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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In Reference to Claims 1-17
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
For example:
In Claims 1 lines 1-2 and claim 16 line 2 respectively recites “a robotic work tool arranged to operate in an operational area” however, it is not clear as to what “arranged to operate” is intending to describe such as describing the capability or is configured to operate in the specific area. For the purposes of treating the claim under prior art, the language is interpret as configured to.
In Claim 1, lines 4-5 and claim 16 line 5 respectively recites “a surface that is at least partially irregular” however, it is not clear as to the required scope of the claim due to the language “partially” because the specification lacked some standard for measuring the degree intended (see MPEP 2173.05(b)). For the purposes of treating the claim under prior art, the language is interpreted as being irregular.
In Claim 1, line 9 and claim 16 line 8 respectively recite “detect a pole in the image” and “detecting a pole in the image” however it is not clear if the “pole” recited is the same as “one or more poles” or not such as different pole not related to solar panel. For the purposes of treating the claim under prior art, the language is interpreted as being the same pole as the “one or more poles”. The examiner suggests amending the claims to clearly indicate that the pole is to the solar panel.
The following errors explicitly found in Claims 1 and 16 are given way of examples only and not inclusive of all errors. Applicant should carefully review and amend all the claims to ensure all errors are corrected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] Step 1, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention is directed to a statutory category, namely a process, machine, manufactures, and compositions of mater.
The claim 1 is directed to a robotic work tool system (i.e. machine) and claim 16 is directed to a method for use in a robotic work tool system (i.e. process). Thus, claims 1 and 16 are one of four the statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
[101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong I]
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent Claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim(s) for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A robotic work tool system comprising a robotic work tool arranged to operate in an operational area comprising one or more solar panels each solar panel having a panel and one or more poles connected to the panel through a supporting structure, the operational area having a surface that is at least partially irregular, and the robotic work tool comprising a controller, a memory configured to store supporting structure geometry data, an image sensor, wherein the controller is configured to:
receive an image from the image sensor,
detect a pole in the image,
determine a height of the detected pole, and
determine a scale based on the determined height of the detected pole, wherein the pole is detected based on the stored supporting structure geometry data.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretations, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “detect…”, “determine…” and “determine…” in the context of the claim encompasses a person looking at a photo determining that the photo includes a pole and formulating a judgement and calculating the height and scale based on the height. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
[101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong II]
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A robotic work tool system comprising a robotic work tool arranged to operate in an operational area comprising one or more solar panels each solar panel having a panel and one or more poles connected to the panel through a supporting structure, the operational area having a surface that is at least partially irregular, and the robotic work tool comprising a controller, a memory configured to store supporting structure geometry data, an image sensor, wherein the controller is configured to:
receive an image from the image sensor,
detect a pole in the image,
determine a height of the detected pole, and
determine a scale based on the determined height of the detected pole, wherein the pole is detected based on the stored supporting structure geometry data.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract into a practical applications.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receive an image from the image sensor”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processing circuitry of a computer system) to perform the process or receiving a photo from a image printer. In particular, the receiving steps can be performed via sensors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the detect step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “robotic work tool”, “controller”, “memory” and “image sensor” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic work tool; a generic processor performing a generic computer function; general memory to store information; and generic image sensor) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic work tool, a generic computer component and normal image sensor.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical filed, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
[101 Analysis Step 2B]
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claims 1 and 16 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a processing circuitry of a computer system in a work tool and image sensor and to perform the receive… amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component in generic work tool system. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “receive…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-15 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be directed towards statutory subject matter. The claims merely recite: abstract idea. Each of the further limitations expound upon the abstract ideas and do not recite additional elements integrating the abstract ideas into a practical application or additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. Therefore, dependent claims 2-15 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1-16 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because “computer-readable medium” can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment (MPEP 2106.3 II).
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.
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 and 12-17 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 11,951,977 B1 to Blanton et. al. (Blanton) in view of Pub No. US 2020/0380316 A1 to Lee et. al. (Lee).
In Reference to Claim 1
Blanton teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
A robotic work tool system comprising a robotic work tool (310, 700) arranged to operate in an operational area (110) comprising one or more solar panels (112, 220) each solar panel (112, 220) having a panel (230) and one or more poles (222) connected to the panel (230) through a supporting structure (240), the operational area (110) having a surface that is at least partially irregular, and the robotic work tool comprising a controller (802, 902), a memory (906) configured to store supporting structure geometry data, an image sensor (814, 820) (see at least Blanton Figs. 1-5, 7-9, and column 12 lines 15-67, column 13 lines 49, column 14, column 16 lines 58-67, columns 17-18, column 19 lines 1-62), wherein the controller (802, 902) is configured to:
receive an image from the image sensor (814, 820) (Blanton teaches “where any such “inspections” may be with performed with multispectral cameras capturing image data within specific wavelength ranges across the electromagnetic spectrum”) (see at least Blanton column 5 lines 46-67, column 6 lines 1-15),
detect a pole (222) in the image (Blanton teaches “using LIDAR 312—and disregarding readings that correspond to navigable ground—the autonomous vehicle 312 detects the point location and distance of several physical objects including solar panel posts) (see at least Blanton column 14 lines 26-47),
determine a height of the detected pole (222), and
determine a scale based on the determined height of the detected pole (222), wherein the pole (222) is detected based on the stored supporting structure geometry data (see at least Blanton “using additional a priori data about the installed orientation of the panels. The cross-row extents of the panels are then determined by identifying the edges of the panels in the data in the cross-row direction. The a priori known size/shape of the panel sections can be used to refine these measurements. Finally, the centerline is fit to the center of the extents and aligned with the panels” and “can directly detect individual solar array panels and then determine the centerline of the panels (regardless of the tilt angle) which, in turn, can be used as a surrogate for solar panel post locations and the rows formed thereby”) (see at least Blanton column 5 lines 12-24, column 9 lines 35-49) (see at least Blanton Figs. 1-5, 7-9, and column 12 lines 15-67, column 13 lines 49, column 14, column 16 lines 58-67, columns 17-18, column 19 lines 1-62).
Blanton does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to determine a height of the detected pole (222), and determine a scale based on the determined height of the detected pole (222). However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a height of the detected pole (structures or objects), and determine a scale based on the determined height of the detected pole (structures or objects). For example, Lee teaches to determine a height (including dimension) of the detected structures or objects, and determine a scale based on the determined height (including dimension) of the detected structures or objects. Lee further teaches that performing such steps provide sufficient information for an autonomous system to perform tracking, navigation, and collision avoidance with any detected obstacles (see at least Lee Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 12, 19, 23-25, 31-37, 45-57). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Blanton to include the steps of determine a height of the detected pole, and determine a scale based on the determined height of the detected pole as taught by Lee in order to provide sufficient information for an autonomous system to perform tracking, navigation, and collision avoidance with any detected obstacles.
In Reference to Claim 2
The robotic work tool system according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the controller (802, 902) is further configured to determine that the detected pole (222) is a solar panel pole (222) based on the stored geometry data, wherein the stored geometry data includes asymmetrical features (see at least Blanton Figs. 1-5, 7-9, and column 5 lines 12-24, column 9 lines 35-49, column 12 lines 15-67, column 13 lines 49, column 14, column 16 lines 58-67, columns 17-18, column 19 lines 1-62).
In Reference to Claim 3
The robotic work tool system according to claim 2 (see rejection to claim 2 above), wherein the stored geometry data includes an angle between a pole (222) and a panel (234) (see at least Blanton Figs. 1-5, 7-9, and column 5 lines 12-24, column 9 lines 35-49, column 12 lines 15-67, column 13 lines 49, column 14, column 16 lines 58-67, columns 17-18, column 19 lines 1-62).
In Reference to Claim 7
The robotic work tool system according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the controller (802, 902) is further configured to determine the scale by:
detecting the supporting structure (240) of the pole (222) (Blanton teaches that the “the orientable coupling 240, the portion of the backing surface 232 to which it is attached, and the corresponding portion of the energy capture surface 234 are always co-located with the solar panel post 222 to which the orientable coupling 240 is attached” therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the supporting structure is detected since it is part of the structures (230, 222) being detected),
determining a height of the detected pole (222) (Blanton in view of Lee teaches to determine the height of the pole (222)),
determining a height of the detected supporting structure (240) (since Lee teaches to determine height of the structures provided in the image therefore height of the supporting structure is also determined in order to completely determine the height of all the structures), and
determining the scale based on a ratio between these determined heights to known heights of the pole (222) and the supporting structure (240), wherein the supporting structure geometry data includes heights of the pole and the supporting structure (Blanton in view of Lee teaches to determine to update the scale based on the determined dimension of the structures therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the determining the scale would be based on ratio of dimension of the structures including the height) (see at least Blanton Figs. 1-5, 7-9, and column 5 lines 12-24, column 9 lines 35-49, column 12 lines 15-67, column 13 lines 49, column 14, column 16 lines 58-67, columns 17-18, column 19 lines 1-62) (see at least Lee Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 12, 19, 23-25, 31-37, 45-57).
In Reference to Claim 8
The robotic work tool system according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the controller (802, 902) is further configured to determine a distance from the robotic work tool (310) to the pole (222) based on the scale (training data set) (Lee teaches that dimensions determined from the object is updated and use for navigation which requires distance from each of the object in order to navigate) (see at least Blanton Figs. 1-5, 7-9, and column 5 lines 12-24, column 9 lines 35-49, column 12 lines 15-67, column 13 lines 49, column 14, column 16 lines 58-67, columns 17-18, column 19 lines 1-62) (see at least Lee Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 12, 19, 23-25, 31-37, 45-57).
In Reference to Claim 9
The robotic work tool system according to claim 8 (see rejection to claim 8 above), wherein the controller (802, 902) is further configured to navigate based on the determined distance (Lee teaches that dimensions determined from the object is updated and use for navigation which requires distance from each of the object in order to navigate) (see at least Blanton Figs. 1-5, 7-9, and column 5 lines 12-24, column 9 lines 35-49, column 12 lines 15-67, column 13 lines 49, column 14, column 16 lines 58-67, columns 17-18, column 19 lines 1-62) (see at least Lee Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 12, 19, 23-25, 31-37, 45-57).
In Reference to Claim 12
The robotic work tool system according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the controller (802, 902) is further configured to adapt a speed of the robotic work tool (310) in response to detecting the pole (222) (Blanton teaches that the speed of the actuators and wheel can be adjusted based on feedback (such as solar panel with pole) therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the system of Blanton in view of Lee would adjust the speed of the work tool system (310) based on the detection of obstacle such as pole in order to avoiding the obstacle) (see at least Blanton Figs. 1-5, 7-9, and column 5 lines 12-24, column 9 lines 35-49, column 12 lines 15-67, column 13 lines 49, column 14, column 16 lines 58-67, columns 17-18, column 19 lines 1-62)
In Reference to Claim 13
The robotic work tool system according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the controller (802, 902) is further configured to adapt a speed of a work tool (701) of the robotic work tool (700) in response to detecting the pole (222) (Blanton teaches that the speed of the actuators and wheel can be adjusted based on feedback (such as solar panel with pole) therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the system of Blanton in view of Lee would adjust the speed of the work tool system (310) based on the detection of obstacle such as pole in order to avoiding the obstacle) (see at least Blanton Figs. 1-5, 7-9, and column 5 lines 12-24, column 9 lines 35-49, column 12 lines 15-67, column 13 lines 49, column 14, column 16 lines 58-67, columns 17-18, column 19 lines 1-62).
In Reference to Claim 14
The robotic work tool system according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the robotic work tool (310) is a robotic lawnmower (310) (see at least Blanton Figs. 1-5, 7-9, and column 5 lines 12-24, column 9 lines 35-49, column 12 lines 15-67, column 13 lines 49, column 14, column 16 lines 58-67, columns 17-18, column 19 lines 1-62).
In Reference to Claim 15
The robotic work tool system according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the image sensor is a mono camera (Lee teaches that the image is a monocular image therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the camera of Lee can be a mono camera since it takes monocular image) (see at least Lee Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 12, 27, 32 and 44).
In Reference to Claim 16
Blanton teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
A method for use in a robotic work tool system comprising a robotic work tool (310, 700) arranged to operate in an operational area (110) comprising one or more solar panels (112, 220) each solar panel (112, 220) having a panel (230) and one or more poles (222) connected to the panel (230) through a supporting structure (240), the operational area (110) having a surface that is at least partially irregular, and the robotic work tool (310, 700) comprising a memory (906) configured to store supporting structure geometry data, an image sensor (814, 820), wherein the method comprises:
receiving an image from the image sensor (814, 820) (Blanton teaches “where any such “inspections” may be with performed with multispectral cameras capturing image data within specific wavelength ranges across the electromagnetic spectrum”) (see at least Blanton column 5 lines 46-67, column 6 lines 1-15),
detecting a pole (222) in the image (Blanton teaches “using LIDAR 312—and disregarding readings that correspond to navigable ground—the autonomous vehicle 312 detects the point location and distance of several physical objects including solar panel posts) (see at least Blanton column 14 lines 26-47),
determining a height of the detected pole (222), and
determining a scale based on the determined height of the detected pole (222), wherein the detected pole (222) is detected based on the stored supporting structure geometry data (see at least Blanton “using additional a priori data about the installed orientation of the panels. The cross-row extents of the panels are then determined by identifying the edges of the panels in the data in the cross-row direction. The a priori known size/shape of the panel sections can be used to refine these measurements. Finally, the centerline is fit to the center of the extents and aligned with the panels” and “can directly detect individual solar array panels and then determine the centerline of the panels (regardless of the tilt angle) which, in turn, can be used as a surrogate for solar panel post locations and the rows formed thereby”) (see at least Blanton column 5 lines 12-24, column 9 lines 35-49) (see at least Blanton Figs. 1-5, 7-9, and column 12 lines 15-67, column 13 lines 49, column 14, column 16 lines 58-67, columns 17-18, column 19 lines 1-62).
Blanton does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to determine a height of the detected pole (222), and determine a scale based on the determined height of the detected pole (222). However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a height of the detected pole (structures or objects), and determine a scale based on the determined height of the detected pole (structures or objects). For example, Lee teaches to determine a height (including dimension) of the detected structures or objects, and determine a scale based on the determined height (including dimension) of the detected structures or objects. Lee further teaches that performing such steps provide sufficient information for an autonomous system to perform tracking, navigation, and collision avoidance with any detected obstacles (see at least Lee Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 12, 19, 23-25, 31-37, 45-57). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Blanton to include the steps of determine a height of the detected pole, and determine a scale based on the determined height of the detected pole as taught by Lee in order to provide sufficient information for an autonomous system to perform tracking, navigation, and collision avoidance with any detected obstacles.
In Reference to Claim 17
A computer-readable medium carrying computer instructions that when loaded into and executed by a controller (802, 902) of a robotic work tool (310, 700) enables the robotic work tool (310, 700) to implement the method according to claim 16 (see rejection to claim 16 above).
Claim(s) 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanton in view of Lee and further in view of Pub No. US 2016/0344330 A1 to Gills (Gills).
In Reference to Claim 4
Blanton in view of Lee teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The robotic work tool system according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the controller (802, 902) is further configured to determine that the detected pole (222) is a front pole or a rear pole by determining a distance to an edge of the panel (234) (see at least Blanton Figs. 1-5, 7-9, and column 5 lines 12-24, column 9 lines 35-49, column 12 lines 15-67, column 13 lines 49, column 14, column 16 lines 58-67, columns 17-18, column 19 lines 1-62).
Blanton in view of Lee does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to controller (802, 902) is further configured to determine that the detected pole (222) is a front pole or a rear pole by determining a distance to an edge of the panel (234) since Blanton do not teach that the solar panel having front and rear poles in the solar panel. However, if the system of Blanton in view of Lee is for a solar panel having front and rear poles than the system of Blanton in view of Lee would be able to determine that the detected pole (222) is a front pole or a rear pole by determining a distance to an edge of the panel (234) in order to determine the lowest point of the panel (234) since Blanton teaches “posts can then be used to estimate the global position of the robot and the intended path for it to traverse, as well as the proximity to any specific post as well as the lowest edges of the solar panels which may also pose as navigational obstacles to the autonomous vehicle” (see at least Blanton column 9 lines 35-49). However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that solar panels having front and rear poles. For example, Gills teaches to have solar panel (100) having front (106) and rear poles (104) (see at least Gills Fig.1 and paragraphs 50). The substitution of one known element (solar panel with front and rear poles as shown in Gills) for another (solar panel with single pole as shown in Blanton in view of Lee) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention since the substitution of the solar panel with front and rear poles shown in Gills would have yielded predictable results, namely, a supporting the solar panels in Blanton in view of Lee to convert solar energy to electricity.
In Reference to Claim 5
The robotic work tool system according to claim 4 (see rejection to claim 4 above), wherein the controller (802, 902) is further configured to determine that the detected pole (222) is a front pole if the pole (222) is closest to an edge at a lower side and determine that the detected pole is a rear pole if the pole (222) is closest to an edge at a higher side (Blanton teaches “the orientation of the panels can be determined based on the tilt and alignment of the panels based on the direction of the long edge using a combination of methods which might include detecting the edge directly, finding the major axis of the points associated with the panels, and/or using additional a priori data about the installed orientation of the panels. The cross-row extents of the panels are then determined by identifying the edges of the panels in the data in the cross-row direction. The a priori known size/shape of the panel sections can be used to refine these measurements. Finally, the centerline is fit to the center of the extents and aligned with the panels” which includes the placements of the poles therefore to determine the front and rear poles will be detect based on the edge to determine the angle or lower point of the panel) (see at least Blanton Figs. 1-5, 7-9, and column 5 lines 12-24, column 9 lines 35-49, column 12 lines 15-67, column 13 lines 49, column 14, column 16 lines 58-67, columns 17-18, column 19 lines 1-62).
In Reference to Claim 6
The robotic work tool system according to claim 4 (see rejection to claim 4 above), wherein the stored geometry data includes a distance to an edge of the panel (234) (Blanton teaches “enables accurate location determinations for the lower edge of said solar panel which may constitute an obstacle to an autonomous vehicle (as discussed in detail elsewhere herein))” therefore to work tool (317) could avoid the edge of the solar panel) (see at least Blanton Figs. 1-5, 7-9, and column 5 lines 12-24, column 9 lines 35-49, column 12 lines 15-67, column 13 lines 49, column 14, column 16 lines 58-67, columns 17-18, column 19 lines 1-62).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanton in view of Lee and further in view of Pub No. US 2021/0061306 A1 to Dagan et. al. (Dagan).
In Reference to Claim 10
Blanton in view of Lee teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The robotic work tool system according to claim 9 (see rejection to claim 9 above), wherein the memory is further configured to store a location of a pole (222) and wherein the controller (802, 902) is further configured to
determine a position of the robotic work tool (310) and to determine the distance to a detected pole (222) (Blanton and Lee teaches to determine the distance to the detected pole in order to perform the navigation of the work too (310),
determine an expected distance,
determine that the determined distance corresponds to the expected distance and in response thereto determine that the position (P) of the robotic work tool (310) is correct (see at least Blanton Figs. 1-5, 7-9, and column 5 lines 12-24, column 9 lines 35-49, column 12 lines 15-67, column 13 lines 49, column 14, column 16 lines 58-67, columns 17-18, column 19 lines 1-62) (see at least Lee Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 12, 19, 23-25, 31-37, 45-57).
Blanton in view of Lee does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to determine an expected distance, determine that the determined distance corresponds to the expected distance and in response thereto determine that the position (P) of the robotic work tool (310) is correct.
However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine an expected distance, determine that the determined distance corresponds to the expected distance and in response thereto determine that the position of the robotic work tool is correct. For example, Dagan teaches to determine an expected distance, determine that the determined distance corresponds to the expected distance and in response thereto determine that the position of the robotic work tool (200) is correct. Dagan further teaches that performing such steps provide accurate control of the vehicle (see at least Dagan Figs. 1-4 and 25-26 and paragraphs 327-329). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Blanton in view of Lee to perform the steps of to determine an expected distance, determine that the determined distance corresponds to the expected distance and in response thereto determine that the position of the robotic work tool is correct as taught by Dagan in order to provide accurate control of the vehicle.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanton in view of Lee and further in view of Pub No. US 2023/0270043 A1 to Dugas et. al. (Dugas).
In Reference to Claim 11
Blanton in view of Lee teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The robotic work tool system (200) according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the controller (802, 902) is further configured to determine a ground level by extrapolating the pole (222) (see at least Blanton Figs. 1-5, 7-9, and column 5 lines 12-24, column 9 lines 35-49, column 12 lines 15-67, column 13 lines 49, column 14, column 16 lines 58-67, columns 17-18, column 19 lines 1-62) (see at least Lee Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 12, 19, 23-25, 31-37, 45-57).
Blanton in view of Lee does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) to determine the ground level by extrapolating the pole (222). However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the ground level by extrapolating the pole (or object). For example, Dugas teaches that the ground level can be determined by extrapolating the object (crop bed). Dugas further teaches that performing such step provides accuracy of the ground surface predictions (see at least Dugas Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 96 and 115). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Blanton in view of Lee to include the step of determine a ground level by extrapolating the pole (or height of object) as taught by Dugas in order to provide accuracy of the ground surface predictions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent No. 11,582,903 B1 to Brown (Brown) teaches a lawn mowing device and control the autonomous lawn mower based on the perimeter outline of the at least one perimeter and the images captured by the at least one camera.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON DONGPA LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
/BRANDON D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662 June 27, 2025