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 .
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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on July 31, 2025. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 13 and 16 have been amended. No claims have been newly cancelled or added. Accordingly, Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s amendments and remarks, filed on July 31, 2025, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive because Morrison et al. (US20220039313A1) does not appear to disclose at least the limitations “…receive, via the network interface, an approximate location of an obstacle from the external device, wherein the approximate location of the obstacle corresponds to a user selected location on a map of the operating area displayed on the external device” and “…to move the robotic garden tool to the approximate location of the obstacle to detect the obstacle to generate a second virtual boundary associated with the obstacles” as amended into independent claims 1/13. However, due to the nature of the amendments of at least Claims 1/13 and 2, the scope of the applicant’s invention has changed and thus requires new analysis and new application of prior art. Upon further search, the examiner found that new art Bousani et al. (US20210373562A) and Doughty et al. (US20170020064A1) teaches the amended limitations and have been reflected in the updated claim mapping below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison et al. (US Publication Number US20220039313A1; hereinafter Morrison) in view of Bousani et al. (US Publication Number US20210373562A1; hereinafter Bousani).
Regarding Claims 1 and 13 (independent), which recite substantially similar subject matter, Morrison discloses a robotic gardening tool (Abstract, “An autonomous lawn mower is described which is provided with boundary information of a region, explores the region, and based on information collected while exploring, is configured to mow the region in accordance with a mow pattern”) comprising:
a housing (Paragraph 0024, “The mower 100 may comprise a chassis 102, front and rear wheels 110 and 112, mower deck assembly 104, and a mower body 132”),
a set of wheels coupled to the housing and configured to rotate to propel the robotic garden tool on an operating surface in an operating area (Paragraph 0024, “The mower 100 may comprise a chassis 102, front and rear wheels 110 and 112, mower deck assembly 104, and a mower body 132”),
at least one wheel motor 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 (Paragraph 0025, “In an example, each rear wheel 110 may be coupled to a drive mechanism, e.g., at least one motor (not shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B)”),
at least one sensor configured to generate signals associated with an object within the operating area (Paragraph 0021, “This suite of sensors provides a view of the environment in which the autonomous mower is operating such that the mower can explore the environment to identify obstacles and generate mow patterns”),
a network interface configured to communicate with an external device (Paragraph 0034, “The communications circuits 208 may comprise one or more communications transceivers (modems) 240, 242 and their associated antennas 114 and 116. More specifically, the communication circuits 208 may include, but are not limited to, a pair of WiFi transceivers 240, a pair of LTE transceiver 242, or the like”),
a first electronic processor coupled to the network interface (Figures 2-3 and Paragraph 0039 describe controller as comprising a processor (“The controller 202 may comprise at least one processor(s) 300…”) and is shown coupled to the network interface), wherein the electronic processor is configured to:
control the at least one wheel motor to move the robotic garden tool within a first virtual boundary that defines the operating area (Paragraph 0063 and Figure 7, FIG. 7 depicts a flow diagram of an explore method 700 that is invoked when the explore mode (408 in FIG. 4) is selected in accordance with an example of the invention. In the explore mode, the mower controller executes the explore program 314 of FIG. 3 and the mower operates autonomously to explore an area within a previously defined boundary),
receive, from the at least one sensor, an obstacle signal associated with the obstacle located within the operating area (Paragraph 0066 and Figure 7, At 714, as the mower explores, the method 700 collects sensor data regarding the environment surrounding the mower. The collected data is used at 716 to identify objects and their locations within the area),
determine a first location of the robotic garden tool at a time corresponding to when the first electronic processor received the obstacle signal (Paragraph 0033, Mower pose (location and orientation) may be detected, received, or determined based at least in part on the one or more sensor systems described above and/or based at least in part on data received from a GNSS receiver 214; Paragraph 0066 and Figure 7, The collected data is used at 716 to identify objects and their locations within the area. In one example, objects may be identified simply as perimeter shapes of obstacles covering certain portions of the area that are defined as interior boundaries that are not to be mowed; Examiner notes that determining the location of obstacles within the area based on data received by the mower necessarily requires determining the location(s) of the mower),
determine a second location of the obstacle based on the obstacle signal and the first location of the garden tool (Paragraph 0066 and Figure 7, The collected data is used at 716 to identify objects and their locations within the area. In one example, objects may be identified simply as perimeter shapes of obstacles covering certain portions of the area that are defined as interior boundaries that are not to be mowed),
generate mapping information of the operating area that includes the second virtual boundary based on the second location of the obstacle (Paragraph 0068 and Figures 7-8, At 718, the method 700 executes the map and pattern generator (328 in FIG. 3) to utilize the collected sensor data to generate an explore map, i.e., a map of the area within the boundary where obstacles are identified. The explore map may represent the obstacles are areas, geometric shapes, blobs, etc. in which the mower may not mow), and
control the at least one wheel motor to move the robotic garden tool in the operating area to remain outside of the second virtual boundary based on the mapping information (Paragraph 0100, FIG. 13 depicts a flow diagram of a method 1300 of controlling the mower as it traverses between waypoints of the mow pattern; Examiner notes that the mow pattern avoids obstacles based on mapping information (e.g. explore map)).
However, Morrison does not explicitly disclose: receive, via the network interface, an approximate location of an obstacle from the external device, wherein the approximate location of the obstacle corresponds to a user selected location on a map of the operating area displayed on the external device, and to move the robotic garden tool to the approximate location of the obstacle to detect the obstacle to generate a second virtual boundary associated with the obstacle.
Nevertheless, Bousani teaches a robotic mowing system configured to generate a first and second boundary (see at least Abstract) comprising:
receive, via the network interface, an approximate location of an obstacle from the external device, wherein the approximate location of the obstacle corresponds to a user selected location on a map of the operating area displayed on the external device (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0053 describes receiving a set of coordinates (via “a user device”) representing the initial contours of a user-defined boundary (“At S230…coordinates defining the contours of the precision boundary….S230 includes receiving a set of coordinates defining a path”); Paragraph 0072 describes obstacles being located along the boundary (“Where a user wishes to construct the precision boundary in an area including discontinuities in the form of obstacles or other physical barriers which block a robotic mowing system…”) which reasonably indicates the user defines the boundary based on the location of physical obstacles/objects/barriers; Examiner notes that “in an area” is being interpreted as along the boundary due to discontinuities including physical barriers such as fences/walls); and
to move the robotic garden tool to the approximate location of the obstacle to detect the obstacle to generate a second virtual boundary associated with the obstacle (Paragraph 0053 describes the robotic system moving to the user-defined boundary (“S230 includes receiving a set of coordinates defining a path, guiding the robotic device to the specific path defined by the coordinates…”) in order to fine-tune the contours and generate a more precise boundary (“…determining the precise contours of the precision boundary based on the guidance”); Paragraph 0055 describes the fine-tuning process as being based on the physical boundary of obstacles/objects/barriers (“…the precision boundary is fine-tuned based on bounds in the area encountered during the exploration such as, but not limited to, physical bounds which block movement by the robotic mowing system, physical bounds which do not block movement by the robotic mowing system, and virtual bounds”) which reasonably indicate that the robotic system travels toward the obstacles that are along the user-defined boundary in order to align the boundary with the physical boundaries of the obstacles (e.g. so that the boundaries abut)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Morrison invention to expand the features for generating a virtual boundary based on user input (Paragraph 0057, “…a person may enter the boundary data…”) to include features that allow the autonomous lawn mower to fine-tune a user-defined boundary, as taught by Bousani, for the benefit of increasing the precision of user-defined boundaries (see at least Paragraph 0024).
Regarding Claim 4, Morrison as currently modified teaches claim 1. Morrison further discloses:
wherein the at least one sensor includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a millimeter wave radar sensor, an optical camera, an infrared sensor, or combinations thereof (Paragraph 0027 and Figure 2, “The exterior of the body 132 supports various sensors including but not limited to forward viewing camera(s) 120, rear viewing camera(s) 122, side viewing camera(s) 138, radar antenna 136, global navigation satellite system (GNSS) antenna 118, communications antennas 114 and 116 as well as a number of other sensors (described in detail with respect to FIG. 2) that are within the body 132”).
Regarding Claims 6 and 17, Morrison as currently modified teaches claim 1 and 13. Morrison further discloses:
wherein the first electronic processor is configured to identify a type of obstacle of the obstacle based on the obstacle signal (Paragraph 0111, “The obstacle may be classified using the semantics of the obstacle to determine the type of obstacle, i.e., stick, litter, branch, rock, toy, etc.”).
Regarding Claim 8, Morrison as currently modified teaches claim 6. Morrison further discloses:
wherein the first electronic processor is configured to identify the type of obstacle of the obstacle using a machine learning algorithm of an artificial intelligence system to analyze the obstacle signal, wherein the artificial intelligence system includes one or more neural networks (Paragraph 0066, “In other examples, the objects may be specifically identified through object recognition algorithms to identify trees, bushes, buildings, etc. Such identification may be performed using machine learning algorithms. One non-limiting example of machine learning algorithms is an Artificial Neural Network (ANN). ANNs are biologically inspired algorithms which pass input data through a series of connected layers to produce an expected output. Each layer in a neural network may also comprise another neural network, or may comprise any number of layers (whether convolutional or not). As may be understood in the context of this disclosure, a neural network may utilize machine learning, which may refer to a broad class of such algorithms in which an output is generated based on learned parameters. Here, various neural networks may be trained to output object identification and location based on at least a portion of the sensor data. Such output may then be associated with the two- or three-dimensional map”).
Regarding Claims 10 and 18, Morrison as currently modified teaches claims 1 and 13. Morrison further discloses:
wherein the obstacle is a first obstacle that is a first type of obstacle, and wherein the mapping information includes a third virtual boundary based on a third location of a second obstacle that is a second type of obstacle different from the first type of obstacle (Paragraph 0111, “At 1510, the method 1500 may analyze the sensor data to determine if the obstacle is organic or not. An organic obstacle may be a small branch, leaf pile or other object that can be mowed over, i.e., “mowable.” Again, such an analysis may be applied to the sensor imagery upon request or continuously. The obstacle may be classified using the semantics of the obstacle to determine the type of obstacle, i.e., stick, litter, branch, rock, toy, etc.”),
wherein the first electronic processor is configured to control the at least one wheel motor to move the robotic garden tool in the operating area to operate in a first manner nearby the second virtual boundary and operate in a second manner nearby the third virtual boundary, wherein the first manner is different than the second manner and wherein the first manner of operation is based on the first type of obstacle of the first obstacle, and wherein the second manner of operation is based on the second type of obstacle of the second obstacle (Paragraph 0111, “At 1512, the sensor data is matched to mowable criteria such as size and type of object as well as the operating company's obstacle handling policy. For example, the cameras may be used to image the object and the analysis may determine the size and type of object, e.g., small branch (mowable) versus large branch (not mowable)… If the object is deemed mowable, the method 1500 proceeds to 1520 and continues to mow in accordance with the mow pattern. If, at 1510, the object is deemed inorganic, or, at 1512, the object does not meet the mowable criteria, the method 1500 may proceed to 1514 where the method 1500 may analyze the sensor data and determine whether the obstacle is avoidable”; Examiner notes that the mower operates in a first manner depending on the first type of obstacle (e.g. mowable) and a second manner depending on the second type of obstacle (e.g. not mowable)).
Regarding Claim 14, Morrison as currently modified teaches claim 13. Morrison does not explicitly recite: controlling, with the first electronic processor, the at least one wheel motor to move the robotic garden tool toward the second location of the obstacle based on receiving an approximate location of the obstacle from an external device, the approximate location of the obstacle being received by the external device via a first user input.
Nevertheless, Bousani further teaches:
controlling, with the first electronic processor, the at least one wheel motor to move the robotic garden tool toward the second location of the obstacle (Paragraph 0053 describes the robotic system moving to the user-defined boundary (“S230 includes receiving a set of coordinates defining a path, guiding the robotic device to the specific path defined by the coordinates…”) in order to fine-tune the contours and generate a more precise boundary (“…determining the precise contours of the precision boundary based on the guidance”); Paragraph 0055 describes the fine-tuning process as being based on the physical boundary of obstacles/objects/barriers (“…the precision boundary is fine-tuned based on bounds in the area encountered during the exploration such as, but not limited to, physical bounds which block movement by the robotic mowing system, physical bounds which do not block movement by the robotic mowing system, and virtual bounds”) which reasonably indicate that the robotic system travels toward the obstacles that are along the user-defined boundary in order to align the boundary with the physical boundaries of the obstacles (e.g. so that the boundaries abut)) based on
receiving an approximate location of the obstacle from an external device, the approximate location of the obstacle being received by the external device via a first user input (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0053 describes receiving a set of coordinates (via “a user device”) representing the initial contours of a user-defined boundary (“At S230…coordinates defining the contours of the precision boundary….S230 includes receiving a set of coordinates defining a path”); Paragraph 0072 describes obstacles being located along the boundary (“Where a user wishes to construct the precision boundary in an area including discontinuities in the form of obstacles or other physical barriers which block a robotic mowing system…”) which reasonably indicates the user defines the boundary based on the location of physical obstacles/objects/barriers; Examiner notes that “in an area” is being interpreted as along the boundary due to discontinuities including physical barriers such as fences/walls).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Morrison invention to expand the features for generating a virtual boundary based on user input (Paragraph 0057, “…a person may enter the boundary data…”) to include features that allow the autonomous lawn mower to fine-tune a user-defined boundary, as taught by Bousani, for the benefit of increasing the precision of user-defined boundaries (see at least Paragraph 0024).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison in view of Bousani and Doughty et al. (US Publication Number US20170020064A1; hereinafter Doughty).
Regarding Claim 2, Morrison as currently modified teaches claim 1. Morrison further discloses wherein the electronic processor is configured to:
determine a height of the grass at various parts of the ground surface (Paragraph 0050, “The explore mode 408 may be selected when a boundary has previously been defined and the mower is allowed to autonomously explore the interior of the boundary to determine the location of obstacles (e.g., trees, bushes, buildings, fences, ponds, creeks and/or the like) as well as collect information regarding the mowing environment (e.g., grass thickness, grass height, hills, and/or the like”)).
However, Morrison does not explicitly recite: detect which parts of a ground surface on which the robotic garden tool is traveling include grass; and transmit, via the network interface and to the external device, information corresponding to the height of the grass at various parts of the ground surface, wherein the information corresponding to the height of the grass at various parts of the ground surface is displayed on the map of the operating area that is displayed on the external device.
Nevertheless, Bousani further teaches:
detect which parts of a ground surface on which the robotic garden tool is traveling include grass (Paragraph 0060, “…applying a machine learning model trained using training images depicting grass that is trained to classify areas into either grass or not grass”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Morrison invention to expand features for collecting ground surface information (Paragraph 0050, “… collect information regarding the mowing environment (e.g., grass thickness, grass height, hills, and/or the like)”) by including features that allow an autonomous lawn mower to detect areas with grass, as taught by Bousani, for the benefit of differentiating between mowable and non-mowable areas.
However, Morrison as currently modified still does not explicitly teach: transmit, via the network interface and to the external device, information corresponding to the height of the grass at various parts of the ground surface, wherein the information corresponding to the height of the grass at various parts of the ground surface is displayed on the map of the operating area that is displayed on the external device.
Nevertheless, Doughty teaches an autonomous lawn mower configured to map an operational area (Abstract, “autonomous robot lawnmower includes traversing a mowable area with the autonomous robot lawnmower carrying a cutter and a vegetation characteristic sensor”) comprising:
transmit, via the network interface and to the external device, information corresponding to the height of the grass at various parts of the ground surface, wherein the information corresponding to the height of the grass at various parts of the ground surface is displayed on the map of the operating area that is displayed on the external device (Figure 7B and Paragraph 0113 describe displaying grass height information on an external device (“The user device 510 also displays the map 705b showing variation of grass height of the vegetation in the mowable area, as shown in FIG. 7B…The legend 710b includes three levels 715b, 720b, 725b of grass height: a low level 715b, a medium level 720b, and a high level 725b”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Morrison invention to expand features for collecting grass height information (Paragraph 0050, “… collect information regarding the mowing environment (e.g., grass thickness, grass height, hills, and/or the like)”) by including features that allow an autonomous lawn mower system to transmit and display grass height information, as taught by Doughty, for the benefit of improving user convenience (see at least Paragraph 0085, “These maps provide the user with a convenient visual tool to determine portions of the mowable area that may require lawn care to improve the health of those portions”).
Claims 3, 12, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison in view of Bousani and Wu et al. (US Publication Number US20220167820A1; hereinafter Wu).
Regarding Claims 3 and 15, Morrison as currently modified teaches claims 1 and 13. Morrison further discloses:
wherein the first electronic processor is configured to generate the mapping information that includes the second virtual boundary by: controlling the at least one wheel motor to move the robotic garden tool around a perimeter of the obstacle in response to detecting the obstacle based on the obstacle signal (Paragraph 0072, “Each time an object (e.g., playground 806 or tree 804) or boundary 614 is encountered by the mower, the mower makes a turn and continues to “stripe” the region. At objects, the mower may follow a path 910 around the object to map its location. For larger objects, such as the playground 806, the mower may move around the perimeter of the obstacle upon first encounter or it may continue a striping pattern where a turn is made on each encounter until the perimeter of the object is mapped”),
recording a plurality of distance measurements between the robotic garden tool and the obstacle as the robotic garden tool moves around the perimeter of the obstacle (Paragraph 0072, “The differing object behavior may be based on any one or more of sensor segmentation, detections, classifications, a percentage of sensor data represented by the obstacle (which may be associated with a distance to the obstacle), etc.)”),
recording a plurality of first locations of the robotic garden tool as the robotic garden tool moves around the perimeter of the obstacle (Paragraph 0033, “Mower pose (location and orientation) may be detected, received, or determined based at least in part on the one or more sensor systems described above and/or based at least in part on data received from a GNSS receiver 214”; Paragraph 0066, “The collected data is used at 716 to identify objects and their locations within the area. In one example, objects may be identified simply as perimeter shapes of obstacles covering certain portions of the area that are defined as interior boundaries that are not to be mowed”; Examiner notes that determining the location of obstacles within the area based on data received by the mower necessarily requires determining the location(s) of the mower); and
determining the second virtual boundary based on respective distance measurements of the plurality of distance measurements, and respective first locations of the plurality of first locations (Paragraph 0068, “At 718, the method 700 executes the map and pattern generator (328 in FIG. 3) to utilize the collected sensor data to generate an explore map, i.e., a map of the area within the boundary where obstacles are identified. The explore map may represent the obstacles are areas, geometric shapes, blobs, etc. in which the mower may not mow”).
However, Morrison does not explicitly disclose: a plurality of angle measurements between the robotic garden tool and the obstacle.
Nevertheless, Wu teaches a mobile robot (Abstract, “A robot (100) working area map construction method and apparatus”) that can generate a map of a working area based on:
a plurality of angle measurements (Paragraph 0049, “A data processing apparatus, such as a Digital Signal Processor (DSP), connected to the light-receiving unit records obstacle distances of all angles relative to an angle of 0 degree of the robot, and transmits the obstacle distances to a data processing unit, such as an application processor (AP) including a central processing unit (CPU), in the control system 130. The CPU runs a particle filter—based positioning algorithm to obtain a current location of the robot and draws a map based on the location for the use in navigation”).
Wu is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of recording distance and angle measurements of an obstacle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Morrison invention to incorporate the teachings of Wu by including features that allow both distance and angle measurements to be recorded. Doing so would allow for more accurate representations of obstacles on a map.
Regarding Claims 12 and 20, Morrison as currently modified teaches claims 1 and 13. Morrison further discloses:
wherein the first electronic processor is configured to determine at least a portion of the first virtual boundary by receiving, from the at least one sensor, a second obstacle signal associated with a barrier that at least partially defines the operating area (Paragraph 0050, “The explore mode 408 may be selected when a boundary has previously been defined and the mower is allowed to autonomously explore the interior of the boundary to determine the location of obstacles (e.g., trees, bushes, buildings, fences, ponds, creeks and/or the like) as well as collect information regarding the mowing environment (e.g., grass thickness, grass height, hills, and/or the like)”; Examiner notes that an obstacle, such as a fence or building, is equivalent to a barrier that at least partially defines the operating area),
controlling the at least one wheel motor to move the robotic garden tool along the barrier in response to detecting the barrier based on the second obstacle signal (Paragraph 0028, “The sensors gather information regarding the environment surrounding the autonomous lawn mower 100 such that the mower 100 is able to autonomously mow a region of lawn within a specified boundary as well as identify obstacles to be avoided, ignored, or cause the mower to cease operation and request human assistance”),
recording a plurality of distance measurements between the robotic garden tool and the barrier as the robotic garden tool moves along the barrier (Paragraph 0072, “The differing object behavior may be based on any one or more of sensor segmentation, detections, classifications, a percentage of sensor data represented by the obstacle (which may be associated with a distance to the obstacle), etc.”),
recording a plurality of first locations of the robotic garden tool as the robotic garden tool moves along the barrier (Paragraph 0033, “Mower pose (location and orientation) may be detected, received, or determined based at least in part on the one or more sensor systems described above and/or based at least in part on data received from a GNSS receiver 214”; Paragraph 0066, “The collected data is used at 716 to identify objects and their locations within the area. In one example, objects may be identified simply as perimeter shapes of obstacles covering certain portions of the area that are defined as interior boundaries that are not to be mowed”; Examiner notes that determining the location of obstacles within the area based on data received by the mower necessarily requires determining the location(s) of the mower);
determining the at least a portion of the first virtual boundary based on respective distance measurements of the plurality of distance measurements, and respective first locations of the plurality of first locations (Paragraph 0068, “At 718, the method 700 executes the map and pattern generator (328 in FIG. 3) to utilize the collected sensor data to generate an explore map, i.e., a map of the area within the boundary where obstacles are identified. The explore map may represent the obstacles are areas, geometric shapes, blobs, etc. in which the mower may not mow”);
generating the mapping information of the operating area, wherein the mapping information includes the at least a portion of the first virtual boundary (Paragraph 0068, “At 718, the method 700 executes the map and pattern generator (328 in FIG. 3) to utilize the collected sensor data to generate an explore map, i.e., a map of the area within the boundary where obstacles are identified. The explore map may represent the obstacles are areas, geometric shapes, blobs, etc. in which the mower may not mow”); and
controlling the at least one wheel motor to move the robotic garden tool in the operating area to remain inside the first virtual boundary based on the mapping information (Paragraph 0050, “The explore mode 408 may be selected when a boundary has previously been defined and the mower is allowed to autonomously explore the interior of the boundary to determine the location of obstacles (e.g., trees, bushes, buildings, fences, ponds, creeks and/or the like) as well as collect information regarding the mowing environment (e.g., grass thickness, grass height, hills, and/or the like)”; Examiner notes that the mower remains inside the first virtual boundary).
However, Morrison does not explicitly disclose: a plurality of angle measurements between the robotic garden tool and the obstacle.
Nevertheless, Wu teaches a mobile robot (Abstract, “A robot (100) working area map construction method and apparatus”) that can generate a map of a working area based on:
a plurality of angle measurements (Paragraph 0049, “A data processing apparatus, such as a Digital Signal Processor (DSP), connected to the light-receiving unit records obstacle distances of all angles relative to an angle of 0 degree of the robot, and transmits the obstacle distances to a data processing unit, such as an application processor (AP) including a central processing unit (CPU), in the control system 130. The CPU runs a particle filter—based positioning algorithm to obtain a current location of the robot and draws a map based on the location for the use in navigation. The positioning algorithm is preferably simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM)”).
Wu is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of recording distance and angle measurements of an obstacle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Morrison invention to incorporate the teachings of Wu by including features that allow both distance and angle measurements to be recorded. Doing so would allow for more accurate representations of obstacles on a map.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison in view of Bousani and Ko et al. (US Publication Number US20200037498A1; hereinafter Ko).
Regarding Claims 5 and 16, Morrison as currently modified teaches claims 1 and 13. Morrison further discloses:
wherein the map includes the second location of the obstacle, the second virtual boundary of the obstacle, or both the second location and the second virtual boundary (Paragraph 0071 and Figure 8, “The result of the explore process is, for example, an explore map 802 that indicates areas that cannot be mowed—for example, areas 816 and 818, respectively representing the tree 804 and playground 806. The mowable region is the remaining area 820”).
However, Morrison does not explicitly disclose: wherein the first electronic processor is configured to transmit, via the network interface, the mapping information to the external device for displaying of a map of the operating area by the external device.
Nevertheless, Ko teaches a robotic garden tool in communication with an external device (Paragraph 0082, “FIG. 2A illustrates a state where the moving robot 100 according to the present disclosure performs communications with a terminal 200 and a server 300. The moving robot 100 according to the present disclosure may exchange data with the terminal 200 through network communication”) comprising:
wherein the first electronic processor is configured to transmit, via the network interface, the mapping information to the external device for displaying of a map of the operating area by the external device (Paragraphs 0306-0308, “As illustrated in FIG. 8, a boundary set for the moving robot 100 and a map screen showing a travel area set based on the boundary may be output on the display unit 251 of the terminal 200. On the other hand, when there are a plurality of moving robots capable of performing communication, and a plurality of maps is stored for one moving robot, a user interface (UI) for selecting a moving robot and a map may be displayed on the display unit 251 of the terminal 200. Image objects 10 am, 10 bm, 10 cm corresponding to registered fixed obstacles may be displayed inside a travel area 801 of a map screen”).
Ko is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of displaying a map on an external device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Morrison invention to incorporate the teachings of Ko by including terminal device 200 with display unit 251 that can display a map of the operating area. Doing so would improve user experience by allowing a user to remotely view the operating area through a terminal device.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison in view of Bousani and Cui et al. (US Publication Number US20210182579A1; hereinafter Cui).
Regarding Claim 7, Morrison as currently modified teaches claim 6. Morrison does not explicitly disclose: transmit, via the network interface of the robotic garden tool, the type of obstacle of the obstacle to the external device; and receive, via the network interface and from the external device, an indication of whether the type of obstacle of the obstacle was correctly identified by the first electronic processor, wherein the indication is received by the external device via a first user input.
Nevertheless, Cui teaches a control method for a mobile robot to identify different types of obstacles (Abstract, “The present application provides a mobile robot, a control method and control system of the mobile robot”; Paragraph 0116, “To improve the accuracy of identifying the type of the target obstacle, referring to FIG. 8, which shows a flow diagram of the control method”) comprising:
transmit, via the network interface of the robotic garden tool, the type of obstacle of the obstacle to the external device; and receive, via the network interface and from the external device, an indication of whether the type of obstacle of the obstacle was correctly identified by the first electronic processor, wherein the indication is received by the external device via a first user input (Paragraph 0145, “In an embodiment, the processing device can also mark the identified obstacle type at the location of the target obstacle in a map constructed in advance, based on the acquired positional relationship between the target obstacle and the mobile robot and the identified obstacle type, to generate a map marked with the obstacle type. The map can be used for interaction between the mobile robot and a human. For example, the mobile robot transmits the map marked with the obstacle type to user equipment, so that the user acts on the target obstacle at corresponding location based on the map, such as removing the target obstacle. As another example, the mobile robot transmits the map marked with the obstacle type to user equipment, so that the user confirms and/or corrects the obstacle type”).
Cui is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of allowing a user to confirm the type of obstacle that was detected by a mobile robot. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Morrison invention to incorporate the teachings of Cui by including features that allow a user to confirm the obstacle type detected by the autonomous lawn mower. Doing so would allow the autonomous lawn mower be controlled based on the type of obstacle detected (Paragraph 0143, “In step S240, a navigation movement and/or behavior of the mobile robot is controlled based on the acquired positional relationship between the target obstacle and the mobile robot, and the identified obstacle type”).
Regarding Claim 9, Morrison as currently modified teaches claim 1. Morrison does not explicitly disclose: wherein the first electronic processor is configured to receive, via the network interface of the robotic garden tool, a type of obstacle of the obstacle from the external device, wherein the type of obstacle of the obstacle is received by the external device via a first user input.
Nevertheless, Cui teaches a control method for a mobile robot to identify different types of obstacles (Abstract, “The present application provides a mobile robot, a control method and control system of the mobile robot”; Paragraph 0116, “To improve the accuracy of identifying the type of the target obstacle, referring to FIG. 8, which shows a flow diagram of the control method”) comprising:
wherein the first electronic processor is configured to receive, via the network interface of the robotic garden tool, a type of obstacle of the obstacle from the external device, wherein the type of obstacle of the obstacle is received by the external device via a first user input (Paragraph 0131, “In another embodiment, the input device includes a network interface unit which is configured to acquire instruction containing object type label from the terminal device which is connected in a wireless manner. For example, users input instruction containing object type label via a terminal device which is in wireless connection with the mobile robot, and the mobile robot acquires the input instruction via the network interface unit and sends the instruction to the processing device for subsequent operations”).
Cui is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of allowing a user to classify an obstacle detected by a mobile robot. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Morrison invention to incorporate the teachings of Cui by including features that allow an obstacle type to be determined based on user input. Doing so would allow the autonomous lawn mower to be controlled based on the type of obstacle detected (Paragraph 0143, “In step S240, a navigation movement and/or behavior of the mobile robot is controlled based on the acquired positional relationship between the target obstacle and the mobile robot, and the identified obstacle type”).
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison in view of Bousani and Frick et al. (US Publication Number US20230270044A1, filed on November 03, 2020; hereinafter Frick).
Regarding Claims 11 and 19, Morrison as currently modified teaches claims 10 and 18. Morrison does not explicitly disclose: wherein the first manner of operation includes the first electronic processor controlling an edge cutting motor of an edge cutter to be enabled as the robotic garden tool moves around the second virtual boundary; and wherein the second manner of operation includes the first electronic processor controlling the edge cutting motor to be disabled as the robotic garden tool moves around the third virtual boundary.
Nevertheless, Frick teaches a robotic mower with multiple operating modes (Paragraph 0032, “Embodiments of the present disclosure are directed to autonomous working machines or vehicles and to methods of operating the same within a defined work region of a property. Such machines may operate autonomously and may automatically (or under operator control) change operating modes based upon detected situational parameters, or upon remote operator command. For example, the vehicle may be an autonomous lawn mower having one or more cutting members or blades adapted to cut grass as the mower travels over the work region”) comprising:
wherein the first manner of operation includes the first electronic processor controlling an edge cutting motor of an edge cutter to be enabled as the robotic garden tool moves around the second virtual boundary (Paragraph 0092 and Figure 9, “FIG. 9 diagrammatically illustrates another embodiment of the present disclosure that also provides a mower 300 having the desired two operating modes…That is, instead of shifting a single cutting blade assembly, the mower 300 may include a powered first cutting blade assembly 320 that operates alone (e.g., with the second cutting blade assembly deactivated) for mower operation in the first operating mode (wherein again, the first operating mode provides a generous offset of the blade tip circle 321 from the sidewalls 103), and one or more powered second cutting blade assemblies 360, 362. The second cutting blade assemblies (located proximate respective sidewalls in the illustrated examples) are powered by motors (e.g., motors 366 and 367, respectively). The motors, 366, 367 may be independently activated by the controller when the mower is in the second operating mode but be deactivated when the mower is in the first operating mode. That is, the controller may independently and separately control rotation of the first and second cutting blade assemblies”; Examiner notes that the second cutting blade assemblies are enabled in a second operating mode) and
wherein the second manner of operation includes the first electronic processor controlling the edge cutting motor to be disabled as the robotic garden tool moves around the third virtual boundary (Paragraph 0092 and Figure 9, “That is, instead of shifting a single cutting blade assembly, the mower 300 may include a powered first cutting blade assembly 320 that operates alone (e.g., with the second cutting blade assembly deactivated) for mower operation in the first operating mode (wherein again, the first operating mode provides a generous offset of the blade tip circle 321 from the sidewalls 103), and one or more powered second cutting blade assemblies 360, 362. The second cutting blade assemblies (located proximate respective sidewalls in the illustrated examples) are powered by motors (e.g., motors 366 and 367, respectively). The motors, 366, 367 may be independently activated by the controller when the mower is in the second operating mode but be deactivated when the mower is in the first operating mode. That is, the controller may independently and separately control rotation of the first and second cutting blade assemblies”; Examiner notes that the second cutting blade assemblies are disabled in a first operating mode).
Frick is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of enabling or disabling secondary motor(s) based on a specified manner of operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Morrison invention to incorporate the teachings of Frick by including features that allow the autonomous lawn mower to have a plurality of operating modes wherein secondary cutting blade assemblies may be enabled or disabled. Doing so would allow for a more robust mower (Paragraph 0092, “By powering the first cutting blade assembly 320 and one or both of the assemblies 360 and 362 simultaneously, the mower 300 may not only provide the ability to trim around boundaries/obstacles, but may also operate with an increased cutting width”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EISEN YIM whose telephone number is (703) 756-5976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing u