FIG. 1) may be configured to automatically generate, or to suggest, path portions which allow the system to mow as close as possible to the boundary 420 in order to maximize the chance that every last inch of grass is mowed without colliding into the obstacles”; para. [0073]: “The obstacles considered in such a configuration may include, but are not limited to, curbs, rock walls, garden edging, and any solid divider which defines the edge of the lawn”).
Regarding claim 20, Bousani et al. discloses a method for mowing at a working boundary of a lawnmower, the method being applicable to the lawnmower,
controlling the lawnmower to move along an edge of a working area to obtain a first preset boundary (Bousani et al. at para. [0068]: “the safety boundary 310 may be defined using methods including, but not limited to, guiding the system along a boundary, pre-loading boundary conditions to the system, guiding the system via remote control, placing markers, such as temporary lines in the grass, visible tags on sticks, electronic signal beacons, and the like”; Claim 1: “exploring an area defined by a first boundary, wherein the exploration includes causing a robotic device to navigate and capture sensor signals within the area defined by the first boundary”);
expanding the first preset boundary outward by a second (Bousani et al. at para. [0051]: “The precision boundary may be initially set based on the outer bounds observed by the robotic device during exploration”; para. [0070]: “The precision boundary 420 may be larger than … the safety boundary 410 for any or all segments of the defined path”; It is noted that Bousani et al. discloses the precision boundary 420 to be larger than any or all segments of the safety boundary 410 as described in para. [0070] and also shown in FIG. 4);
controlling the lawnmower to move along the second preset boundary (Bousani et al. at FIG. 4 and para. [0045]: “the sensor data collected by the image sensor 160 may be applied to fine-tune boundary edges, for example as described with respect to FIG. 4”; Claim 1: “exploring an area defined by a first boundary, wherein the exploration includes causing a robotic device to navigate and capture sensor signals within the area defined by the first boundary”); controlling, when an edge of a non-working area is detected on a part of the second preset boundary, the lawnmower to move along the edge of the non-working area (Bousani et al. at para. [0055]: “the precision boundary is fine-tuned based on bounds in the area encountered during the exploration such as, but not limited to, physical bounds which block movement by the robotic mowing system, physical bounds which do not block movement by the robotic mowing system, and virtual bounds”; para. [0057]: “Physical bounds which block movement by the robotic mowing system may be, but is not limited to, a wall, fence, or other boundary which physically prevents the robotic mowing system from moving. For such a boundary, the robotic mowing device may be configured to move as close as possible without colliding with the boundary”); and determining a third preset boundary within the second preset boundary or the edge of the non-working area with a detection unit (Bousani et al. at para. [0041]: “The safety boundary may be constructed using the images captured by the image sensor 160, including data concerning visually-detectable obstacles”) and a positioning unit (Bousani et al. at para. [0043]: “Once the beacon is active (i.e., emitting light), the mowing subsystem 140, and in particular the image sensor 160 can synchronize to the beacon. The synchronization allows the mowing subsystem 140 to position itself in the space”), the third preset boundary being a boundary of an area where the lawnmower is unable to perform mowing work (Bousani et al. at para. [0072]: “Where obstacles block the system's path, a robotic mowing system (e.g., the robotic mowing system 100, FIG. 1) may be configured to automatically generate, or to suggest, path portions which allow the system to mow as close as possible to the boundary 420 in order to maximize the chance that every last inch of grass is mowed without colliding into the obstacles”);
establishing a preset boundary of the lawnmower based on the second preset boundary or the edge of the non-working area, and the third preset boundary (Bousani et al. at para. [0072]: “the precision boundary 420 may be adjusted to account for these physical barriers”).
However, Bousani et al. does not explicitly state
a second uniform and predetermined distance
at least one side of a front end of the lawnmower being mounted with a cutting deck and
controlling the lawnmower to move along the preset boundary;
determining a to-be-processed boundary within the preset boundary with the detection unit and the positioning unit in the lawnmower, wherein the to-be-processed boundary is a boundary of an area where the lawnmower is unable to perform mowing work, the detection unit is configured to detect the area where the lawnmower is unable to perform mowing work within the preset boundary, and the positioning unit is configured to acquire the boundary of the area where the lawnmower is unable to perform mowing work as the to-be-processed boundary; and
updating the preset boundary as a boundary movement path of the lawnmower based on the to-be-processed boundary, and controlling the side of the lawnmower where the cutting deck is mounted to move along the boundary movement path to perform mowing work at the working boundary,
wherein the method further comprises:
determining the uniform and predetermined distance based on an error value of the positioning information of the lawnmower, wherein the error value refers to an error value between the positioning information and an actual location of the lawnmower.
In the same field of endeavor, Nishii teaches a second uniform and predetermined distance (Nishii at FIGS. 9-11 and para. [0085]: “the control unit 4 (adjustment unit 35) adjusts the headland area 82 according to the adjustment of the central work area 81 (step S202). As the adjustment of the headland area 82, the second headland area 84B, or the first headland area 84A and the second headland area 84B are adjusted” “the width W5 of the second headland area 84B in the second direction is changed so as to be smaller than the width W3 of the central work area 81 before adjustment, but this width W5 is the work width W1 of the tractor 1”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bousani et al. by adding the second uniform and predetermined distance of Nishii with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Bousani et al. in view of Nishii is to allow a work vehicle to perform work in an area set in a field without lowering work efficiency (see Nishii at para. [0008]).
However, Bousani et al. in view of Nishii does not explicitly state at least one side of a front end of the lawnmower being mounted with a cutting deck and
controlling the lawnmower to move along the preset boundary;
determining a to-be-processed boundary within the preset boundary with the detection unit and the positioning unit in the lawnmower, wherein the to-be-processed boundary is a boundary of an area where the lawnmower is unable to perform mowing work, the detection unit is configured to detect the area where the lawnmower is unable to perform mowing work within the preset boundary, and the positioning unit is configured to acquire the boundary of the area where the lawnmower is unable to perform mowing work as the to-be-processed boundary; and
updating the preset boundary as a boundary movement path of the lawnmower based on the to-be-processed boundary, and controlling the side of the lawnmower where the cutting deck is mounted to move along the boundary movement path to perform mowing work at the working boundary,
wherein the method further comprises:
determining the uniform and predetermined distance based on an error value of the positioning information of the lawnmower, wherein the error value refers to an error value between the positioning information and an actual location of the lawnmower.
In the same field of endeavor, Mårtensson et al. teaches controlling the lawnmower to move along the preset boundary (Mårtensson et al. at para. [0050]: “one way of defining the work area perimeter 150 is to use the so-called "walk-the-dog"-approach. As previously described, the "walk-the-dog" approach is a procedure where a boundary definition unit is moved around the work area 105 to set the boundaries, i.e. the work area perimeter 150, for the area”);
determining a to-be-processed boundary within the preset boundary with the detection unit and the positioning unit in the lawnmower, wherein the to-be-processed boundary is a boundary of an area where the lawnmower is unable to perform mowing work, the detection unit is configured to detect the area where the lawnmower is unable to perform mowing work within the preset boundary, and the positioning unit is configured to acquire the boundary of the area where the lawnmower is unable to perform mowing work as the to-be-processed boundary (Mårtensson et al. at para. [0049]: “Boundaries comprising of a plurality of non-movable boundary segments 160 may be used, for example, to set boundaries around a pool or around flowers, as illustrated in FIG. 3”; para. [0050]: “one way of defining the work area perimeter 150 is to use the so-called "walk-the-dog"-approach. As previously described, the "walk-the-dog" approach is a procedure where a boundary definition unit is moved around the work area 105 to set the boundaries, i.e. the work area perimeter 150, for the area”); and
updating the preset boundary as a boundary movement path of the lawnmower based on the to-be-processed boundary (Mårtensson et al. at para. [0054]: “After it has been determined if the detected position of the boundary segment 155, 160 is closer than a threshold distance to the safety perimeter 330, the at least one controller 110, 210 is configured to redefine the detected boundary segment 155, 160 of the work area perimeter 150 based on the determination whether the boundary segment 155, 160 is closer than the threshold distance to the safety perimeter 330”).
wherein the method further comprises:
determining the uniform and predetermined distance (Mårtensson et al. at para. [0057]: “The threshold distance may be the same threshold distance for both the safety perimeter 330 and the object 370”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bousani et al. in view of Nishii by adding controlling the lawnmower to move along the preset boundary, and determining the uniform and predetermined distance as taught by Mårtensson et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al. is to easily define work area with a high precision (see Mårtensson et al. at para. [0027]),
However, Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al. does not explicitly state at least one side of a front end of the lawnmower being mounted with a cutting deck and controlling the side of the lawnmower where the cutting deck is mounted to move along the boundary movement path to perform mowing work at the working boundary,
determining the uniform and predetermined distance based on an error value of the positioning information of the lawnmower, wherein the error value refers to an error value between the positioning information and an actual location of the lawnmower.
In the same field of endeavor, Fukuda et al. teaches at least one side of a front end of the lawnmower being mounted with a cutting deck (Fukuda et al. at FIG. 1 and para. [0049]: “The mowing device 20 includes, for example, a mower deck 21, unillustrated right-and-left mower motors, and right-and-left mower blades 22 (22R, 22L) for mowing grass”) and controlling the side of the lawnmower where the cutting deck is mounted to move along the boundary movement path to perform mowing work at the working boundary (Fukuda et al. at para. [0049]: “A mowing width W in a horizontal direction within which grass is mown by the mowing device 20 while traveling is a width between a right edge of a track of rotation at an end of the right mower blade 22R and a left edge of a track of rotation at an end of the left mower blade 22L. The mowing width W substantially equals to a width of the mower deck in the horizontal direction”; para. [0065]: “The route R includes a plurality of straight parallel routes R1 (R1a to R1f) formed at predetermined parallel intervals and a plurality of semicircular turning routes R2 (R2a to R2e) connecting the adjacent parallel routes R1. An interval between adjacent parallel routes R1 is substantially equal to the mowing width W of the mowing device 20”; para. [0066]: “the interval between adjacent parallel routes R1 is substantially equal to the mowing width W of the mowing device 20. Therefore, R1f when traveling along the parallel routes Rib to excluding the parallel route R1a extending from the traveling starting-point 51, the mowing vehicle 1 travels in a state of being adjacent to an area with grass mown”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al. by modifying the lawnmower with the cutting deck and controlling the side of the lawnmower where the cutting deck is mounted to move along the boundary movement path to perform mowing work at the working boundary as taught by Fukuda et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method taught by Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al. and Fukuda et al. is to accurately detect a working boundary between a working area and a non-working area (see Fukuda et al. at para. [0006]).
However, Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al. and Fukuda et al. does not explicitly state:
determining the uniform and predetermined distance based on an error value of the positioning information of the lawnmower, wherein the error value refers to an error value between the positioning information and an actual location of the lawnmower.
In the same field of endeavor, Juel teaches:
determining the uniform and predetermined distance based on an error value of the positioning information of the lawnmower, wherein the error value refers to an error value between the positioning information and an actual location of the lawnmower (Juel at para. [0079]: “the robotic tool 14 estimates, based on the received GNSS signals, a GNSS positioning error E”; para. [0080]: “the robotic tool determines, based on the GNSS position P and the GNSS positioning error E, whether a distance to the boundary 13/boundary wire 15 at least exceeds a limit distance” “the limit distance may be determined based on the GNSS positioning error E; in particular, the limit distance may be set to correspond to the GNSS positioning error E”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al. and Fukuda et al. by adding the error value of the positioning information of the lawnmower of Juel with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Bousani et al. in view of Nishii further in view of Mårtensson et al., Fukuda et al. and Juel is to provide a safe, reliable robotic lawnmower providing a good surface coverage by compensating positioning information error (see Juel at para. [0002] and [0006]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found in the attached PTO-892 form.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JISUN CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-0710. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached at (571)270-0151. 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.
/JISUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666