DETAILED ACTION
This non-final action is in response to the reply filed 9 July 2026, which was in response to the non-final action dated 12 March 2026.
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 .
Priority
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 7, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18 and 20 have been amended.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of independent claims 1, 11 and 16 (pgs. 2-15, Action), applicant’s amendments, incorporating the subject matter from the previous version of claim 7, now amended, necessitated additional searching and consideration. Accordingly, the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are: claims 1-3, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, and 17 in view of Du and To; claims 4 and 10 in view of Du, To and Park; claim 5 in view of Du, To and Ran; claim 6 in view of Du, To and Liu; claims 8 and 13 in view of Du To and Xu and claim 15 in view of Du, To and Prather, as discussed below.
With regard to the rejection of claims 12, 18 and 20, applicant’s amendments necessitated additional searching and consideration. Accordingly, the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are: claims 12, 18, 19 and 20 in view of Du, To and Howard, as discussed 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by German Patent Publication Number DE 20 2018 100 838 to Du et al. (hereafter Du) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2009/0088939 to To et al. (hereafter To).
As per claim 1, Du discloses [a] lawn maintenance device (see at least Du, Abstract; pg. 4, para. 3, disclosing with regard to Fig. 1 and 2, that the state detection device 100 for a lawn mower, the main parts being a signal output part, a signal sensor 3 and a detection device electrically connected to the signal sensor) comprising:
a frame (see at least Du, pg. 5, para. 1, disclosing that the self-propelled device is an automatic lawnmower operated on a lawn as a work area, and includes a housing <interpreted as a frame>, a chassis <interpreted as a frame>, a work unit, an energy storage unit, a controller, and a condition detector);
a wheel supporting the frame (see at least Du, Fig. 1, showing the output rollers <interpreted as wheels> supporting the chassis <interpreted as the frame>),
wherein the wheel comprises: a body defining a central axis about which the body is rotatable (see at least Du, Fig. 4, showing the output roller 20 <interpreted as the body defining a central axis, center of the hole in Fig. 4>, which defines a central axis about which the body 20, rotates); and
a detectable element radially offset from the central axis (see at least Du, pg. 4, para. 5, disclosing that the signal output part preferably consists of a plurality of magnetic tripping elements 1 on any circumference of the driven pulley 2 are distributed; pg. 5, para. 5, disclosing that the state detection device comprises a magnetic tripping element 12 <interpreted as the detectable element>, a signal sensor 14 <interpreted as the detector> and a detection device (not designated). The magnetic triggering element 12 is provided in a number of at least two, wherein the at least two magnetic tripping elements 12 with the driven pulley 20 co-rotating on the driven pulley 20 are arranged so that the ends of adjacent magnetic tripping elements located on the same side of the driven pulley differ in polarity from one another, i.e. on one side of the driven pulley 20 are arranged alternately north poles and south poles; see also Fig. 4);
a detector that detects a relative position of the detectable element (see at least Du, pg. 4, para. 5, disclosing that an output roller never runs or rotates empty, i.e. the output roller moves synchronously with the overall device. So give the magnetic tripping elements 1 during a rotational movement of the driven roller 2 as a signal a magnetic field change curve from the signal sensor 3 is detected, which corresponds to a normal movement of the lawnmower; pg. 5, para. 5, disclosing that the state detection device comprises a magnetic tripping element 12 <interpreted as the detectable element>, a signal sensor 14 <interpreted as the detector> and a detection device); and
control circuitry that receives information from the detector and determines a position of the wheel based on the received information (see at least Du, pg. 5, para. 5, disclosing that as shown in Fig. 5, the state detection device comprises a magnetic tripping element 12, a signal sensor 14 <interpreted as the detector> and a detection device (not designated). The magnetic triggering element 12 is provided in a number of at least two, wherein the at least two magnetic tripping elements 12 with the driven pulley 20 co-rotating on the driven pulley 20 are arranged so that the ends of adjacent magnetic tripping elements located on the same side of the driven pulley differ in polarity from one another, i.e. on one side of the driven pulley 20 are arranged alternately north poles and south poles. The signal sensor 14 is adapted to a trigger signal of the magnetic tripping element 12 to detect and generate a sensor signal, while the detection device is used to receive the sensor signal and based on the sensor signal determines whether the self-propelled device performs a normal movement),
the information associated with the detected relative position of the detectable element (see at least Du, pg. 6, para. 9, disclosing that the processor is used 284 continue to do so, using one of the AD scanner 282 output actual sample is a linear relationship diagram between this actual sample and the time to obtain, based on this linear relationship diagram, a rotational state of the driven pulley 20 to determine, and to recognize in the rotation state, whether the self-propelled device performs a normal movement; pg. 6, para. 11 (last), disclosing that with regard to Fig. 7, results is the signal sensor 14 formed in the present embodiment, in particular as a digital Hall sensor and is provided in a number of at least two, wherein the at least two signal sensors 14 each of corresponding, on one side of the driven pulley 20 alternating magnetic poles having magnetic tripping elements 12 can be triggered and generate a square wave signal. The detection device comprises a logical gate 382 and a processor 384, where the logical gate 382 configured to perform a logical operation of the square wave signal to output a third square wave signal),
wherein the determined position includes a rotational position of the body, as measured about the central axis (see at least Du, pg. 1, para. last, disclosing that the detection device which serves to determine based on the sensor signal a rotational state of the driven roller and to recognize whether the self-propelled device performs a normal movement; pg. 2, para. 10, disclosing that the signal sensor is provided in a number of at least two, wherein the signal sensors can each be triggered by the adjacent magnetic trigger elements to generate a square wave signal, wherein the detection means based on the square wave signal determines a rotational state of the driven roller <interpreted as the position of the wheel> and detects the rotational state whether the self-propelled device performs a normal movement) ... . But, Du does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught in To:
an angular orientation of the body, as measured about a transverse axis normal to the central axis (see at least To, Abstract, [0036] disclosing that when wheels installed with the aforementioned TMPDs are attached to the vehicle, centrifugal force generated in response to a turn of the vehicle towards one lateral side (corresponding to a transverse acceleration towards that lateral side), will cause the moveable member of the accelerometer to move towards the other, opposite, lateral side. And when the vehicle undergoes a lateral turn towards the right lateral side as shown in FIG. 6 (corresponding to a transverse acceleration towards the right lateral side of the vehicle), the moveable member of the accelerometer will move towards the left lateral side. For a wheel on the left lateral side of the vehicle, this translates into a movement of the moveable member along the operation axis away from the longitudinal axis of the body and the transmission of a negative .DELTA.C to the CCU. For a wheel on the right lateral side of the vehicle, the same turn will translate into a movement of the moveable member along the operation axis but towards the longitudinal axis of the body ; [0037]; [0038] disclosing that that the lateral location of a wheel mounted with a TPMD of this invention can be ascertained by monitoring the orientation of transverse acceleration of the accelerometer with respect to the longitudinal axis of the body as follows).
Du and To are analogous art to claim 1 because they are in the same field of motion tracking systems for lawn maintenance devices. Du relates to the field of moving devices, in particular to a self-propelled device (see Du, pg. 1, description, line 3 ). To relates to a method of determining the location information of a plurality of wheels mounted on a vehicle by obtaining a relationship between the lateral location of a wheel and the polarity of a transverse acceleration transmitted by an accelerometer of a wheel in response to a lateral turn of the vehicle in a direction of a lateral side of the vehicle (see To, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have
modified the device, as disclosed in Du, to provide the benefit of having the determined position include an angular orientation of the body, as measured about a transverse axis normal to the central axis, as disclosed in To, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of simplifying the wheel identification (see To, [0005]-[0007]).
As per claim 2, the combination of Du and To discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Du further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the detectable element comprises a plurality of detectable elements circumferentially spaced apart from one another about the central axis (see at least Du, see Fig. 14 showing magnetic tripping element 12 <three, interpreted as a plurality of detectable elements, which are shown circumferentially spaced apart from one another about the rotation axis which extends normal to the center of the inner circle in Fig. 4)
As per claim 3, the combination of Du and To discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Du further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the detectable element comprises an elongated body having a length oriented parallel with the central axis (see at least Du, pg. 5, para. 6, disclosing that the magnetic triggering element 12 designed as a permanent magnetic iron block <interpreted as an elongated body, with reference to Fig. 4, normal to the pully 20>, but can also be an electromagnet. The magnetic tripping elements 12 are in the circumferential direction of the driven pulley 20 equidistant from each other at the output roller 20 arranged <with reference to Fig 4, oriented parallel to the axis of rotation, central axis>).
As per claim 7, Du and To discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Du further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the received information comprises: a first detection signal indicative of the rotational position of the body ... (see at least Du, pg. 1, para. last,) ... . To further discloses the following limitation:
and a second detection signal indicative of the angular orientation of the body (see at least To, Abstract, [0036]-[0039]).
As per claim 9, Du and To discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Du further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the control circuity is further configured to detect a status of the lawn maintenance device in response to the information received from the detector (see at least Du, pg. 1, para. last, disclosing that the detection device which serves to determine based on the sensor signal a rotational state of the driven roller and to recognize whether the self-propelled device performs a normal movement; pg. 2, para. 10, disclosing that the signal sensor is provided in a number of at least two, wherein the signal sensors can each be triggered by the adjacent magnetic trigger elements to generate a square wave signal, wherein the detection means based on the square wave signal determines a rotational state of the driven roller <interpreted as the position of the wheel> and detects the rotational state <interpreted as a status> whether the self-propelled device performs a normal movement; pg. 6, para. 9, disclosing the AD scanner scans 282 periodically through the amplifier 16 amplified sensor signal and converts the sampled analog value into a digital value. In anormal movement of the self-traveling device, the rate of change (slope) of the linear relationship diagram between the sample and the time shows some regularity. If the inclination changes or if there is an inclination over an extended period, it can be concluded that the output roller 20 is prevented from rotating or stops rotating <interpreted as a status, which in turn indicates that the self-propelled device can no longer move normally),
the status selected from a group consisting of stationary, travelling, stuck, and broken (see at least Du, pg. 1, para. last, disclosing that the detection device which serves to determine based on the sensor signal a rotational state of the driven roller and to recognize whether the self-propelled device performs a normal movement <interpreted as traveling, when normal, and broken or stuck when not normal>; pg. 2, para. 10, disclosing that the signal sensor is provided in a number of at least two, wherein the signal sensors can each be triggered by the adjacent magnetic trigger elements to generate a square wave signal, wherein the detection means based on the square wave signal determines a rotational state of the driven roller <interpreted as the position of the wheel> and detects the rotational state whether the self-propelled device performs a normal movement <interpreted as traveling, when normal, and broken or stuck when not normal>).
As per claim 11, similar to claim 1, Du discloses [a] motion tracking system for a lawn maintenance device (see at least Du, Abstract; pg. 4, para. 3), the motion tracking system comprising:
a wheel configured to be coupled to the lawn maintenance device (see at least Du, Fig. 1, showing the output rollers <interpreted as wheels>),
the wheel comprising: a body defining a central axis (see at least Du, Fig. 4, showing the output roller 20 <interpreted as the body defining a central axis, center of the hole in Fig. 4>, which defines a central axis about which the body 20, rotates); and
a detectable element radially offset from the central axis (see at least Du, pg. 4, para. 5; pg. 5, para. 5; see also Fig. 4);
a detector configured to be coupled to the lawn maintenance device at a location spaced apart from the wheel (see at least Du, pg. 5, para. 7 disclosing that the signal sensor 14 <interpreted as the detector>is mounted on the housing of the self-propelled device in such a way that it has a constant distance from the driven pulley and in the region of a magnetic field of the magnetic release elements 12 lies. In a specific embodiment, the south poles of the two outer magnetic tripping elements 12 to the signal sensor 14 towards, while the middle magnetic tripping element 12 with its north pole on the signal sensor 14 points to realize an alternating arrangement of north and south poles),
wherein the detector detects a spatial information associated with the detectable element (see at least Du, pg. 4, para. 5; pg. 5, para. 5); and
control circuitry in communication with the detector (see at least Du, pg. 5, para. 5),
wherein the control circuitry receives the spatial information from the detector and determines a position of the wheel relative to the detector based on the received spatial information (see at least Du, Pg. 5, para. 5; pg. 6, para. 11),
wherein the determined position includes a rotational position of the body, as measured about the central axis (see at least Du, pg. 1, para. last,; pg. 2, para. 10,) ... . But, Du does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught in To:
an angular orientation of the body, as measured about a transverse axis normal to the central axis (see at least To, Abstract, [0036] [0037]; [0038]).
Du and To are analogous art to claim 11 because they are in the same field of motion tracking systems for lawn maintenance devices. Du relates to the field of moving devices, in particular to a self-propelled device (see Du, pg. 1, description, line 3 ). To relates to a method of determining the location information of a plurality of wheels mounted on a vehicle by obtaining a relationship between the lateral location of a wheel and the polarity of a transverse acceleration transmitted by an accelerometer of a wheel in response to a lateral turn of the vehicle in a direction of a lateral side of the vehicle (see To, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have
modified the device, as disclosed in Du, to provide the benefit of having the determined position include an angular orientation of the body, as measured about a transverse axis normal to the central axis, as disclosed in To, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of simplifying the wheel identification (see To, [0005]-[0007]).
As per claim 14, the combination of Du and To discloses all of the limitations of claim 11, as shown above. Du discloses the following limitations:
wherein the motion tracking system is configured to be coupled to the lawn maintenance device (see at least Du, pg. 4, para. 3, disclosing that with regard to Fig. 1 and 2, the state detection device 100 for a lawn mower, the main parts being a signal output part, a signal sensor 3 and a detection device electrically connected to the signal sensor. In this case, the signal output part by means of an output roller 2 fixedly arranged and can be used to output one of a rotational frequency of the driven pulley 2 serve dependent frequency signal), and
wherein the control circuitry is configured to be electrically connected to a processor of the lawn maintenance device (see at least Du, pg. 6, last para., disclosing with regard to Fig. 7, that results is the signal sensor 14 formed in the present embodiment, in particular as a digital Hall sensor and is provided in a number of at least two, wherein the at least two signal sensors 14 each of corresponding, on one side of the driven pulley 20 alternating magnetic poles having magnetic tripping elements 12 can be triggered and generate a square wave signal <interpreted as electrically connected to the processor>. The detection device comprises a logical gate 382 and a processor 384, where the logical gate 382 configured to perform a logical operation of the square wave signal to output a third square wave signal).
As per claim 16, similar to claims 1 and 11, Du discloses [a] method of controlling a lawn maintenance device (see at least Du, Abstract), the method comprising:
receiving, at a processor of the lawn maintenance device, information from a motion tracking system of the lawn maintenance device (see at least Du, pg. 5, para. 5, discussing Fig. 5),
the information associated with a detected position of a detectable element coupled to a wheel of the lawn maintenance device (see at least Du, pg. 6, para. 11),
the wheel rotatable about a central axis (see at least Du, Fig. 4, showing the output roller 20 <interpreted as the body defining a central axis, center of the hole in Fig. 4>, which defines a central axis about which the body 20, rotates); and
processing, at the processor of the lawn maintenance device, the received information to determine a position of the wheel (see at least Du, pg. 5, para. 6, disclosing with regard to Fig. 5, that the state detection device comprises a magnetic tripping element 12, a signal sensor 14 and a detection device (not designated). The magnetic triggering element 12 is provided in a number of at least two, wherein the at least two magnetic tripping elements 12 with the driven pulley 20 co-rotating on the driven pulley 20 are arranged so that the ends of adjacent magnetic tripping elements located on the same side of the driven pulley differ in polarity from one another, i.e. on one side of the driven pulley 20 are arranged alternately north poles and south poles. The signal sensor 14 is adapted to a trigger signal of the magnetic tripping element 12 to detect and generate a sensor signal, while the detection device is used to receive the sensor signal and based on the sensor signal determines whether the self-propelled device performs a normal movement),
the position including a rotational position of the wheel, as measured about the central axis (see at least Du, pg. 1, para. last, disclosing that the detection device which serves to determine based on the sensor signal a rotational state of the driven roller and to recognize whether the self-propelled device performs a normal movement; pg. 2, para. 10, disclosing that the signal sensor is provided in a number of at least two, wherein the signal sensors can each be triggered by the adjacent magnetic trigger elements to generate a square wave signal, wherein the detection means based on the square wave signal determines a rotational state of the driven roller <interpreted as the position of the wheel> and detects the rotational state whether the self-propelled device performs a normal movement) ... . But, Du does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught in To:
and processing at the processor of the law maintenance device, the received information to determine an angular orientation of the body, as measured about a transverse axis normal to the central axis (see at least To, Abstract, [0036] [0037]; [0038]).
Du and To are analogous art to claim 16 because they are in the same field of motion tracking systems for lawn maintenance devices. Du relates to the field of moving devices, in particular to a self-propelled device (see Du, pg. 1, description, line 3 ). To relates to a method of determining the location information of a plurality of wheels mounted on a vehicle by obtaining a relationship between the lateral location of a wheel and the polarity of a transverse acceleration transmitted by an accelerometer of a wheel in response to a lateral turn of the vehicle in a direction of a lateral side of the vehicle (see To, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have
modified the device, as disclosed in Du, to provide the benefit of having the determined position include an angular orientation of the body, as measured about a transverse axis normal to the central axis, as disclosed in To, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of simplifying the wheel identification (see To, [0005]-[0007]).
As per claim 17, similar to claim 9, the combination of Du and To discloses all of the limitations of claim 16, as shown above. Du further discloses the following limitations:
determining a status of the lawn maintenance device in response to the information received from the detector (see at least Du, pg. 1, para. last; pg. 2, para. 10),
the status selected from a group consisting of stationary, travelling, stuck, and broken (see at least Du, pg. 1, para. last, disclosing that the detection device which serves to determine based on the sensor signal a rotational state of the driven roller and to recognize whether the self-propelled device performs a normal movement <interpreted as traveling, when normal, and broken or stuck when not normal>; pg. 2, para. 10).
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du and To as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2014/0365072 to Park et al. (hereafter Park).
As per claim 4, the combination of Du and To discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, neither Du nor To explicitly teach the following limitation taught by Park:
wherein the detectable element is fully disposed within the body (see at least Park, [0015] disclosing that indicators may be mounted on the rim, which can be sensed from the chassis of the vehicle as the wheel rotates. Such indicators may be optical indicators, magnetic indicators, electrical indicators, etc. ; [0064] disclosing that FIG. 4 illustrates such a Z-axis sensor 60 <interpreted as a detectable element fully disposed within the body>, which is mounted on a wheel 62, i.e., the rim or the tire, where the wheel 62 is shown in an idealized way in FIG. 4. The acceleration measured by this Z-axis sensor points away from the rotation axis of the wheel, i.e. radial accelerations are measured. FIG. 5 illustrates the radial acceleration sensor 60 mounted on the rim of the wheel 62, where the wheel 62 is attached to a vehicle).
Du, To and Park are analogous art to claim 4 because they both relate to motion tracking systems. Du relates to the field of moving devices, in particular to a self-propelled device (see Du, pg. 1, description, line 3). To relates to a method of determining the location information of a plurality of wheels mounted on a vehicle by obtaining a relationship between the lateral location of a wheel and the polarity of a transverse acceleration transmitted by an accelerometer of a wheel in response to a lateral turn of the vehicle in a direction of a lateral side of the vehicle (see To, Abstract). Park relates to a wheel localization device, a method, a system and a computer program for locating a position of a wheel and for determining an acceleration of a wheel of a vehicle (see at least Park, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Du, as modified to To, to provide the benefit of having the detectable element is fully disposed within the body, as disclosed in Park, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of illuminating or minimizing temperature compensation and calibration (see at least Park, [0032]).
As per claim 10, the combination of Du and To discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Du further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the lawn maintenance device further comprises a body coupled to the frame (see at least Du, Abstract, disclosing a chassis supporting <interpreted as a frame> and moving the self-propelled device and comprising a drive roller and an output roller <interpreted as bodies>; pg. 5, para. 1, disclosing that the self-propelled device is an automatic lawnmower operated on a lawn as a work area, and includes a housing <interpreted as a frame>, a chassis <interpreted as a frame>, a work unit, an energy storage unit, a controller, and a condition detector) ... . But, neither Du nor To explicitly teach the following limitation taught by Park:
wherein the detector is disposed within a cavity of the body (similar to claim 4, see at least Park, [0015]; [0064]).
Du, To and Park are analogous art to claim 10 because they both relate to motion tracking systems. Du relates to the field of moving devices, in particular to a self-propelled device (see Du, pg. 1, description, line 3). To relates to a method of determining the location information of a plurality of wheels mounted on a vehicle by obtaining a relationship between the lateral location of a wheel and the polarity of a transverse acceleration transmitted by an accelerometer of a wheel in response to a lateral turn of the vehicle in a direction of a lateral side of the vehicle (see To, Abstract). Park relates to a wheel localization device, a method, a system and a computer program for locating a position of a wheel and for determining an acceleration of a wheel of a vehicle (see at least Park, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Du, as modified by To, to provide the benefit of having detector is disposed within a cavity of the body, as disclosed in Park, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of illuminating or minimizing temperature compensation and calibration (see at least Park, [0032]]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du and To as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chinese Patent Publication Number CN 105988466 to Ran et al. (hereafter Ran).
As per claim 5, the combination of Du and To discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Du further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the wheel is a first wheel (see at least Du, see Fig. 1, showing first pully <first wheel, shown to the right of Fig. 1; or alternatively to the left, into the figure opposite to the second pully wheel>),
wherein the lawn maintenance device further comprises a second wheel (see at least Du, see Fig. 1, showing second pully <second wheel, shown to the left of Fig. 1> ) ... . But, neither Du nor To explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Ran:
wherein each of the first and second wheels is a caster wheel (see at least Ran, Fig. 2, showing the wheels as a caster wheel).
Du, To and Ran are analogous art to claim 10 because they both relate to motion tracking systems. Du relates to the field of moving devices, in particular to a self-propelled device (see Du, pg. 1, description, line 3). To relates to a method of determining the location information of a plurality of wheels mounted on a vehicle by obtaining a relationship between the lateral location of a wheel and the polarity of a transverse acceleration transmitted by an accelerometer of a wheel in response to a lateral turn of the vehicle in a direction of a lateral side of the vehicle (see To, Abstract). Ran relates to a device with a magnetic signal generator and magnetic signal monitoring module, a magnetic signal generator is set in the driven wheel, magnetic signal monitoring module includes a magnetic signal sensor and sensor connector. the sensor connecting support connecting a sensor to the sensor distance of the driven wheel is constant (see at least Ran, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Du, as modified by To, to provide the benefit of having each of the first and second wheels be a caster wheel, as disclosed in Ran, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of having an interface for the wheel so that it may be used to steer.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du and To as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0404137 to Liu.
As per claim 6, the combination of Du and To discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Du further disclose the following limitation:
... wherein the detectable element comprises a magnetic composition (see at least Du, pg. 6, para. 6). But, the difference between the claimed invention and the combination of Du and To, is that neither Du nor To explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Liu, a comparable detection device where it was known:
wherein the detector is a multi-axis magnetometer (see at least Lu, Abstract, disclosing a method of sensing wheel rotation can include: sensing magnetic force information in an environment of a wheel by a magnetometer to obtain measured magnetic force information; [0023] disclosing that when the electronic control unit performs mathematical operation processing on the measured magnetic force information to obtain the relative magnetic force information, the mathematical operation processing can be relatively simple if the magnetometer is a triaxial magnetometer. Therefore, in particular embodiments, the magnetometer can be selected as a triaxial magnetometer (also referred to as a triaxial magnetic sensor) with X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis. Accordingly, the measured magnetic force information can include component X on the X-axis, component Y on the Y-axis, and component Z on the Z-axis. The electronic control unit may receive components X, Y, and Z, and may perform mathematical operation processing on the three components to obtain the relative magnetic force information; [0036] ; [[039]) ... .
Du, To and Lu are analogous art to claim 10 because they both relate to motion tracking systems. Du relates to the field of moving devices, in particular to a self-propelled device (see Du, pg. 1, description, line 3). To relates to a method of determining the location information of a plurality of wheels mounted on a vehicle by obtaining a relationship between the lateral location of a wheel and the polarity of a transverse acceleration transmitted by an accelerometer of a wheel in response to a lateral turn of the vehicle in a direction of a lateral side of the vehicle (see To, Abstract). Liu relates to sensing methods for wheel rotation, wheel localization methods, and wheel localization system (see Liu, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Du, as modified by To, to provide the benefit of having the detector be a multi-axis magnetometer, as disclosed in Lu, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predicable to one of ordinary skill.
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du and To as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0021223 to Xu et al. (hereafter Xu).
As per claim 8, the combination of Du and To discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, neither Du nor To explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Xu:
wherein the control circuitry is further configured to detect a speed of travel of the lawn maintenance device in response to the information (see at least Xu, [0059] disclosing that he sensor 61 includes a Hall sensor. The fixed assembly 62 includes a magnetic member. In an example, the Hall sensor 63 is fixedly connected to the chassis 30. The magnetic member is mounted on the front wheel 41. The front wheel rotates to drive the magnetic member to rotate to generate a changing magnetic field. The Hall sensor detects the rotational speed of the front wheel in real time according to the changing magnetic field).
Du, To and Xu are analogous art to claim 8 because they both relate to motion tracking systems. Du relates to the field of moving devices, in particular to a self-propelled device (see Du, pg. 1, description, line 3). To relates to a method of determining the location information of a plurality of wheels mounted on a vehicle by obtaining a relationship between the lateral location of a wheel and the polarity of a transverse acceleration transmitted by an accelerometer of a wheel in response to a lateral turn of the vehicle in a direction of a lateral side of the vehicle (see To, Abstract). Xu relates to a lawn mower that includes a detection apparatus configured to detect a rotational speed of the front wheel (see at least Xu, Abstract, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Du, to provide the benefit of detecting a speed of travel of the lawn maintenance device in response to the information, as disclosed in Xu, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of providing additional data for control and monitoring of the mower status.
As per claim 13, similar to claim 8, the combination of Du and To discloses all of the limitations of claim 11, as shown above. But, neither Du nor To explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Xu:
wherein the detector is further configured to determine a speed of the wheel (see at least Xu, [0059]).
Du, To and Xu are analogous art to claim 13 because they both relate to motion tracking systems. Du relates to the field of moving devices, in particular to a self-propelled device (see Du, pg. 1, description, line 3). To relates to a method of determining the location information of a plurality of wheels mounted on a vehicle by obtaining a relationship between the lateral location of a wheel and the polarity of a transverse acceleration transmitted by an accelerometer of a wheel in response to a lateral turn of the vehicle in a direction of a lateral side of the vehicle (see To, Abstract). Xu relates to a lawn mower that includes a detection apparatus configured to detect a rotational speed of the front wheel (see at least Xu, Abstract, [0002])..
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Du, as modified by To, to provide the benefit of determining a speed of the wheel, as disclosed in Xu, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of providing additional data for control and monitoring of the mower status.
Claims 12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du and To as applied to claims 11 and 16 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0090903 to Howard.
As per claim 12, the combination of Du and To discloses all of the limitations of claim 11, as shown above. But, neither Du nor To explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Howard:
wherein the control circuitry determines a flux amplitude of the received spatial information and compares the determined flux amplitude to a stored flux value to determine the angular orientation of the body (see at least Howard, [0042] disclosing that the position and/or orientation of the one or more magnetic targets may be determined using the calibration table or map by comparing the monitored magnetic flux values associated with known positions of the one or more magnetic targets or the target object. In some embodiments, block 306 may include determining a first position of the first magnet based on the monitored first magnetic flux values. Block 306 may include determining a second position of the second magnet based on the monitored second magnetic flux values. In some embodiments, block 306 may include determining a third position of the third magnet based on the monitored third magnetic flux values).
Du, To and Howard are analogous art to claim 12 because they are in the same field of motion tracking systems for lawn maintenance devices. Du relates to the field of moving devices, in particular to a self-propelled device (see Du, pg. 1, description, line 3 ). To relates to a method of determining the location information of a plurality of wheels mounted on a vehicle by obtaining a relationship between the lateral location of a wheel and the polarity of a transverse acceleration transmitted by an accelerometer of a wheel in response to a lateral turn of the vehicle in a direction of a lateral side of the vehicle (see To, Abstract). Howard relates to three-dimensional (3D) position sensors and more particularly, for example, to a 3D position sensor using an array of magnetometers (see Howard, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have
modified the system, as disclosed in Du, as modified by To, to provide the benefit determining a flux amplitude of the received spatial information and comparing the determined flux amplitude to a stored flux value to determine the angular orientation of the body, as disclosed in Howard, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving the accuracy in sensing the location of a component or object in x, y and z coordinates without contact (see Howard, [0004]).
As per claim 18, the combination of Du and To discloses all of the limitations of claim 16, as shown above. Du further discloses the following limitations:
detecting spatial information associated with the wheel by a detector (as cited in claim 1, see at least Du, pg. 4, para. 5; pg. 5, para. 5),
wherein detecting the spatial information comprises: detecting, by the detector, a flux amplitude associated with a magnetic field generated by the detectable element (see at least Du, pg. 5, para. 11, disclosing the signal sensor is 14 formed as a linear Hall sensor <interpreted as measuring magnetic fields, and thus flux amplitudes> and are in response to a change in position of at least two with the driven pulley 20 co-rotating magnetic tripping elements 12 <interpreted as detectable element> a sinusoidal signal as a sensor signal comprising alternating antiphase waveforms); and
analyzing, by a control circuitry of the motion tracking system, the detected flux amplitude to determine the detected position (see at least Du, pg. 6, para. last, disclosing that the signal sensor 14 formed, in particular as a digital Hall sensor and is provided in a number of at least two, wherein the at least two signal sensors 14 each of corresponding, on one side of the driven pulley 20 alternating magnetic poles having magnetic tripping elements 12 can be triggered and generate a square wave signal. The detection device comprises a logical gate 382 and a processor 384, where the logical gate 382 configured to perform a logical operation of the square wave signal to output a third square wave signal) ... . But, neither Du nor To explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Howard:
detected position by comparing the detected flux amplitude to a lookup table stored at memory of the lawn maintenance device (as cited in claim 12, see at least Howard, [0042]).
Du, To and Howard are analogous art to claim 18 because they are in the same field of motion tracking systems for lawn maintenance devices. Du relates to the field of moving devices, in particular to a self-propelled device (see Du, pg. 1, description, line 3 ). To relates to a method of determining the location information of a plurality of wheels mounted on a vehicle by obtaining a relationship between the lateral location of a wheel and the polarity of a transverse acceleration transmitted by an accelerometer of a wheel in response to a lateral turn of the vehicle in a direction of a lateral side of the vehicle (see To, Abstract). Howard relates to three-dimensional (3D) position sensors and more particularly, for example, to a 3D position sensor using an array of magnetometers (see Howard, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have
modified the system, as disclosed in Du, as modified by To, to provide the benefit having the detected position compared to the detected flux amplitude in a lookup table stored at memory of the lawn maintenance device, as disclosed in Howard, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving the accuracy in sensing the location of a component or object in x, y and z coordinates without contact (see Howard, [0004]).
As per claim 19, the combination of Du, To and Howard disclose all of the limitations of claim 18, as shown above. Du further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the control circuitry of the motion tracking system is coupled to the lawn maintenance device (as cited in claim 14, see at least Du, pg. 4, para. 3), and
wherein the detecting the special information further comprising transmitting, from the control circuitry of the motion tracking system, the detected position to the processor of the lawn maintenance device (as cited in claim 14, see at least Du, pg. 6, last para.).
As per claim 20, the combination of Du and To discloses all of the limitations of claim 16, as shown above. But, neither Du nor To explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Howard:
wherein the processor is configured to determine one or more aspects of motion of the lawn maintenance device by comparing the received information with expected information based on instructions provided to a motor controller of the lawn maintenance device (see at least Howard, [0047])
wherein processing the received information further determines an angular orientation of the wheel as measured about a transverse axis normal to the central axis (as cited in claim 16, see at least Du, Fig. 4, pg. 1, para. last; pg. 2, para. 10).
Du, To and Howard are analogous art to claim 20 because they are in the same field of motion tracking systems for lawn maintenance devices. Du relates to the field of moving devices, in particular to a self-propelled device (see Du, pg. 1, description, line 3 ). To relates to a method of determining the location information of a plurality of wheels mounted on a vehicle by obtaining a relationship between the lateral location of a wheel and the polarity of a transverse acceleration transmitted by an accelerometer of a wheel in response to a lateral turn of the vehicle in a direction of a lateral side of the vehicle (see To, Abstract). Howard relates to three-dimensional (3D) position sensors and more particularly, for example, to a 3D position sensor using an array of magnetometers (see Howard, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have
modified the system, as disclosed in Du, as modified by To, to provide the benefit determine one or more aspects of motion of the lawn maintenance device by comparing the received information with expected information based on instructions provided to a motor controller of the lawn maintenance device, as disclosed in Howard, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving the accuracy in sensing the location of a component or object in x, y and z coordinates without contact (see Howard, [0004]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du and Tu as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Number 6,271,755 to Prather et al. (hereafter Prather).
As per claim 15, the combination of Du and To discloses all of the limitations of claim 11, as shown above. But, neither Du nor To explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Prather:
wherein the motion tracking system is retrofittable on an existing lawn maintenance device (see at least Prather, col. 3, ln. 63 to col. 4, ln. 17, disclosing that a shopping cart <analogous to the lawn maintenance device> may be retrofitted with an anti-theft device in a process comprising the steps of removing a front wheel assembly from a U-shaped base frame having a front member and two side members extending from the front member and terminating in first and second back ends; and providing a front suspension system comprising a collapsible front suspension assembly comprising two opposing side surfaces of a support; sensor comprising means for transmitting a trigger signal when a magnetic field or audio frequency is detected;).
Du, To and Prather are analogous art to claim 15 because they both relate to motion tracking systems. Du relates to the field of moving devices, in particular to a self-propelled device (see Du, pg. 1, description, line 3). To relates to a method of determining the location information of a plurality of wheels mounted on a vehicle by obtaining a relationship between the lateral location of a wheel and the polarity of a transverse acceleration transmitted by an accelerometer of a wheel in response to a lateral turn of the vehicle in a direction of a lateral side of the vehicle (see To, Abstract). Prather relates to an anti-theft system for a shopping cart the has a sensor for detecting a first signal (see at least Prather, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Du, as modified by To, to provide the benefit of having the motion tracking system be retrofittable on an existing lawn maintenance device, as disclosed in Ran, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit providing a method of attaching the detection system, after the lawn maintenance device has been assembled and distributed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M. BRADY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4;30 pm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M. BRADY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4;30 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
PATRICK M. BRADY III
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/PATRICK M BRADY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights