DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This final action is in response to Applicant’s filing dated August 14, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered, as provided in more detail below. Claims 13-16 have been amended.
*Examiner Note: Claim language is bolded. Cited References and Applicant’s arguments are italicized. Examiner interpretations are preceded with an asterisk *.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant makes the following assertions: “paragraphs 0029 and 0030 of Li explicitly teach that the robot stops once it gets within the second threshold T2 of the user it is following and that the robot will "remain still"" as long as the user 202's movement is confined within the range 203" (i.e., within the first threshold Ti). Thus, the now stationary robot of Li does not move itself while it is inside of the second threshold T2 with respect to the user 202. Additionally, the now stationary robot of Li will remain stationary even if the user comes closer to the robot such that the user is within the second threshold T2. Accordingly, the robot of Li will NOT move backward "in response to determining that the closest distance is less than the second distance threshold," as recited in claim 1. In fact, if the robot of Li did move backward in this situation, it would provide reduced functionality (e.g., when the robot is carrying heavy items as disclosed in paragraph 0004 of Li) because the robot would move away from the user each time the user attempted to approach the robot to unload an item.“ In response to this argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because as discussed in the rejection below, Li teaches controlling the at least one wheel motor to move the robotic garden tool backward (see at least para. [0066] of Li which discloses “the robot may circle around X to get back to its original course", *Examiner interprets the act of circling around X to get back to the original course to be equivalent to moving backward, i.e., a return to the original course is happening. In this connection, the Examiner would like to direct Applicant’s attention to para. [0057] and Fig. 5 of Li which also discloses “step 507, where it sends instructions to the robot's motor control module to adjust the robot's direction”, *Examiner interprets the act of adjusting the robot’s direction to include the option of moving the robotic garden tool backward, as broadly as recited in claim 1. Additionally, if the robot is following the user 202 as described in para. [0030] of Li, then it stands to reason, that the robot could potentially move backward if the user retreats, i.e., moves backward). Li is being relied upon because it explicitly discloses a “double-threshold” mechanism in which the robot motion can change based on the detected distance to an object/user. The disclosure of Li clearly teaches the ability of a robot to change/adjust course based on a user which can include retreating and moving backward. Also, when viewing Figs. 6-7 together, it is evident the robot of Li WILL move backward. Contrary to Applicant’s argument the backward movement of Li’s robot does not provide reduced functionality because the purpose is to ensure that “the mobile robot 100 may autonomously navigate the same path by relying on the map constructed during the training session and the recorded coordinate list. Assuming the mobile robot 100 returns to its original location (0, 0) in our example, it will navigate to the next coordinate (2, 1) from the list. From (2, 1), it will navigate to (3, 4) and stop there” – see para. [0064] of Li.
The following additional assertions made by the Applicant are also disputed. The Applicant also makes the assertion that “the "circling around" movement explained in paragraph 0066 and shown in FIG. 9D does not include moving backward as recited in claim 1, let alone moving "backward at a third speed inversely proportionate to the closest distance between the robotic garden tool and the closest object," as recited in claim 1. Additionally, cited paragraph 0042 relates to a user making quick/sharp turns that the robot does not follow. Paragraph 0042 explains that the robot does not change its movement in response to such quick/sharp turns by the user. Accordingly, paragraph 0042 does not cure the above-noted deficiencies of the other portions of Li. Overall, Li does not teach or suggest at least the above-emphasized features of claim 1“. The Examiner respectfully does not agree because the robot’s ability to “circle around X to get back to its original course" is interpreted as capable of including a backwards/retreating action since the robot will return to the original course. This is clearly equivalent to moving backward, i.e., a return to the original course is happening. In this connection, the Examiner would like to direct Applicant’s attention to para. [0057] and Fig. 5 of Li which also discloses “step 507, where it sends instructions to the robot's motor control module to adjust the robot's direction”, *Examiner interprets the act of adjusting the robot’s direction to include the option of moving the robotic garden tool backward, as broadly as recited in claim 1. A person of ordinary skill in the art will acknowledge that a robot is capable of also retreating and moving backwards if it is to return to the original course. Fig. 7 of Li also clearly illustrates the capability of the robot to move backwards to coordinates located below the origin. Para. [0116] of Hahn discloses “the mower 100 to travel to a particular location within a work area, or to return to a specific location, such as a docking station” and it is clear that this mower may be sufficiently modified by the robot of Li for a predictable improvement in obstacle avoidance by implementing proportional control to avoid collisions when obstacles are detected within close range. Therefore, the rejection to claims 1-12 has been maintained as outlined below.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant makes the following assertions: “Claim 13 has been amended to specify that the detected object(s) is an "obstacle to be avoided by the robotic garden tool." Thus, claim 13 is distinguishable over Li because Li discloses a robot that follows a user using a double threshold mechanism as explained above with respect to claim 1. The user in Li is not an obstacle to be avoided. Rather, the user in Li is an object to be followed.
While obstacles to be avoided are generally disclosed in Hahn and Li, there is no teaching of using a multiple threshold mechanism for controlling movement near obstacles, let alone the specific control recited in amended claim 13. Additionally, following an object is the opposite of avoiding an object. Thus, there is no motivation for using a multiple threshold mechanism for controlling movement of a robotic garden tool near obstacles other than the impermissible use of hindsight based on Applicant's pending application.” Applicant’s argument that “following” is the opposite of “avoiding” is not persuasive because Li’s disclosure of modulating speed based on an object’s proximity does teach avoiding an obstacle. Specifically, paragraph [0042] of Lid discloses the ability to “avoid an obstacle or person in the front. Here, the mobile robot 401 determines that the user's first direction change (from direction P0→P1 to direction P1→P2) exceeds a first threshold Ø1 (e.g., 30°). As such, the mobile robot 401 does not change its own moving direction. In one embodiment, the mobile robot 401 may slow down to prepare to stop if the user 402 is trying to avoid an obstacle or person in the front. The mobile robot 401 may use its camera or sensors to check whether such an obstacle or person indeed exists. If so, the mobile robot 401 stops itself to avoid collision with the obstacle or person”.
The Applicant has amended claim 13 to further specify that the detected objects are “obstacles to be avoided by the robotic garden tool”. However, this amendment does not distinguish over the prior art combination.
Regarding claim 18, Applicant makes the following assertions: “Hahn's surveying module generally determining where objects are located (e.g., the tree 404 and the chair 406 of FIG. 4) is not the same as or similar to "determining whether a left portion or a right portion of the detection area includes more objects" and "controlling the at least one wheel motor to turn the robotic garden tool in a direction away from a portion of the 16 detection area that includes (i) more objects, (ii) more data points representative of objects, or (iii) both (i) and (ii)," as recited in claim 18“. The Examiner respectfully does not agree with this characterization and while Applicant’s remarks have been carefully considered, they are not persuasive. Hahn is being relied upon to teach the overall robotic garden tool structure (housing, wheels, sensors, processor, etc.) and Li is being used because this reference disclosed directional steering decision logic to facilitate in determining obstacle position and turning away. Specifically, Hahn teaches that the robotic mower employs a surveying module scan an area, detect objects and produce a dynamic map indicating object positions while utilizing the processor to navigate around detected objects and adjusting a travel path as necessary. The successful navigation depends on Hahn’s control logic which analyzes the distribution of detected objects and determines whether more obstacles exist in a left portion or a right portion of the mower’s/robot’s travel direction so that the proper steering direction is selected to avoid collisions. Hahn discloses “Instrumentation that is part the LIDAR unit 222L receives the reflected laser light from these objects and measures the amount of time taken for each pulse to be reflected back to the LIDAR unit 222L. As the speed of light is known, the distance between the objects and the LIDAR unit 222L can be calculated. A dynamic map of the spatial environment proximate to the mower is built as a result of rapid successive measurements of reflected laser light”. Examiner interprets this as evidence of the number of objects concentrated in a particular area since mor time taken for each pulse to be reflected back will be evidence of more objects concentrated in a particular area). Therefore, the fact that the tree 404 and the chair 406 of FIG. 4 of Hahn are both on the right side of the detection area of the autonomous lawn mower DOES translate to the autonomous lawn mower actually (a) determining whether the left or the right portion of a detection area includes more objects and (b) controlling the mower based on such a determination, as recited in claim 18 because “the position of the mower 100 relative to any object constantly changes since the mower 100 may move during its operation”, as recited in para. [0133] of Hahn and this movement is relying on the instrumentation discussed in para. [0132] which determines the amount of light reflected as a result of the amount of object concentrated in a particular area.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to claim 13 has not added any limitation that distinguishes over the prior art combination of Hahn in view of Li. Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, the rejections to claims 1-20 have been maintained below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn (US 2019/0327886 A1) in view of Li (US 2017/0368691 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hahn et al. disclose A robotic garden tool (Fig. 1, 100 of Hahn and see at
least para. [0095] of Hahn which discloses “the autonomous lawn mower 100, or referred to as the lawn mower or mower”) comprising:
a housing (Fig. 1, 102 of Hahn and see at least para. [0095] of Hahn which discloses a “housing 102 which supports the operating components of the mower 100”);
a set of wheels (Fig. 1, 104 and see at least para. [0095] of Hahn which discloses “its wheel arrangements 104”) coupled to the housing and configured to rotate to propel the robotic garden tool on an operating surface (see at least para. [0183] which discloses “to propel the mower body 102 on an operating surface via a wheel arrangement”);
at least one wheel motor (see at least para. [0095] of Hahn which discloses “each rear wheel 104R having its own individual motor and gearbox. This is advantageous in that maneuvering the mower may be implemented by simple control of each of these motors”) coupled to one or more wheels of the set of wheels, the at least one wheel motor configured to drive rotation of the one or more wheels (see at least para. [0114] which discloses “the mower is driven by having a motor placed adjacent to each of the rear wheels with each motor being arranged to drive each rear wheel”);
an object detection sensor (Fig. 1, 112 and Fig. 6, 602 of Hahn and see at least para. [0147] of Hahn which discloses “sensors 602 on the mower 100 to use sound waves to detect if there are any obstacles proximate to the mower 100 so as to assist the mower with avoiding these obstacle” and see at least para. [0027] of Hahn which discloses “the sonic obstacle detection module is a laser sensor” and see at least para. [0097] of Hahn which discloses “A sonic or ultrasonic obstacle detection module 112”) configured to detect one or more objects (see at least para. [0097] of Hahn which discloses “A sonic or ultrasonic obstacle detection module 112 arranged to use sound waves to detect if there are any obstacles proximate to the mower so as to assist the mower with avoiding these obstacles”, *Examiner interprets the obstacles to include the one or more objects); and
an electronic processor (Fig. 2, 202 of Hahn and see at least para. [0111] of Hahn which discloses “the mower 100 includes a controller/processor 202 which may be implemented as a computing device, or as one or more control boards, with each having one or more processors arranged to receive and analyse the information received and to provide instructions to the mower in order to operate the mower”) in communication with the object detection sensor (Fig. 1, 112) and configured to control the at least one wheel motor to move the robotic garden tool on the operating surface (see at least para. [0151] of Hahn which discloses “Detecting object(s) that may obstruct the motion of the mower 100 would enable the controller to execute appropriate commands to avoid colliding with said object(s)”, *Examiner interprets these commands as configuring to control the wheel) by
receiving object detection data (see at least para. [0120] of Hahn which discloses “sensors and other electronic navigation modules are arranged to obtain data from environmental readings” and see at least para. [0126] of Hahn which discloses “this data from the hall sensors 308 can then be used to calculate the number of or portions of rotations of the motor 302, which can then be used to calculate the number of rotations of the wheel 104R via the gearbox 304”, *Examiner interprets this data from the environmental readings to be object detection data) from the object detection sensor, wherein the object detection data indicates a respective position (see at least para. [0151] which discloses “to detect object(s) positioned in front of the mower 100”, *Examiner interprets this as indicating a respective position oof the object. And see at least para. [0133] of Hahn which discloses “The laser light 405 is reflected from the objects and detected by the LIDAR unit 222L, and the LIDAR unit 222L may then calculate the distance between the mower 100 and the object“, *Examiner interprets this calculation of the distance to be a calculation of the object position) of each of the one or more objects with respect to the robotic garden tool (see at least para. [0024] of Hahn which discloses “the navigation system further includes a sonic or supersonic obstacle detection module arranged to use sound waves to detect any obstacles proximate to the mower” and para. [0027] of Hahn which discloses “the sonic obstacle detection module is a laser sensor”, *Examiner interprets this to be the object detection data), and
executing (see at least para. [0116] of Hahn which discloses “the controller 202 will execute a control routine or process 206 which determines the conditions for and when the mower is to be operated”) a speed control algorithm (Fig. 2, 206 and see at least para. [0040] of Hahn which discloses “satellite navigation system to locate the lawn mower and to establish a direction of travel and speed of the lawn mower” and see at least para. [0112] of Hahn which discloses “the control algorithm 206 or predefined map of the operating area 208 to generate various commands to each of the mower operating components” and see at least para. [0115] which discloses “the controller 202 can direct electric current from a power source, such as a battery 214, to the motors 210 so as to perform a controlled operation of one or both motors 210. This can allow for forward, reverse and turning actions of the mower 100 by turning one or more wheels at different speeds”, * Examiner interprets the different speeds to be executed by the speed control algorithm) that includes
determining, based on the object detection data, whether any objects are present within a detection area (see at least para. [0130] of Hahn which discloses “a surrounding area 402”, *Examiner interprets this surrounding area to be the detection area) of the object detection sensor (see at least para. [0147] of Hahn which discloses “sensors 602 on the mower 100 to use sound waves to detect if there are any obstacles proximate to the mower 100 so as to assist the mower with avoiding these obstacles” and see at least para. [0150] of Hahn which discloses “the sonic obstacle detection module 202 may include four SONAR sensors 602 on the mower body 102. Preferably, the four SONAR sensors 602 may be located on the front-facing surface of the mower body as this allows the sensors 602 to detect obstacles in the path of forward travel”, *Examiner interprets the obstacle detection module 202 will gather object detection data and indicate the presence of objects within the detection area of the sensor)
in response to determining that the object detection data indicates an absence of any objects within the detection area, controlling the at least one wheel motor to move the robotic garden tool forward (see at least para. [0152] of Hahn which discloses “The controller 202 may in turn be arranged to receive this navigation information and, after processing this navigation information, will generate an appropriate command necessary to avoiding this obstacle. Such commands may include a change of the direction of motion of the mower”, *Examiner interprets that when the data detects obstacles the commands issued will be to move the garden tool forward in an area with an absence of objects since there will be a change in direction of the mower. Also see at least para. [0154] of Hahn which discloses “For instance, a SONAR located and facing outwards from the front of the unit is used for obstacle avoidance. This SONAR may be arranged to be capable of identifying obstacles in front of the unit and notifies the mower. The mower may then check the location of the obstruction against the known lawn map (or virtual map) created and saved from the mower's LIDAR system and uses the information of the obstacle in front of it in conjunction with the information of the known lawn map to navigate around/away from the object”) at a first speed (see at least para. [0115] which discloses “This can allow for forward, reverse and turning actions of the mower 100 by turning one or more wheels at different speeds or directions”, *Examiner interprets that since there are different speeds this is equivalent to a first speed, second speed, etc.),
in response to determining that the object detection data indicates that at least one object (Fig. 4, 404, 406 or 408 of Hahn and see at least para. [0133] of Hahn which discloses “such objects are a tree 404 and a chair 406”) is present within the detection area (see at least para. [0130] which discloses “a surrounding area 402”, *Examiner interprets this surrounding area to be the detection area), determining a closest distance of a closest object to the robotic garden tool based on the object detection data, (see at least para. [0133] of Hahn which discloses “such objects are a tree 404 and a chair 406. The laser light 405 is reflected from the objects and detected by the LIDAR unit 222L, and the LIDAR unit 222L may then calculate the distance between the mower 100 and the object”, *Examiner interprets that once the distances between the different objects are calculated then the closest distance will be determined).
Hahn et al. does disclose a first distance threshold (see at least para. [0133] of Hahn which
discloses “calculate the distance between the mower 100 and the object”, *Examiner interprets this calculation to be a first distance threshold because para. [0133] of Hahn also discloses “the position of the mower 100 relative to any object constantly changes since the mower 100 may move during its operation” which Examiner interprets to mean an additional distance such as a second threshold distance can be calculated). Hahn does disclose controlling the at least one wheel motor to move the robotic garden tool forward at the first speed (see at least para. [0040] of Hahn which discloses “a satellite navigation system to locate the lawn mower and to establish a direction of travel and speed of the lawn mower”, *Examiner interprets this established speed of the lawn mower to be the first speed).
Hahn et al. may not explicitly disclose determining whether the closest distance between
the closest object and the robotic garden tool is greater than or equal to a first distance threshold, in response to determining that the closest distance is greater than or equal to the first distance threshold, controlling the at least one wheel motor to move the robotic garden tool forward at the first speed, in response to determining that the closest distance is less than the first distance threshold, determining whether the closest distance is greater than or equal to a second distance threshold that is lower than the first distance threshold, in response to determining that the closest distance is less than the first distance threshold and greater than or equal to the second distance threshold, controlling the at least one wheel motor to move the robotic garden tool forward at a second speed proportionate to the closest distance between the robotic garden tool and the closest object, wherein the second speed is less than the first speed, and in response to determining that the closest distance is less than the second distance threshold, controlling the at least one wheel motor to move the robotic garden tool backward at a third speed inversely proportionate to the closest distance between the robotic garden tool and the closest object.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Li discloses determining whether the closest
distance between the closest object and the robotic garden tool is greater (see at least para. [0007] of Li which discloses “the robot determines whether the distance between itself and the user exceeds a first distance threshold. If so, the robot starts moving to follow the user”, *Examiner interprets the user to be the object and notes that a determination of the distance between the object (user) and the robot is made) than or equal to a first distance threshold (Fig. 3, T1 of Li and see at least para. [0029] which describes “a first threshold T1” and see at least para. [0007] of Li which describes “a first distance threshold”), in response to determining that the closest distance is greater than or equal to the first distance threshold, controlling the at least one wheel motor to move the robotic garden tool forward at the first speed (see at least para. [0007] of Li which discloses “the robot determines whether the distance between itself and the user exceeds a first distance threshold. If so, the robot starts moving to follow the user”, *Examiner interprets that since the robot moves when it is determined that a distance of Li exceeds a threshold then this is controlling the wheel motor to move the robot forward at a certain speed that could be considered a first speed), in response to determining that the closest distance is less than the first distance threshold, determining whether the closest distance is greater than or equal to a second distance threshold (Fig. 3, T2 of Li and see at least para. [0030] of Li which discloses “the distance d between the robot 201 and the user 202 decreases to a second threshold T2”) that is lower than the first distance threshold (see at least para. [0007] of Li which discloses “The second distance threshold is lower than the first distance threshold”), in response to determining that the closest distance is less than the first distance threshold and greater than or equal to the second distance threshold (see at least para. [0008] of Li which discloses “the radius of the circle may be less than the first distance threshold but greater than the second distance threshold”), controlling the at least one wheel motor to move the robotic garden tool forward at a second speed (Fig. 3, 307 of Li and see at least para. [0037] of Li which discloses “At step 307, the process 300 sends instructions to the motor control module to adjust the robot's speed based on the value of d”) proportionate to the closest distance between the robotic garden tool and the closest object, wherein the second speed is less than the first speed (see at least para. [0037] of Li which discloses “the process 300 determines whether the distance d is less than or equal to the first threshold T1. If so, the process 300 goes to step 306, where it determines whether the robot is currently moving. If the robot is currently moving, the process 300 goes to step 307” and see at least para. [0038] of Li which discloses “At step 307, the process 300 sends instructions to the motor control module to adjust the robot's speed based on the value of d”, *Examiner interprets this adjustment to the robot’s speed to be a second speed proportionate to the distance between the robot and the closest object), and in response to determining that the closest distance is less than the second distance threshold (see at least para. [0035] of Li which discloses “the process 300 determines whether d is less than or equal to the second threshold T2”), controlling the at least one wheel motor to move the robotic garden tool backward (see at least para. [0066] of Li which discloses “the robot may circle around X to get back to its original course") at a third speed inversely proportionate to the closest distance between the robotic garden tool and the closest object (see at least para. [0038] of Li which discloses “the process 300 sends instructions to the motor control module to adjust the robot's speed based on the value of d”, *Examiner interprets the speed adjustment to be different from the first and second speeds so that it can be a third speed controlled based on the distance between the robot and the object and see at least para. [0066] of Li which discloses “while a mobile robot is navigating on a trained path, it may encounter an unexpected obstacle ... If the obstacle has not cleared the path after the specified time period, the robot will circumvent it to get to the target location” and see at least para. [0042] of Li which discloses “Then, the user 402 makes two quick sharp turns at P1 and P2 for certain reasons. For example, the user 402 may make these sharp turns to quickly pick up something at P2 or avoid an obstacle or person in the front. *Examiner interprets the quick turn to be equivalent to an increase in speed as the robotic garden tool gets closer to the object and since speed increases as distance decrease, this is an additional speed that exhibits an inversely proportional relationship between the speed and distance.
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 speed algorithm of the robotic garden tool of Hahn to include determining whether the closest distance between the closest object and the robotic garden tool is greater than or equal to a first distance threshold, in response to determining that the closest distance is greater than or equal to the first distance threshold, controlling the at least one wheel motor to move the robotic garden tool forward at the first speed, in response to determining that the closest distance is less than the first distance threshold, determining whether the closest distance is greater than or equal to a second distance threshold that is lower than the first distance threshold, in response to determining that the closest distance is less than the first distance threshold and greater than or equal to the second distance threshold, controlling the at least one wheel motor to move the robotic garden tool forward at a second speed proportionate to the closest distance between the robotic garden tool and the closest object, wherein the second speed is less than the first speed, and in response to determining that the closest distance is less than the second distance threshold, controlling the at least one wheel motor to move the robotic garden tool backward at a third speed inversely proportionate to the closest distance between the robotic garden tool and the closest object as taught in Li with a reasonable expectation of success in order to facilitate the efficient and effective control of a speed and/or movement direction of a robotic tool in response to detecting one or more obstacles/objects. See para. [0029] and [0038] of Li for motivation.
Regarding claim 2, Hahn et al., as modified by Li, discloses wherein the electronic processor
is configured to execute a steering control algorithm (see at least para. [0112] of Hahn which discloses “the control algorithm 206 or predefined map of the operating area 208 to generate various commands to each of the mower operating components” and see at least para. [0115] of Hahn which discloses “the controller 202 can direct electric current from a power source, such as a battery 214, to the motors 210 so as to perform a controlled operation of one or both motors 210. This can allow for forward, reverse and turning actions of the mower 100 by turning one or more wheels”, * Examiner interprets the forward, reverse and turning actions to be the steering function of the control algorithm) that includes: controlling the at least one wheel motor (see at least para. [0095] of Hahn which discloses “each rear wheel 104R having its own individual motor and gearbox. This is advantageous in that maneuvering the mower may be implemented by simple control of each of these motors”) to move the robotic garden tool forward (see at least para. [0115] of Hahn which discloses “This can allow for forward, reverse and turning actions of the mower 100 by turning one or more wheels at different speeds or directions”, *Examiner interprets the forward actions of the mower at different speed to work to propel the robot forward and see at least para. [0180] of Hahn which discloses “a mower body 102 having at least one motor arranged … to propel the mower body 102 on an operating surface via a wheel arrangement, wherein the mower body 102 includes a navigation system 204 arranged to assist a controller 202 to control the operation of the mower body 102 within a predefined operating area”, *As discussed above, Examiner interprets the fact that the robot is propelled forward to be the robotic garden tool moving forward) in response to determining that the object detection data indicates the absence of any objects (see at least para. [0152] of Hahn which discloses “The controller 202 may in turn be arranged to receive this navigation information and, after processing this navigation information, will generate an appropriate command necessary to avoiding this obstacle. Such commands may include a change of the direction of motion of the mower”, *Examiner interprets that when the data detects obstacles the commands issued will be to move the garden tool forward in an area with an absence of objects since there will be a change in direction of the mower); in response to determining that the object detection data indicates that the at least one object (Fig. 4, 404, 406 or 408 of Hahn and see at least para. [0133] of Hahn which discloses “such objects are a tree 404 and a chair 406”) is present within the detection area (see at least para. [0130] of Hahn which discloses “a surrounding area 402”, *Examiner interprets this surrounding area to be the detection area), determining whether a left portion or a right portion of the detection area includes more objects (see at least Fig. 4 of Hahn which illustrates more objects (the tree 404 and the chair 406) in the right portion of the detection area and see ate least para. [0131] of Hahn which discloses “the optical surveying module 222 is a LIDAR unit 222L on the mower body 102. The LIDAR unit 222L may be implemented to tire rapid pulses of laser light which come into contact with objects (such as the tree 404, chair 406 or LIDAR stakes 408) in the surrounding spatial environment circumferential to the mower 100”, *Examiner interprets the surveying module will determine where the objects are located, i.e., in the left or right portion of the detection area); and controlling the at least one wheel motor to turn the robotic garden tool in a direction away from (see at least para. [0154] of Hahn which discloses “The mower may then check the location of the obstruction against the known lawn map (or virtual map) created and saved from the mower's LIDAR system and uses the information of the obstacle in front of it in conjunction with the information of the known lawn map to navigate around/away from the object“) a portion of the detection area that includes (i) more objects, (ii) more data points representative of objects, or (iii) both (i) and (ii) (see at least para. [0134] of Hahn which discloses “The LIDAR unit on a mower will detect a boundary formed by a series of LIDAR Stakes and the mower will be prevented from crossing the boundary. In some advance embodiments, each of the LIDAR Stakes 408 may have a unique signature so that the LIDAR unit 222L may differentiate one LIDAR Stake 408 from another, in turn allowing the controller 202 to trigger specific operation commands, such as “no go zones” or “dedicated zones””, *Examiner interprets these stakes to be more objects and these zones to be areas that will be avoided and have the wheel turn the robotic garden tool in a direction away from these detections areas so that the objects are avoided). Additionally, see para. [0132] of Hahn which discloses “Instrumentation that is part the LIDAR unit 222L receives the reflected laser light from these objects and measures the amount of time taken for each pulse to be reflected back to the LIDAR unit 222L. As the speed of light is known, the distance between the objects and the LIDAR unit 222L can be calculated. A dynamic map of the spatial environment proximate to the mower is built as a result of rapid successive measurements of reflected laser light”, *Examiner interprets this as evidence of the amount of objects concentrated in a particular areas since mor time taken for each pulse to be reflected back will be evidence of more objects concentrated in a particular area).
Li further discloses movement of a robotic tool in a first straight line (see at least para. [0066] of Li which discloses “the robot may change its original course and find a new straight path to B”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to further modify the robotic garden tool of Hahn, as modified by Li, to execute steering control algorithm that moves the garden tool in a first straight line forward as further disclosed in Li with a reasonable expectation of success in order to more effectively use the tool while avoiding objects so that the desired tasks may be accomplished efficiently. See para. [0066] of Li for motivation.
Regarding claim 3, Hahn et al., as modified by Li, discloses wherein the electronic processor
is configured to: determine, based on the object detection data, a farthest x-coordinate distance of a farthest x-coordinate object from a center axis (see at least para. [0188] of Hahn which discloses “the central axis of the height adjustment system 1100” and see Fig. 4 of Hahn which illustrates the center axis of the robotic garden tool 100 and see at least para. [0117] of Hahn which discloses “a longitudinal axis and then work each longitudinal axis in a latitudinal form within the working area defined so as to cut the grass in the working area”) that runs through a center of the robotic garden tool in a direction parallel to a forward path of movement (see at least para. [0150] of Hahn which describes “the path of forward travel“ and see at least para. [0164] which discloses “mower 100 can then be taught by the user as to the location and definition of the working area as well as any travel paths which are required to get to the different portions of the working area”) of the robotic garden tool (Fig. 4 illustrates the center axis running through the center of robotic garden tool 100 in a direction parallel to the forward path of movement); and control the at least one wheel motor to turn the robotic garden tool according to a turning angle (see at least para. [0115] which discloses “the controller 202 can direct electric current from a power source, such as a battery 214, to the motors 210 so as to perform a controlled operation of one or both motors 210. This can allow for forward, reverse and turning actions of the mower 100 by turning one or more wheels at different speeds or directions”, *Examiner interprets the turning actions to include a turning angle) that is a function (see at least para. [0120] of Hahn which discloses “the filtering function or averaging function such as the Kalman Filter can also be applied by each navigation module to any navigation information obtained before the navigation information is communicated to the controller 202“, *Examiner interprets that since it is known in the art that the Kalman filter is an algorithm that uses measurements overtime which can be considered to be the x-coordinate distance of the farthest x-coordinate object) of the farthest x-coordinate distance of the farthest x-coordinate object (see at least para. [0117] of Hahn which discloses “a specific cutting program, which mows the lawn along a longitudinal axis and then work each longitudinal axis in a latitudinal form within the working area“ and see at least para. [0118] of Hahn which discloses “the controller 202 may first apply a filter or an averaging function to all of navigation information received from the navigation system” and see at least para. [0123] of Hahn which discloses “As the mower 100 may also turn along its work surface by allowing its opposing wheels to spin in opposite directions, such movements and rotation can also be detected and measured so as to determine the direction and rate of turn of the mower 100 along a work surface” and see at least para. [0126] of Hahn which discloses “this data from the hall sensors 308 can then be used to calculate the number of or portions of rotations of the motor 302, which can then be used to calculate the number of rotations of the wheel 104R via the gearbox 304” and see at least para. [0145] of Hahn which discloses “The LIDAR could also be used for obstacle avoidance by in some examples where the mower was programmed to avoid detected obstacles” and see at least para. [0147] of Hahn which discloses “(SONAR) sensors 602 on the mower 100 to use sound waves to detect if there are any obstacles proximate to the mower 100 so as to assist the mower with avoiding these obstacles”, *Examiner interprets the axis along with the lateral movement of the robotic garden tool rotation to avoid an obstacle will determine the amount of turning and rotation so that the angle/rotation is a function of the x-coordinate distance of the x-coordinate object. And see at least para. [0153] of Hahn which discloses “the SONAR sensors may be located on the front-facing surface of the mower body 102 in order to detect object(s) positioned in front of the mower 100 in the direction of the mower's motion, although it is possible to also have sonar sensors 602 implemented on the side and rear of the mower body 102. Detecting object(s) that may obstruct the motion of the mower 100 would enable the controller to execute appropriate commands to avoid colliding with said object(s)”, *Examiner interprets these commands to include a turning angle that is a function of the farthest x-coordinate distance of the farthest x-coordinate object).
Regarding claim 4, Hahn, as modified by Li, discloses wherein the function indicates that
the turning angle (see at least para. [0011] of Hahn which discloses “the odometry module is arranged to track the movement of the mower body on the operating surface by determining the rotation distance of at least one wheel of the wheel arrangement”, *Examiner interprets the rotation distance to be the turning angle) increases as the farthest x-coordinate (see at least para. [0119] of Hahn which discloses “co-ordinates obtained from the odometry module 220”, *Examiner interprets these obtained co-ordinates to be x-coordinates and based upon the odometry module 220, they will be identified as the farthest x-coordinate) distance of the farthest x-coordinate object increases (see at least para. [0119] of Hahn which discloses “the controller 202 may receive navigation information from the, odometry module 220, the sonic obstacle detection module 224 and the optical surveying module 222. During processing, the odometry module 220 may have tracked that the mower 100 has travelled to a particular co-ordinate on a virtual map obtained during the initialization of the mower 100”, *Examiner interprets that the odometry module 220 and the obstacle detection module 224 will work together to determine the farthest x-coordinate and will provide instructions to increase the turning angle accordingly).
Regarding claim 5, Hahn, as modified by Li, discloses wherein the electronic processor (Fig.
2, 202 of Hahn and see at least para. [0111] of Hahn which discloses “the mower 100 includes a controller/processor 202 which may be implemented as a computing device, or as one or more control boards, with each having one or more processors arranged to receive and analyse the information received and to provide instructions to the mower in order to operate the mower”) is configured to determine the farthest x-coordinate distance of the farthest x-coordinate object (see at least para. [0119] of Hahn which discloses “the controller 202 may receive navigation information from the, odometry module 220, the sonic obstacle detection module 224 and the optical surveying module 222. During processing, the odometry module 220 may have tracked that the mower 100 has travelled to a particular co-ordinate on a virtual map obtained during the initialization of the mower 100. However, according to the navigation information obtained by the IMU and the optical surveying module 222, the location of the mower 100 may be at a distance substantially far away from the co-ordinates obtained from the odometry module 220“) from the center axis (see at least para. [0188] of Hahn which discloses “the central axis of the height adjustment system 1100” and see Fig. 4 of Hahn which illustrates the center axis of the robotic garden tool 100 and see at least para. [0117] of Hahn which discloses “a longitudinal axis and then work each longitudinal axis in a latitudinal form within the working area defined so as to cut the grass in the working area”) from among one or more first objects that are located on a portion of the detection area that includes less objects (see at least Fig. 4 of Hahn which illustrates the LIDAR Stakes 408 are located on a portion of the detection area that includes less objects).
Regarding claim 6, Hahn et al., as modified by Li, discloses wherein the electronic processor
is configured to: determine, based on the object detection data, a closest x-coordinate distance of a closest x-coordinate object (see at least para. [0131] of Hahn which discloses “the optical surveying module 222 is a LIDAR unit 222L on the mower body 102. The LIDAR unit 222L may be implemented to tire rapid pulses of laser light which come into contact with objects (such as the tree 404, chair 406 or LIDAR stakes 408) in the surrounding spatial environment circumferential to the mower 100”) from a center axis (see at least para. [0188] of Hahn which discloses “the central axis of the height adjustment system 1100” and see Fig. 4 of Hahn which illustrates the center axis of the robotic garden tool 100 and see at least para. [0117] of Hahn which discloses “a longitudinal axis and then work each longitudinal axis in a latitudinal form within the working area defined so as to cut the grass in the working area”) that runs through a center of the robotic garden tool in a direction parallel to a forward path of movement (see at least para. [0150] of Hahn which describes “the path of forward travel“ and see at least para. [0164] which discloses “mower 100 can then be taught by the user as to the location and definition of the working area as well as any travel paths which are required to get to the different portions of the working area”) of the robotic garden tool (Fig. 4 illustrates the center axis running through the center of robotic garden tool 100 in a direction parallel to the forward path of movement); and control the at least one wheel motor to turn the robotic garden tool according to a turning angle (see at least para. [0115] which discloses “the controller 202 can direct electric current from a power source, such as a battery 214, to the motors 210 so as to perform a controlled operation of one or both motors 210. This can allow for forward, reverse and turning actions of the mower 100 by turning one or more wheels at different speeds or directions”, *Examiner interprets the turning actions to include a turning angle) that is a function (see at least para. [0120] of Hahn which discloses “the filtering function or averaging function such as the Kalman Filter can also be applied by each navigation module to any navigation information obtained before the navigation information is communicated to the controller 202“, *Examiner interprets that since it is known in the art that the Kalman filter is an algorithm that uses measurements overtime which can be considered to be the x-coordinate distance of the farthest x-coordinate object) of the closest x-coordinate distance of the closest x-coordinate object (see at least para. [0117] of Hahn which discloses “a specific cutting program, which mows the lawn along a longitudinal axis and then work each longitudinal axis in a latitudinal form within the working area“ and see at least para. [0118] of Hahn which discloses “the controller 202 may first apply a filter or an averaging function to all of navigation information received from the navigation system” and see at least para. [0123] of Hahn which discloses “As the mower 100 may also turn along its work surface by allowing its opposing wheels to spin in opposite directions, such movements and rotation can also be detected and measured so as to determine the direction and rate of turn of the mower 100 along a work surface” and see at least para. [0126] of Hahn which discloses “this data from the hall sensors 308 can then be used to calculate the number of or po