/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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. SE2251302-2, filed on 11/08/2022.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/06/2024 and 05/15/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-21, and 35 filed on 11/07/2023 are presently examined. Claims 6, 13, and 22-34 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5, 7-11, 14-15, 20, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frick et al. (US 20230270044 A1) in view of Hunt et al. (US 7024843 B2), hereinafter referred to as Frick and Hunt.
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Frick discloses A robotic lawn mower comprising a body ([0008] “a lawn mower including: a housing”), at least two drive wheels that form a pair of drive wheels arranged along a drive wheel axis with a center, the center being positioned between the drive wheels in the pair ([0041] “One or both rear wheels 106 may be powered or driven by a propulsion system”),
the robotic lawn mower further comprising at least one swivelable wheel ([0041] “front wheels 108 may freely caster relative to the housing 102 (e.g., about vertical axes).”), a control unit adapted to control the operation of the robotic lawn mower ([0051] “The mower 100 may also include the electronic controller 112 adapted to monitor and control various mower functions.”), at least a first rotatable grass cutting disc having a rotation axis ([FIG. 9] there are at least four possible rotatable grass cutting discs: 364, 363, 361, and 321. Each rotate around their own axis.), wherein
a first end portion is facing a forward travelling direction and a second end portion is facing a reverse travelling direction wherein (there is a front end and rear end of the mower),
when the robotic lawn mower during grass cutting in an operation area is approaching a boundary of the operation area the control unit is adapted to position the robotic lawn mower such that there is a shortest distance between the center and the boundary ([0033] “operation of the mower in the second operating mode allows the mower to more effectively trim closer to boundaries of, and objects within, the work region.”) and to
control the drive wheels to turn in mutually different directions ([0041] “mower direction may be controlled via differential rotation of the two rear wheels 106 in a manner similar to a conventional zero-turn-radius (ZTR) riding mower.”)
Frick fails to explicitly disclose control the drive wheels to turn in mutually different directions such that the second end portion of the robotic lawn mower performs an arcuate movement along a cutting arc enabling the first cutting disc to cut grass within the cutting arc wherein the boundary is positioned between a border and the operation area and where the shortest distance admits the cutting arc to have a closest arc portion that is closest to the border without passing the border.
However, Hunt teaches control the drive wheels to turn in mutually different directions such that the second end portion of the robotic lawn mower performs an arcuate movement along a cutting arc enabling the first cutting disc to cut grass within the cutting arc wherein the boundary is positioned between a border and the operation area and where the shortest distance admits the cutting arc to have a closest arc portion that is closest to the border without passing the border ([column 4, lines 36-38] “The zero radius turn may be used to "clean-up" corners or mow interior corners of a work area” [column 12, lines 11-14] “a point where the mower 10 could service the work area or extending beyond the work area without the mower or one or more of its cutting blades extending beyond a boundary” [FIGs 6 and 7]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frick with Hunt to use Frick’s zero-turn-radius differential wheel control to cut an arc in the crass closest to the border without passing it. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use zero radius mowing maneuvers in order to provide a solution for the need for a mower with improved maneuverability and the smallest possible turning radius (Hunt [column 1 lines 30-32] “there is a need to provide a mower with improved maneuverability and the smallest possible or desired turning radius.”).
Regarding claim 5, Frick discloses The robotic lawn mower according to claim 1, wherein a center of the cutting arc is positioned along the drive wheel axis, or wherein the center of the cutting arc is positioned in the center of the drive wheel axis ([See FIGs 2, 8-10] the center blade’s cutting arc is aligned to the center of the drive wheel axis.).
Regarding claim 7, Frick fails to explicitly disclose The robotic lawn mower according to claim 1, wherein the cutting arc has an angular extension that exceeds 180 degrees wherein the control unit is adapted to control the robotic lawn mower to continue moving when a second end center, constituting a rearmost point, that has followed the extension of the cutting arc has reached an end of the cutting arc.
However, Hunt teaches the cutting arc has an angular extension that exceeds 180 degrees wherein the control unit is adapted to control the robotic lawn mower to continue moving when a second end center, constituting a rearmost point, that has followed the extension of the cutting arc has reached an end of the cutting arc ([column 14 line 56 through column 15 line 6] “the rotating mode may be combined with the linear mode or the arc mode to produce a linear-rotating mode or an arc-rotating mode … the rotating mode, the linear-rotating mode, or the curved-rotating mode” [FIGs 18-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frick with Hunt to. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to combine rotating, curves, and linear rotating modes in order to align a point on the mower to a reference point for operation (Hunt [column 15, lines 4-6] “to align a critical point of the mowing deck with a reference point or axis for a subsequent or planned trimming operation.”).
Regarding claim 8, Frick discloses The robotic lawn mower according to claim 1, wherein, when the robotic lawn mower has moved back towards the operation area such that there is a shortest distance between the center and the boundary, the center is positioned within the operation area ([0033] “operation of the mower in the second operating mode allows the mower to more effectively trim closer to boundaries of, and objects within, the work region.” [FIGs 4, 6, 7] mower center is in the operation area with the shortest distance possible between the boundary and the center of the mower depending on the mowing mode.).
Regarding claim 9, Frick discloses The robotic lawn mower according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is adapted to position the robotic lawn mower such that there is a predetermined shortest distance between the center and the boundary (0033] “operation of the mower in the second operating mode allows the mower to more effectively trim closer to boundaries of, and objects within, the work region.” [FIGs 4, 6, 7] mower center is in the operation area with the shortest distance possible between the boundary and the center of the mower depending on the mowing mode.).
Regarding claim 10, Frick discloses The robotic lawn mower according to claim 9, wherein the control unit is adapted to position the robotic lawn mower by means of input derived from a navigation sensor arrangement comprised in the robotic lawn mower ([0044] “a global positioning system (GPS) receiver 122 (or other position sensor that may provide similar data) that is adapted to estimate a position of the mower 100 within the work region and provide such information to a controller”).
Regarding claim 11, Frick discloses The robotic lawn mower according to claim 10, wherein the navigation sensor arrangement comprises at least one of satellite signal navigation sensor ([0044] “a global positioning system (GPS) receiver”); and deduced reckoning sensors.
Regarding claim 14, Frick discloses The robotic lawn mower according to claim 1, wherein the robotic lawn mower comprises at least two electric motor arrangements,
wherein the at least two drive wheels are drivably connected to a first electric motor arrangement ([0041] “both rear wheels 106 may be powered or driven by a propulsion system (e.g., one or more electric propulsion or wheel motors 104)”),
wherein the at least one swivelable wheel has a corresponding swivel axis ([0041] “front wheels 108 may freely caster relative to the housing 102 (e.g., about vertical axes).”),
wherein a swivel attachment axis, running through at least one swivel axis and being parallel to the drive wheel axis, is positioned between the second end portion and the drive wheel axis ([FIG. 2] front wheels 108a and 108b are between second end portion and the drive wheel axis. Drive wheel axis being between front drive wheels 106a and 106b.), and
wherein the first cutting disc is drivably connected to a second electric motor arrangement, wherein the first cutting disc at least partly is positioned between the swivel attachment axis and the second end portion ([FIG. 9] at least cutting disc 364 is drivably connected to a motor arrangement and is at least partially positioned between the swivel attachment axis and the second end portion.).
Regarding claim 15, Frick discloses The robotic lawn mower according to claim 14, wherein the rotation axis is positioned between the swivel attachment axis and the second end portion when the rotation axis passes through the cutting disc (examiner assumes “the rotation axis” has antecedent basis to the component mapped to “first cutting disc.” [FIG. 9] see rotation axis of blade 364 is not past the second end portion, but would be closer toward the second end than the swiveling wheels.).
Regarding claim 35, Frick discloses A computer program product comprising computer executable instructions stored on media to execute the method according to claim 20 ([0051] “The exemplary controller 112 has a processor 114 that receives various inputs and executes one or more computer programs or applications stored in memory 116.”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frick in view of Riego et al. (US 20160297070 A1), hereinafter referred to as Riego.
Regarding claim 12, Frick fails to disclose The robotic lawn mower according to claim 11, wherein the navigation sensor arrangement comprises deduced reckoning sensors that include visual sensors for Simultaneous Localization And Mapping, SLAM, navigation, or wherein the navigation sensor arrangement is adapted for navigation by means of active local radio beacons using Ultra Wide Band, UWB ([0044] “a global positioning system (GPS) receiver” [0052] “an object detection system (e.g., for situational awareness)”).
However, Riego teaches the navigation sensor arrangement comprises deduced reckoning sensors that include visual sensors for Simultaneous Localization And Mapping, SLAM, navigation, or wherein the navigation sensor arrangement is adapted for navigation by means of active local radio beacons using Ultra Wide Band, UWB ([0032] “The robotic work tool 100 may alternatively or additionally be arranged with sensors for other navigation techniques such as visual/optical navigation systems, SLAM”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frick with Riego to use Riego’s SLAM technique. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use SLAM in order to still navigate successfully even when Frick’s GPS is unavailable (Riego [0013] “switch from a GNSS navigation operation mode to … deduced reckoning … to perform satisfactory without unneeded stops even in areas where GNSS navigation is not reliable.”).
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frick in view of Lee et al. (US 20230292656 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lee.
Regarding claim 16, Frick discloses protective shields for shielding the blades ([0059] “downwardly extending sidewalls (e.g., left sidewall 103a, right sidewall 103b, and front sidewall 105)”), but fails to explicitly disclose The robotic lawn mower according claim 1, wherein the robotic lawn mower further comprises a first arcuate protective wall that at least partly runs along the second end portion, and at least one further arcuate protective wall,
the first arcuate protective walls and the at least one further arcuate protective wall extending from the body towards the ground during normal running,
the first arcuate protective walls and the at least one further arcuate protective wall being radially separated.
However, Lee teaches the robotic lawn mower further comprises a first arcuate protective wall that at least partly runs along the second end portion, and at least one further arcuate protective wall, the first arcuate protective walls and the at least one further arcuate protective wall extending from the body towards the ground during normal running, the first arcuate protective walls and the at least one further arcuate protective wall being radially separated ([FIG. 19] 3920c [0101] “Each side guard 3904 also includes an arcuate beam 3920c positioned at the radially inward-most position of the central beam 3920a and curved to be such that the resulting curve is co-axial with the guard axis 3076.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frick with Lee. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use radially spaced arcuate protective guards in order to protect the blades from debris (Lee [0054] “the blade guard 62 is configured to restrict access to the blade 26 by unwanted debris and appendages while permitting the vegetation access to the blade 26 contained therein”).
Regarding claim 17, Frick discloses protective shields for shielding the blades ([0059] “downwardly extending sidewalls (e.g., left sidewall 103a, right sidewall 103b, and front sidewall 105)”), but fails to explicitly disclose The robotic lawn mower according to claim 16, wherein the first arcuate protective walls and the at least one further arcuate protective wall partly are positioned between the first cutting disc and the ground during normal running (examiner is interpreting this as the walls extend below the cutting disc, and therefore are located in between the cutting disc and the ground.).
However, Lee teaches the first arcuate protective walls and the at least one further arcuate protective wall partly are positioned between the first cutting disc and the ground during normal running ([FIG. 19] 3920c [0101] “Each side guard 3904 also includes an arcuate beam 3920c positioned at the radially inward-most position of the central beam 3920a and curved to be such that the resulting curve is co-axial with the guard axis 3076.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frick with Lee. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use radially spaced arcuate protective guards in order to protect the blades from debris (Lee [0054] “the blade guard 62 is configured to restrict access to the blade 26 by unwanted debris and appendages while permitting the vegetation access to the blade 26 contained therein”).
Regarding claim 18, Frick discloses protective shields for shielding the blades ([0059] “downwardly extending sidewalls (e.g., left sidewall 103a, right sidewall 103b, and front sidewall 105)”), but fails to explicitly disclose The robotic lawn mower according claim 16, wherein the first arcuate protective walls and the at least one further arcuate protective wall at least mainly follow respective protective wall arcs, wherein all of the respective protective wall arcs have a common center.
However, Lee teaches the first arcuate protective walls and the at least one further arcuate protective wall at least mainly follow respective protective wall arcs, wherein all of the respective protective wall arcs have a common center ([FIG. 19] 3920c [0101] “Each side guard 3904 also includes an arcuate beam 3920c positioned at the radially inward-most position of the central beam 3920a and curved to be such that the resulting curve is co-axial with the guard axis 3076.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frick with Lee. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use radially spaced arcuate protective guards in order to protect the blades from debris (Lee [0054] “the blade guard 62 is configured to restrict access to the blade 26 by unwanted debris and appendages while permitting the vegetation access to the blade 26 contained therein”).
Regarding claim 19, Frick discloses The robotic lawn mower according to claim 18, wherein the common center is the center of a drive wheel axis ([0041] “mower direction may be controlled via differential rotation of the two rear wheels 106 in a manner similar to a conventional zero-turn-radius (ZTR) riding mower” zero turn radius control would effectively make the center between the two drive wheels the common center.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R HEIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 EST.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached on 571-272-1516. 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.
/M.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668