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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on March 5th, 2024.
No claims have been amended.
No claims have been added.
No claims have been cancelled.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 05/29/2024 and 08/02/2024 have been received and considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities, appropriate correction is required:
Claim 1 line 11: "dock the at the second location" appears to be missing a word. Based on the similar language in line 13 of claim 11 this will be interpreted for examination purposes as "dock the robot at the second location" emphasis added, as appears to be the intent.
Claim 6 line 4 "dock the robot to lawn mower" appears to be missing a word, and will be interpreted for examination purposes as "dock the robot to the lawn mower," emphasis added.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 1 and 11 "a drive system configured to move the robot"
(A) the claim limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means,” here a “drive system” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function:
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) here “configured to” and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function – in this case, no further structure or acts are specified beyond “move the robot.”
Therefore, “a drive system configured to move the robot” in Claims 1 and 11 will be interpreted under 35 USC § 112(f) according to the specification ¶ 0088 lines 5-6 as “the drive system may include at least one of a motor, a wheel, a ball, a track, and/or any combination thereof.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20210007281, hereinafter “Smith”) in view of Koelndorfer (US 3101629, hereinafter “Koelndorfer”).
Regarding Claim 1, Smith teaches:
A docking system for docking a robot relative to a lawn mower, comprising: a drive system configured to move the robot; (Smith ¶ 0007 lines 1-4 “The present invention comprises an autonomous lawn mower blade sharpening robot generally includes […] at least one motor, […] at least one wheel or track,” teaching a drive system consistent with the interpretation of this claim element under 35 USC § 112(f))
a sensor; (Smith ¶ 0007 lines 1-3 “The present invention comprises an autonomous lawn mower blade sharpening robot generally includes […] at least one sensor,”)
a docking arm; (Smith ¶ 0132 lines 7-16 “A magnet 91 and/or some other way in which to grab and/or affix and/or hold a lawn mower blade is also provided A first arm 92 is provided to secure and/or grasp the old and/or used lawn mower blade, while a second arm 93 is provided to secure and/or grasp the new and/or replacement lawn mower blade. Referring to FIG. 12B, an example configuration of how a lawn mower blade(s) would affix and/or rest and/or spins and/or shifts and/or engages and/or otherwise interact with the lawn mower blade(s) changing component of a robot is shown.” teaching a first arm 92 and second arm 93 which grab/affix/grasp a lawnmower blade, which is equivalent to docking as interpreted by ¶ 0006 of the present specification “dock and/or mate and be stabilized,” and ¶ 0143 lines 44-49 “These task arms and/or task tips (such as those shown in FIGS. 3A-3H and/or FIGS. 9A-9N) may be deployed and/or positioned and/or docked (as shown in FIG. 15) and/or fixated and/or married to the lawn mower blade(s) (as shown in FIGS. 11A-11C)” together teaching docking with any of a first arm 92, second arm 93, or a task arm)
and at least one processor operatively connected to the drive system, the sensor, and the docking arm, (Smith ¶ 0007 lines 1-5 “The present invention comprises an autonomous lawn mower blade sharpening robot generally includes […] at least one microprocessor,” shown in Fig. 8 to be connected to a sensor and the drive system, and ¶ 0153 “Through at least one of […] microprocessor, […] if it is determined that a blade and/or blades need to be replaced, the blade changing robot component (e.g., as shown in FIGS. 12A-12B) and/or task setting may be implemented and/or started,” teaching control of the first arm 92 through the microprocessor)
PNG
media_image1.png
356
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the at least one processor configured to: receive a signal from the sensor, the signal comprising data from a first location of the robot; (Smith ¶ 108 lines 1-20 “Referring now to FIG. 7, a flow chart of robot process, coverage, decision making and/or mobility according to an aspect of the present disclosure is shown. At 44, the robot begins its task process, […] controlled by sensor(s), […] controller by the robot's microprocessor, […] in order to complete its assigned, and/or determined task(s) for lawn mower with one or more lawn mower blades and or lawn mower blade cutting edges for the purposes and/or goals of efficiency, and/or effectiveness. Then, at 45, the sensor(s) and/or camera(s) work to find what they are programmed to detect. At 46, it is determined whether or not a lawn mower deck has been detected,” teaching sensing from a location outside the lawnmower)
control the drive system to drive from the first location to a second location based on receiving the signal from the sensor; (Smith ¶ 0108 lines 24-25 “If a lawn mower has been detected, the robot proceeds under the lawn mower at 49,” teaching moving to a second location under the lawnmower based on sensor detection of a lawnmower)
control the docking arm to dock the at the second location, (Smith ¶ 0132 lines 7-16 “A magnet 91 and/or some other way in which to grab and/or affix and/or hold a lawn mower blade is also provided A first arm 92 is provided to secure and/or grasp the old and/or used lawn mower blade, while a second arm 93 is provided to secure and/or grasp the new and/or replacement lawn mower blade. Referring to FIG. 12B, an example configuration of how a lawn mower blade(s) would affix and/or rest and/or spins and/or shifts and/or engages and/or otherwise interact with the lawn mower blade(s) changing component of a robot is shown.” and ¶ 0153 “Through at least one of […] microprocessor, […] if it is determined that a blade and/or blades need to be replaced, the blade changing robot component (e.g., as shown in FIGS. 12A-12B) and/or task setting may be implemented and/or started,” in combination teach grasping of a blade by first arm 92 and second arm 93 while accomplishing the task of replacing the blade)
wherein the robot is configured to perform a task associated with the lawn mower at the second location; (Smith ¶ 0109 lines 4-9 “it is determined if the lawn mower blade cutting edges are detected at 53. […] If yes, the robot conducts and/or completes the task at 54,” teaching performance of a task associated with the lawnmower blade at the second location under the lawnmower)
and control the […] robot from the second location upon completion of the task associated with the lawn mower. (Smith ¶ 0110 lines 4-5 “the robot exits from under the lawn mower after completing task(s) at 57,” teaching control of the robot upon completing the task)
While Smith teaches docking and describes its use in a task, Smith does not specifically teach the disconnecting of this arm:
[…] docking arm to un-dock the […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Smith, Koelndorfer teaches:
[…] docking arm to un-dock the […] (Koelndorfer Col 3 lines 48-51 “after the […] operation has been completed on the first cutting edge, thumb screws 52 and 54 are loosened and base 42 slipped from the blade 16 and the device removed from the mower,” teaching removal of a clamp system to assist in servicing a lawnmower blade after a task is performed)
Smith and Koelndorfer are considered analogous because they both relate to lawnmower blade sharpening devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the use of the arm to affix the robot to a lawnmower blade for performance of a task of Smith with the addition of Koelndorfer’s removal of a clamp with which to affix a device to the mower and as well removal of the device from the mower after completing an operation. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by an improved ability to fully disengage the robot from the lawnmower after task completion.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Smith and Koelndorfer teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Smith further teaches:
wherein the docking arm comprises a first end connected to the robot and a second end, wherein the second end is connected to a coupling mechanism, (Smith ¶ 0132 lines lines 7-16 “A magnet 91 and/or some other way in which to grab and/or affix and/or hold a lawn mower blade is also provided A first arm 92 is provided to secure and/or grasp the old and/or used lawn mower blade, while a second arm 93 is provided to secure and/or grasp the new and/or replacement lawn mower blade. Referring to FIG. 12B, an example configuration of how a lawn mower blade(s) would affix and/or rest and/or spins and/or shifts and/or engages and/or otherwise interact with the lawn mower blade(s) changing component of a robot is shown.” teaching a first arm 92 and second arm 93 which grab/affix/grasp the lawnmower blade, which is equivalent to docking as interpreted by ¶ 0006 of the present specification “dock and/or mate and be stabilized,” and second arm 93 of which is shown in Fig 12a to have a first end connected to the robot and a second end connected to coupling mechanism 91, a magnet)
PNG
media_image2.png
272
120
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the coupling mechanism is operatively connected to the at least one processor, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: control the coupling mechanism to couple the robot to the lawn mower, (Smith ¶ 0153 “Through at least one of […] microprocessor, […] if it is determined that a blade and/or blades need to be replaced, the blade changing robot component (e.g., as shown in FIGS. 12A-12B) and/or task setting may be implemented and/or started,” teaching connection and use of the arms through the microprocessor to couple the robot to the lawnmower and ¶ 0143 lines 44-49 “These task arms and/or task tips (such as those shown in FIGS. 3A-3H and/or FIGS. 9A-9N) may be deployed and/or positioned and/or docked (as shown in FIG. 15) and/or fixated and/or married to the lawn mower blade(s) (as shown in FIGS. 11A-11C)”)
wherein the coupling mechanism comprises a magnet, and wherein the coupling mechanism is configured to magnetically attach the robot to the lawn mower. (Smith ¶ 0132 lines lines 7-9 “A magnet 91 […] in which to grab and/or affix and/or hold a lawn mower blade is also provided,”)
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Smith and Koelndorfer teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Smith further teaches:
wherein the docking arm comprises a first end connected to the robot and a second end, wherein the second end is connected to a coupling mechanism, (Smith ¶ 0132 lines lines 7-16 “A magnet 91 and/or some other way in which to grab and/or affix and/or hold a lawn mower blade is also provided A first arm 92 is provided to secure and/or grasp the old and/or used lawn mower blade, while a second arm 93 is provided to secure and/or grasp the new and/or replacement lawn mower blade. Referring to FIG. 12B, an example configuration of how a lawn mower blade(s) would affix and/or rest and/or spins and/or shifts and/or engages and/or otherwise interact with the lawn mower blade(s) changing component of a robot is shown.” teaching a first arm 92 and second arm 93 which grab/affix/grasp the lawnmower blade, which is equivalent to docking as interpreted by ¶ 0006 of the present specification “dock and/or mate and be stabilized,” and second arm 93 of which is shown in Fig 12a to have a first end connected to the robot and a second end connected to coupling mechanism 91, a magnet)
wherein the coupling mechanism is operatively connected to the at least one processor, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: control the coupling mechanism to couple the robot to the lawn mower, (Smith ¶ 0153 “Through at least one of […] microprocessor, […] if it is determined that a blade and/or blades need to be replaced, the blade changing robot component (e.g., as shown in FIGS. 12A-12B) and/or task setting may be implemented and/or started,” teaching connection and use of the arms through the microprocessor to couple the robot to the lawnmower and ¶ 0143 lines 44-49 “These task arms and/or task tips (such as those shown in FIGS. 3A-3H and/or FIGS. 9A-9N) may be deployed and/or positioned and/or docked (as shown in FIG. 15) and/or fixated and/or married to the lawn mower blade(s) (as shown in FIGS. 11A-11C)”)
wherein the coupling mechanism comprises […], and wherein the coupling mechanism is configured to […] the robot to the lawn mower. (Smith ¶ 0132 lines lines 7-9 “some other way in which to grab and/or affix and/or hold a lawn mower blade is also provided,” describing grabbing a lawn mower)
Smith does not explicitly teach:
[…] a clamp […] clamp […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Smith, Koelndorfer teaches:
[…] wherein the coupling mechanism comprises a clamp, and wherein the coupling mechanism is configured to clamp the robot to the lawn mower. (Koelndorfer Col 3 lines 25-30 “the present device is placed on the blade with the arm between the blade and the inner wall of the mower body. The back edge of the blade is fully seated in slots 50 of the two lugs and thumb screws 52 and 54 are tightened until base 42 is rigidly secured to blade 16,” and Col 4 lines 1-6 “One of the particular advantages of the present device is the fact that it can .be mounted on most conventional and/or standard rotary type mowers and, since it is clamped rigidly to the blade, little or no difficulty is encountered in retaining the blade 16 stationary and in position where the device can be most effectively operated,” teaching clamping a device to a lawnmower blade to operate the device, shown in Figs 1 and 8 to be clamped to blade 16)
PNG
media_image3.png
314
326
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
457
318
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Smith and Koelndorfer are considered analogous because they both relate to lawnmower blade sharpening devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the use of the arm to affix the robot to a lawnmower blade for performance of a task of Smith with the addition of Koelndorfer’s clamp to rigidly secure to the blade of the mower. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by an improved ability retain the blade stationary and in position where the device can be most effectively operated (Koelndorfer Col 4 lines 1-6).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Smith and Koelndorfer teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Smith further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: control the drive system to drive from the second location to a third location in response to controlling the docking arm to un-dock the robot from the second location. (Smith ¶ 0110 lines 4-5 “the robot exits from under the lawn mower after completing task(s) at 57,” teaching that the robot moves from the second location under the robot to a third location outside the lawnmower, consistent with the meaning of “a third location” from the present specification ¶ 0095 “the third location may be a location that is the same as the first location,” here meaning outside of the lawnmower, and further teaching that the robot moves after completing a task, as applies to Koelndorfer’s removal of the clamping device upon completing an operation)
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Smith and Koelndorfer teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Smith further teaches:
wherein, when controlling the docking arm to dock the robot at the second location, the at least one processor is configured to: determine a location of a blade of the lawn mower; (Smith ¶ 0109 lines 1-10 “At 52, it is determine whether or not lawn mower blade(s) have been detected. […] If, however, the lawn mower blades have been detected, it is determined if the lawn mower blade cutting edges are detected at 53. […] If yes, the robot conducts and/or completes the task at 54 […] controlled by sensor(s),” teaching that the robot completes the task controlled by the sensor detection of the blades, and ¶ 0143 lines 1-9 “Once the robot determines which lawn mower blade(s) to service, it travels to the blade(s). Then, through at least one […] sensor(s) (2), […] the robot determines the exact location of the lawn mower blade(s) cutting edge(s) through at least one of […] sensor(s) 2”)
and control the docking arm to dock the robot to lawn mower at the location of the blade of the lawn mower. (Smith ¶ 0132 lines lines 7-16 “A magnet 91 and/or some other way in which to grab and/or affix and/or hold a lawn mower blade is also provided A first arm 92 is provided to secure and/or grasp the old and/or used lawn mower blade, while a second arm 93 is provided to secure and/or grasp the new and/or replacement lawn mower blade. Referring to FIG. 12B, an example configuration of how a lawn mower blade(s) would affix and/or rest and/or spins and/or shifts and/or engages and/or otherwise interact with the lawn mower blade(s) changing component of a robot is shown,” shown in Fig 12B to be at the location of the blade, and ¶ 0143 lines 1-2 “Once the robot determines which lawn mower blade(s) to service, it travels to the blade(s).”)
PNG
media_image2.png
272
120
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Smith and Koelndorfer teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Smith further teaches:
further comprising a task arm, (Smith ¶ 0008 lines 1-5 “According to one aspect of the present disclosure, an autonomous lawn mower blade sharpening and task robot configured to drive under at least one of a lawn mower and a lawn mower deck is provided. The robot includes […], at least one task arm,”)
wherein the task arm is operatively connected to the at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: control the task arm to complete the task associated with the lawn mower, (Smith ¶ 0109 lines 25-43 “Once the task that needs to be completed is determined through at least one of […] microprocessor, […] the appropriate task arm and/or task tip is selected through at least one of […] microprocessor, […] and/or placed and/or positioned on the robot and/or positioned in the appropriate and/or various location(s) in relation to the lawn mower blade(s) and/or lawn mower blade(s) cutting edge(s) in order to complete the task(s) in the most efficient and/or accurate manner through at least one of […] microprocessor,” teaching the task arm being controlled by the microprocessor to complete the task)
wherein the task comprises sharpening a blade of the lawn mower. (Smith ¶ 0113 “FIG. 9A shows a lawn mower blade cutting edge sharpening task tip 63 in accordance with one aspect of the present disclosure. […] This task arm 62 can be any suitable type, size, shape, material, and/or mobility, and may be either attached and/or integrated into a robot for the purposes of carrying out tasks related to lawn mower blades and the underside of lawn mower decks, task arm platform, a track, any arm, any shaft, and/or mechanism attached to and/or a part of a robot for the purposes of sharpening a lawn mower blade,” teaching a task of sharpening a lawn mower blade, and ¶ 0143 lines 44-49 “These task arms and/or task tips (such as those shown in FIGS. 3A-3H and/or FIGS. 9A-9N) may be deployed and/or positioned and/or docked (as shown in FIG. 15) and/or fixated and/or married to the lawn mower blade(s) (as shown in FIGS. 11A-11C)” and referencing ¶ 01310 “FIG. 11B illustrates a side view of an example of how a task tip 63 and/or task arm 62 may engage and/or otherwise may contact with a lawn mower blade 86 and/or the lawn mower blade cutting edge 87 in accordance with an aspect of the present disclosure,” teaches the docking with the blade for the operation of the task)
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Smith and Koelndorfer teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Smith further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to control the docking arm to move in an upward direction, a downward direction, and/or rotate. (Smith ¶ 0143 lines 44-49 teaching docking with a task arm and ¶ 0086 lines 1-6 “Referring now to FIG. 3C, an embodiment of robot 1 is illustrated as including a mobile telescoping task arm 17. Mobile telescoping task arm 16 may have one or more layers, levels, rotation parts and/or joints. Mobile telescoping task arm 16 may be configured to articulate, raise, lower, spin,” teaching the task arm able to raise (move in an upward direction) lower (move in a downward direction) and spin (rotate))
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Smith and Koelndorfer teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Smith further teaches:
wherein the docking arm is static. (Smith ¶ 0143 lines 44-49 teaching docking with a task arm and ¶ 0086 lines 1-3 “Referring to FIG. 3A, in accordance with an embodiment of the disclosure, robot 1 is shown with a static task arm.”)
Regarding Claim 11, Smith teaches:
A method for docking a robot relative to a lawn mower, the robot comprising: a drive system configured to move the robot; (Smith ¶ 0007 lines 1-4 “The present invention comprises an autonomous lawn mower blade sharpening robot generally includes […] at least one motor, […] at least one wheel or track,” teaching a drive system consistent with the interpretation of this claim element under 35 USC § 112(f))
a sensor; (Smith ¶ 0007 lines 1-3 “The present invention comprises an autonomous lawn mower blade sharpening robot generally includes […] at least one sensor,”)
a docking arm; (Smith ¶ 0132 lines 7-16 “A magnet 91 and/or some other way in which to grab and/or affix and/or hold a lawn mower blade is also provided A first arm 92 is provided to secure and/or grasp the old and/or used lawn mower blade, while a second arm 93 is provided to secure and/or grasp the new and/or replacement lawn mower blade. Referring to FIG. 12B, an example configuration of how a lawn mower blade(s) would affix and/or rest and/or spins and/or shifts and/or engages and/or otherwise interact with the lawn mower blade(s) changing component of a robot is shown.” teaching a first arm 92 and second arm 93 which grab/affix/grasp a lawnmower blade, which is equivalent to docking as interpreted by ¶ 0006 of the present specification “dock and/or mate and be stabilized,” and ¶ 0143 lines 44-49 “These task arms and/or task tips (such as those shown in FIGS. 3A-3H and/or FIGS. 9A-9N) may be deployed and/or positioned and/or docked (as shown in FIG. 15) and/or fixated and/or married to the lawn mower blade(s) (as shown in FIGS. 11A-11C)” together teaching docking with any of a first arm 92, second arm 93, or a task arm)
and at least one processor operatively connected to the drive system, the sensor, and the docking arm; (Smith ¶ 0007 lines 1-5 “The present invention comprises an autonomous lawn mower blade sharpening robot generally includes […] at least one microprocessor,” shown in Fig. 8 to be connected to a sensor and the drive system, and ¶ 0153 “Through at least one of […] microprocessor, […] if it is determined that a blade and/or blades need to be replaced, the blade changing robot component (e.g., as shown in FIGS. 12A-12B) and/or task setting may be implemented and/or started,” teaching control of the first arm 92 through the microprocessor)
the method comprising: receiving, by the at least one processor, a signal from the sensor, the signal comprising data from a first location of the robot; (Smith ¶ 108 lines 1-20 “Referring now to FIG. 7, a flow chart of robot process, coverage, decision making and/or mobility according to an aspect of the present disclosure is shown. At 44, the robot begins its task process, […] controlled by sensor(s), […] controller by the robot's microprocessor, […] in order to complete its assigned, and/or determined task(s) for lawn mower with one or more lawn mower blades and or lawn mower blade cutting edges for the purposes and/or goals of efficiency, and/or effectiveness. Then, at 45, the sensor(s) and/or camera(s) work to find what they are programmed to detect. At 46, it is determined whether or not a lawn mower deck has been detected,” teaching sensing from a location outside the lawnmower)
controlling, by the at least one processor, the drive system to drive from the first location to a second location based on receiving the signal from the sensor; […] (Smith ¶ 0108 lines 24-25 “If a lawn mower has been detected, the robot proceeds under the lawn mower at 49,” teaching moving to a second location under the lawnmower based on sensor detection of a lawnmower)
controlling, by the at least one processor, the docking arm to dock the robot at the second location, (Smith ¶ 0132 lines 7-16 “A magnet 91 and/or some other way in which to grab and/or affix and/or hold a lawn mower blade is also provided A first arm 92 is provided to secure and/or grasp the old and/or used lawn mower blade, while a second arm 93 is provided to secure and/or grasp the new and/or replacement lawn mower blade. Referring to FIG. 12B, an example configuration of how a lawn mower blade(s) would affix and/or rest and/or spins and/or shifts and/or engages and/or otherwise interact with the lawn mower blade(s) changing component of a robot is shown.” and ¶ 0153 “Through at least one of […] microprocessor, […] if it is determined that a blade and/or blades need to be replaced, the blade changing robot component (e.g., as shown in FIGS. 12A-12B) and/or task setting may be implemented and/or started,” in combination teach grasping of a blade by first arm 92 and second arm 93 while accomplishing the task of replacing the blade)
wherein the robot is configured to perform a task associated with the lawn mower at the second location; (Smith ¶ 0109 lines 4-9 “it is determined if the lawn mower blade cutting edges are detected at 53. […] If yes, the robot conducts and/or completes the task at 54,” teaching performance of a task associated with the lawnmower blade at the second location under the lawnmower)
and controlling, by the at least one processor, […] the robot upon completion of the task associated with the lawn mower. (Smith ¶ 0110 lines 4-5 “the robot exits from under the lawn mower after completing task(s) at 57,” teaching control of the robot upon completing the task)
While Smith teaches docking and describes its use in a task, Smith does not specifically teach the disconnecting of this arm:
[…] the docking arm to un-dock […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Smith, Koelndorfer teaches:
[…] the docking arm to un-dock […] (Koelndorfer Col 3 lines 48-51 “after the […] operation has been completed on the first cutting edge, thumb screws 52 and 54 are loosened and base 42 slipped from the blade 16 and the device removed from the mower,” teaching removal of a clamp system to assist in servicing a lawnmower blade after a task is performed)
Smith and Koelndorfer are considered analogous because they both relate to lawnmower blade sharpening devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the use of the arm to affix the robot to a lawnmower blade for performance of a task of Smith with the addition of Koelndorfer’s removal of a clamp with which to affix a device to the mower and as well removal of the device from the mower after completing an operation. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by an improved ability to fully disengage the robot from the lawnmower after task completion.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Smith and Koelndorfer teaches the elements of Claim 11 as described above. Smith further teaches:
wherein the docking arm comprises a first end connected to the robot and a second end, wherein the second end is connected to a coupling mechanism, (Smith ¶ 0132 lines lines 7-16 “A magnet 91 and/or some other way in which to grab and/or affix and/or hold a lawn mower blade is also provided A first arm 92 is provided to secure and/or grasp the old and/or used lawn mower blade, while a second arm 93 is provided to secure and/or grasp the new and/or replacement lawn mower blade. Referring to FIG. 12B, an example configuration of how a lawn mower blade(s) would affix and/or rest and/or spins and/or shifts and/or engages and/or otherwise interact with the lawn mower blade(s) changing component of a robot is shown.” teaching a first arm 92 and second arm 93 which grab/affix/grasp the lawnmower blade, which is equivalent to docking as interpreted by ¶ 0006 of the present specification “dock and/or mate and be stabilized,” and second arm 93 of which is shown in Fig 12a to have a first end connected to the robot and a second end connected to coupling mechanism 91, a magnet)
wherein the coupling mechanism is operatively connected to the at least one processor, the method further comprising: controlling the coupling mechanism to couple the robot to the lawn mower, (Smith ¶ 0153 “Through at least one of […] microprocessor, […] if it is determined that a blade and/or blades need to be replaced, the blade changing robot component (e.g., as shown in FIGS. 12A-12B) and/or task setting may be implemented and/or started,” teaching connection and use of the arms through the microprocessor to couple the robot to the lawnmower and ¶ 0143 lines 44-49 “These task arms and/or task tips (such as those shown in FIGS. 3A-3H and/or FIGS. 9A-9N) may be deployed and/or positioned and/or docked (as shown in FIG. 15) and/or fixated and/or married to the lawn mower blade(s) (as shown in FIGS. 11A-11C)”)
wherein the coupling mechanism comprises a magnet, and wherein the coupling mechanism is configured to magnetically attach the robot to the lawn mower. (Smith ¶ 0132 lines lines 7-9 “A magnet 91 […] in which to grab and/or affix and/or hold a lawn mower blade is also provided,”)
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Smith and Koelndorfer teaches the elements of Claim 11 as described above. Smith further teaches:
wherein the docking arm comprises a first end connected to the robot and a second end, wherein the second end is connected to a coupling mechanism, (Smith ¶ 0132 lines lines 7-16 “A magnet 91 and/or some other way in which to grab and/or affix and/or hold a lawn mower blade is also provided A first arm 92 is provided to secure and/or grasp the old and/or used lawn mower blade, while a second arm 93 is provided to secure and/or grasp the new and/or replacement lawn mower blade. Referring to FIG. 12B, an example configuration of how a lawn mower blade(s) would affix and/or rest and/or spins and/or shifts and/or engages and/or otherwise interact with the lawn mower blade(s) changing component of a robot is shown.” teaching a first arm 92 and second arm 93 which grab/affix/grasp the lawnmower blade, which is equivalent to docking as interpreted by ¶ 0006 of the present specification “dock and/or mate and be stabilized,” and second arm 93 of which is shown in Fig 12a to have a first end connected to the robot and a second end connected to coupling mechanism 91, a magnet)
wherein the coupling mechanism is operatively connected to the at least one processor, the method further comprising: controlling the coupling mechanism to couple the robot to the lawn mower, (Smith ¶ 0153 “Through at least one of […] microprocessor, […] if it is determined that a blade and/or blades need to be replaced, the blade changing robot component (e.g., as shown in FIGS. 12A-12B) and/or task setting may be implemented and/or started,” teaching connection and use of the arms through the microprocessor to couple the robot to the lawnmower and ¶ 0143 lines 44-49 “These task arms and/or task tips (such as those shown in FIGS. 3A-3H and/or FIGS. 9A-9N) may be deployed and/or positioned and/or docked (as shown in FIG. 15) and/or fixated and/or married to the lawn mower blade(s) (as shown in FIGS. 11A-11C)”)
wherein the coupling mechanism comprises […], and wherein the coupling mechanism is configured to […] the robot to the lawn mower. (Smith ¶ 0132 lines lines 7-9 “some other way in which to grab and/or affix and/or hold a lawn mower blade is also provided,” describing grabbing a lawn mower)
Smith does not explicitly teach:
[…] a clamp […] clamp […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Smith, Koelndorfer teaches:
[…] wherein the coupling mechanism comprises a clamp, and wherein the coupling mechanism is configured to clamp the robot to the lawn mower. (Koelndorfer Col 3 lines 25-30 “the present device is placed on the blade with the arm between the blade and the inner wall of the mower body. The back edge of the blade is fully seated in slots 50 of the two lugs and thumb screws 52 and 54 are tightened until base 42 is rigidly secured to blade 16,” and Col 4 lines 1-6 “One of the particular advantages of the present device is the fact that it can .be mounted on most conventional and/or standard rotary type mowers and, since it is clamped rigidly to the blade, little or no difficulty is encountered in retaining the blade 16 stationary and in position where the device can be most effectively operated,” teaching clamping a device to a lawnmower blade to operate the device, shown in Figs 1 and 8 to be clamped to blade 16)
Smith and Koelndorfer are considered analogous because they both relate to lawnmower blade sharpening devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the use of the arm to affix the robot to a lawnmower blade for performance of a task of Smith with the addition of Koelndorfer’s clamp to rigidly secure to the blade of the mower. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by an improved ability retain the blade stationary and in position where the device can be most effectively operated (Koelndorfer Col 4 lines 1-6).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Smith and Koelndorfer teaches the elements of Claim 11 as described above. Smith further teaches:
controlling, by the at least one processor, the drive system to drive from the second location to a third location in response to controlling the docking arm to un-dock the robot from the second location. (Smith ¶ 0110 lines 4-5 “the robot exits from under the lawn mower after completing task(s) at 57,” teaching that the robot moves from the second location under the robot to a third location outside the lawnmower, consistent with the meaning of “a third location” from the present specification ¶ 0095 “the third location may be a location that is the same as the first location,” here meaning outside of the lawnmower, and further teaching that the robot moves after completing a task, as applies to Koelndorfer’s removal of the clamping device upon completing an operation)
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Smith and Koelndorfer teaches the elements of Claim 11 as described above. Smith further teaches:
wherein, controlling the docking arm to dock the robot at the second location further comprises: determining a location of a blade of the lawn mower; (Smith ¶ 0109 lines 1-10 “At 52, it is determine whether or not lawn mower blade(s) have been detected. […] If, however, the lawn mower blades have been detected, it is determined if the lawn mower blade cutting edges are detected at 53. […] If yes, the robot conducts and/or completes the task at 54 […] controlled by sensor(s),” teaching that the robot completes the task controlled by the sensor detection of the blades, and ¶ 0143 lines 1-9 “Once the robot determines which lawn mower blade(s) to service, it travels to the blade(s). Then, through at least one […] sensor(s) (2), […] the robot determines the exact location of the lawn mower blade(s) cutting edge(s) through at least one of […] sensor(s) 2”)
and controlling the docking arm to dock the robot to lawn mower at the location of the blade of the lawn mower. (Smith ¶ 0132 lines lines 7-16 “A magnet 91 and/or some other way in which to grab and/or affix and/or hold a lawn mower blade is also provided A first arm 92 is provided to secure and/or grasp the old and/or used lawn mower blade, while a second arm 93 is provided to secure and/or grasp the new and/or replacement lawn mower blade. Referring to FIG. 12B, an example configuration of how a lawn mower blade(s) would affix and/or rest and/or spins and/or shifts and/or engages and/or otherwise interact with the lawn mower blade(s) changing component of a robot is shown,” shown in Fig 12B to be at the location of the blade, and ¶ 0143 lines 1-2 “Once the robot determines which lawn mower blade(s) to service, it travels to the blade(s).”)
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Smith and Koelndorfer teaches the elements of Claim 11 as described above. Smith further teaches:
wherein the robot further comprises a task arm, (Smith ¶ 0008 lines 1-5 “According to one aspect of the present disclosure, an autonomous lawn mower blade sharpening and task robot configured to drive under at least one of a lawn mower and a lawn mower deck is provided. The robot includes […], at least one task arm,”)
wherein the task arm is operatively connected to the at least one processor, and wherein the method further comprises: controlling, by the at least one processor, the task arm to complete the task associated with the lawn mower, (Smith ¶ 0109 lines 25-43 “Once the task that needs to be completed is determined through at least one of […] microprocessor, […] the appropriate task arm and/or task tip is selected through at least one of […] microprocessor, […] and/or placed and/or positioned on the robot and/or positioned in the appropriate and/or various location(s) in relation to the lawn mower blade(s) and/or lawn mower blade(s) cutting edge(s) in order to complete the task(s) in the most efficient and/or accurate manner through at least one of […] microprocessor,” teaching the task arm being controlled by the microprocessor to complete the task)
wherein the task comprises sharpening a blade of the lawn mower. (Smith ¶ 0113 “FIG. 9A shows a lawn mower blade cutting edge sharpening task tip 63 in accordance with one aspect of the present disclosure. […] This task arm 62 can be any suitable type, size, shape, material, and/or mobility, and may be either attached and/or integrated into a robot for the purposes of carrying out tasks related to lawn mower blades and the underside of lawn mower decks, task arm platform, a track, any arm, any shaft, and/or mechanism attached to and/or a part of a robot for the purposes of sharpening a lawn mower blade,” teaching a task of sharpening a lawn mower blade, and ¶ 0143 lines 44-49 “These task arms and/or task tips (such as those shown in FIGS. 3A-3H and/or FIGS. 9A-9N) may be deployed and/or positioned and/or docked (as shown in FIG. 15) and/or fixated and/or married to the lawn mower blade(s) (as shown in FIGS. 11A-11C)” and referencing ¶ 01310 “FIG. 11B illustrates a side view of an example of how a task tip 63 and/or task arm 62 may engage and/or otherwise may contact with a lawn mower blade 86 and/or the lawn mower blade cutting edge 87 in accordance with an aspect of the present disclosure,” teaches the docking with the blade for the operation of the task)
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Smith and Koelndorfer teaches the elements of Claim 11 as described above. Smith further teaches:
controlling the docking arm to move in an upward direction, a downward direction, and/or rotate. (Smith ¶ 0143 lines 44-49 teaching docking with a task arm and ¶ 0086 lines 1-6 “Referring now to FIG. 3C, an embodiment of robot 1 is illustrated as including a mobile telescoping task arm 17. Mobile telescoping task arm 16 may have one or more layers, levels, rotation parts and/or joints. Mobile telescoping task arm 16 may be configured to articulate, raise, lower, spin,” teaching the task arm able to raise (move in an upward direction) lower (move in a downward direction) and spin (rotate))
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Smith and Koelndorfer teaches the elements of Claim 11 as described above. Smith further teaches:
wherein the docking arm is static. (Smith ¶ 0143 lines 44-49 teaching docking with a task arm and ¶ 0086 lines 1-3 “Referring to FIG. 3A, in accordance with an embodiment of the disclosure, robot 1 is shown with a static task arm.”)
Claim(s) 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Koelndorfer and further in view of Wu (CN 112987756, hereinafter “Wu,” all citations and excerpts taken from the attached machine translation).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Smith and Koelndorfer teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Smith further teaches:
wherein the docking arm comprises a first end connected to the robot and a second end, wherein the second end is connected to a coupling mechanism, (Smith ¶ 0132 lines lines 7-16 “A magnet 91 and/or some other way in which to grab and/or affix and/or hold a lawn mower blade is also provided A first arm 92 is provided to secure and/or grasp the old and/or used lawn mower blade, while a second arm 93 is provided to secure and/or grasp the new and/or replacement lawn mower blade. Referring to FIG. 12B, an example configuration of how a lawn mower blade(s) would affix and/or rest and/or spins and/or shifts and/or