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 preliminary amendment filed 24 June 2026.
Claims 2-15, 17-19 and 21 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1, 20 and 22 have been canceled.
Claim 23 has been added.
Claims 2-19, 21 and 23 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 24 June 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Response to Amendments and Remarks
Drawings
The drawings were objected to because of informalities. Applicant has amended the drawings to overcome or render moot each of the objections to the drawings. Accordingly, the objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Specification
The specification was objected to because of informalities. Applicant has amended the specification to overcome the objections to the specification. Accordingly, the objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 9 were objected to because of informalities. The applicant has amended the claims to overcome, or render moot the objection of claim 4, but has not amended claim 9 to overcome the objection. Accordingly, the objection of claim 4 is withdrawn, however the objection of claim 9 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-11, 13-14 and 21 were 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.
The Applicant has amended the claims to overcome or render moot most of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-14 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn. However, the rejection of claim 3 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 and 103
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-17, 19 and 21 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US-20230345865-A1, hereinafter “Lee”).
Claim(s) 4 and 15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20230345865-A1, hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Li (CN-116973955-A, hereinafter “Li”).
Claim(s) 7 and 18 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20230345865-A1, hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Palmer (CA-2588269-A1, hereinafter “Palmer”).
Claim(s) 11 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20230345865-A1, hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Killian et al. (US-20230003897-A1, hereinafter “Killian”).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12, filed 24 June 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2-19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues
Applicants respectfully submit that Lee fails to teach that the mobile device is configured to receive satellite positioning data from a plurality of satellites and correction positioning data from at least one reference station In this regard, Lee discloses a boundary creation method for a robotic garden tool including a communication system between the robotic garden tool 105 and an external device 115 (which may be a "base station" device 145 or a mobile phone). The disclosed method includes using "cooperative" Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) techniques where two devices (the robotic garden tool 105 and the external device 115) receive satellite signals to determine their own locations, then share "calibration information" i.e. raw signal measurements related to signal timing and/or carrier phase with each other. The external device 115 will then compute its precise position using its own satellite data and the calibration data from the robotic garden tool 105. As the user walks the desired boundary with the external device, the computed position will be used to create desired waypoints which will then be connected to form the boundary.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner acknowledges that Lee teaches that in at least one embodiment that the mobile device receives the correction positioning data from the robotic garden tool. However, the examiner notes that Lee discloses that during the creation of the virtual boundary, the robotic garden tool is stationery and acts as a base station or a reference station. Thus, the external device (which Lee teaches may be a smart phone) 115 receives correction positioning data from a reference station (see at least Lee [0010] “The method may further include transmitting, with the first electronic processor, calibration information regarding the first location signal to an external device. The robotic garden tool may be configured to remain stationary to act as a first base station with respect to the external device during creation of the virtual boundary by the external device” and [0017] “The robotic garden tool may be configured to remain stationary to act as a first real-time kinematic global navigating satellite systems (RTK GNSS) base station with respect to the external device during creation of a virtual boundary by the external device as the external device is moved in the operating area.” and [0071] “At block 510, the first electronic processor 205 transmits the calibration information regarding the first location signal to the base station device 145. For example, the first electronic processor 205 may transmit the calibration information via a first RF transceiver of the first network interface 215 of the robotic mower 105.”).
Further, Lee teaches that while the robotic garden tool performs the steps of transmitting the calibration information to the external device (smartphone), it is common for a base station, separate and distinct from the robotic garden tool (see at least Lee [0072] “ By performing blocks 505 and 510, the robotic mower 105 is performing actions that are typically performed by the base station device 145 during an operation of the robotic mower 105 (e.g., during a mowing operation).”). Thus, Lee clearly contemplates sending the external device, which may be a smart phone, correction positioning data from the base station (a reference station) as claimed.
Applicant further argues:
Lee does not disclose that the external device 115 is adapted to receive any correction positioning information from a reference station. The passages from Lee cited by the Examiner in the rejection of claim 12 ([0003] and [0075]) only describe the mobile/external device receiving satellite signals (from satellites) and calibration information (from the robotic garden tool). "The external device may include a second electronic processor that may be configured to receive the first location signal from the satellite. The second electronic processor may also be configured to receive the calibration information from the robotic garden tool." (Lee, [0003]). Lee does not disclose a reference station that generates correction positioning data, nor any communication of such data to an external device. Accordingly, Lee fails to disclose the required element of claim 12 of the mobile device receiving correction positioning data from a reference station. Of note, Lee discloses two main possibilities in the provided disclosure utilizing an external device. The external device may function as the base station device, or there may be provided a separate base station device. If the external device functions as the base station device, the mobile device may receive positioning data from the robotic garden tool. If there is provided a separate base station device, the mobile device is not adapted to receive any calibration data from the robotic garden tool.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in Figure 1A, the external device (which may be a smart phone) 115 is adapted to receive correction positioning information from a reference station (i.e. from the robotic garden tool 105 and base station 145). Figure 1A clearly shows the communication between the external device 115 and the robotic lawn tool 105 (acting as a base station) and also shows communication between the external device 115 and the base station 145. This is further supported by paragraph [0057] which indicates that the external device 115 sends and receives data from all the devices of the communication system (see at least Lee [0057] “In some embodiments, the second electronic processor 305 sends data to and receives data from the robotic mower 105 and/or other devices of the communication system 100 via the second network interface 315.”). Thus, Lee teaches that the external device 115, which may be a smart phone, receives data from the reference station. The remaining points of this argument have been addressed above regarding the robotic garden tool acting as a reference station and are not addressed here again.
Applicant further argues:
Even assuming, arguendo, that the base station is a reference station (which it is not), Lee does not disclose that the mobile device receives positioning data from three sources (i.e. satellites, base station, and robotic garden tool). The mobile device may receive satellite signals and boundary creation information from the base station, but "calibration data" is exchanged only between the mower and the base station, not with a separate mobile device. The mobile device in Lee is taught to receive satellite data from satellites as well as various user interface outputs such as waypoint data from the base station, but not calibration and/or correction data from both the mower and a reference station.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the mobile device receives positioning data from three sources (i.e. satellites, base station, and robotic garden tool).) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The examiner notes that the claim does not require that the mobile device receives positioning data from three sources. Further, the claim does not require that reference station is separate and distinct from the robotic lawnmower. Again, the examiner notes that Lee contemplates sending the external device, which may be a smart phone, correction positioning data from the base station (a reference station) (see at least Lee which teaches that while the robotic garden tool performs the steps of transmitting the calibration information to the external device (smartphone), it is common for a base station, separate and distinct from the robotic garden tool. See [0072] “ By performing blocks 505 and 510, the robotic mower 105 is performing actions that are typically performed by the base station device 145 during an operation of the robotic mower 105 (e.g., during a mowing operation).”)
Applicant further argues:
It is worth mentioning that the calibration information disclosed by Lee and the correction positioning data of claim 12 are fundamentally different types of data. Calibration information, as used in Lee, consists of raw signal measurements (including signal phase and timing information) exchanged between devices and used to compute position locally. In contrast, the correction positioning data generated by a reference station is computed error correction information that contains a known position of a known reference station, and which is transmitted directly to another device for subsequent improvement of device positioning accuracy (see paragraph [0044]) i.e. "The fixed station 31, with more exact knowledge of its actual position, can based on this actual position and a position determined based on satellite reception calculate correction data." (Specification [0044]). In other words, the various devices of Lee exchange measurement data amongst themselves that must be processed locally to derive positional corrections. In the claimed invention, however, the mobile device receives, from the reference station, positioning data that has already been corrected by the reference station. Lee teaches, in paragraph [0075], a cooperative RTK positioning method wherein the robotic garden tool and the base station receive satellite positioning data from satellites that is then shared between the base station and the robotic garden tool in order for each device to calculate its own corrected position using the signal data of the other. The correction computation of Lee is performed locally (by each device) while the correction computation of the claimed invention is performed at the reference station. The calibration information of Lee is input to the correction calculation while the correction positioning data of the claimed invention is output of the correction calculation. Therefore, the calibration information of Lee and the correction positioning data of the claimed invention exist at different stages of the positioning process and are therefore not interchangeable, nor identical.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. While the examiner does not concede that the calibration information of Lee and the correction positioning data of the instant claim are different types of data, the examiner notes that even if the data is “different type” of data altogether, Lee teaches the correction positioning data as claimed. Applicant does not provide a further definition of the correction position data to distinguish it from the teaching of Lee.
Further, Applicant describes that the correction position data is based on the phase of the received satellite signal carrier wave (see at least [0046] of the instant application “Different dGPS systems exist. In a first example an RTK, Real Time Kinematics, system may be used in a robotic lawnmower system as illustrated with the example in figs 5 and 6. RTK produces a correction signal based on the phase of the received satellite signal carrier wave.”) . Lee similarly describes obtaining the first correction positioning data from a first reference station and further teaches that the position is determined via RTK GNSS and further describes a calibration signal which is based on the phase of the signal (See Lee, Abstract “The robotic garden tool may be configured to receive a first location signal from a satellite, and to transmit calibration information regarding the first location signal to the external device.” See also Lee [0003], [0006], [0008] “[0006] In addition to any combination of features described above, the first electronic processor may be configured to receive the first location signal via a first real-time kinematic global navigating satellite systems (RTK GNSS) receiver of the robotic garden tool. The first electronic processor may be configured to transmit the calibration information via a first radio frequency transceiver of the robotic garden tool. The second electronic processor may be configured to receive the first location signal via a second RTK GNSS receiver of the external device. The second electronic processor may be configured to receive the calibration information via a second radio frequency transceiver of the external device…. [0008] In addition to any combination of features described above, the calibration information may include first phase information of the first location signal received by the robotic garden tool. The second electronic processor may be configured to compare the first phase information to second phase information of the first location signal received by the external device to aid in determining the plurality of locations of the external device.”)
Applicant has not provided a separate argument for the remaining independent claims 9 and 19 and the dependent claims 2-8, 10, 11, 13-18 and 21 and relies upon the previous argument. Accordingly, these arguments are addressed in the response above.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “receiving, by the mobile device, satellite positioning data from a plurality of satellites as well as first correction positioning data from a first reference station….”. The examiner recommends replacing “as well as” with “and” such that the claim recites “receiving, by the mobile device, satellite positioning data from a plurality of satellites and first correction positioning data from a first reference station” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 9 is a method claim, however the claim has a lengthy preamble with system limitations that do not limit the method. For example, claim 9 recites “the robotic lawnmower being configured to process the work area and to determine a position of the robotic lawnmower in the work area” and “the mobile device having a camera configured to capture images of the work area and display the images via a user interface”. The claim is a method claim and thus, these system limitations are not limiting.
Further, claim 9 recites “a set of positions, which are transferred to the robotic lawnmower” which does not positively recite transferring the set of positions, and thus this limitation does not further limit the method claim.
Further, at least claims 9, 12, and 19 contain statements of intended use such as:
“The robotic lawnmower being configured to process the work area and to determine a position of the robotic lawnmower in the work area” as recited in claims 9, 12, and 19
“The mobile device having a camera configured to capture images of the work area and display the images via a user interface” as recited in claims 9, 12, and 19
“first correction positioning data from a first reference station for enhancing said satellite positioning data” as recited in claims 9 and 19
“mobile device configured to determine a position of the mobile device” as recited in at least claims 12 and 19
“a display which provides a user interface, enabling a user to define boundary segments of the work area boundary therein as a set of positions which are transferred to the robotic lawnmower” as recited in at least claim 12 and 19
Such intended use limitations do not distinguish a claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus that satisfies all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Therefore, the intended use did not impose any limit on the interpretation of the claims. See MPEP 2111.04. For example, the limitation regarding the robotic lawnmower configured to determine a position of the robotic lawnmower in the work area merely require the lawnmower to be capable of receiving position information or to include a GPS to obtain a location.
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.
Claim 2-11, 21 and 23 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.
Claim 3 recites “the same of the reference station or the second reference station”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites “defining boundary segments of the work area on the images”. Claim 9 does not positively recite creating images. Rather, claim 9 recites in the preamble a mobile device having a camera configured to capture images which are met by a smart phone having a camera. However, it is not clear if the step of creating an image is required by claim 9.
Claim 23 recites “the system of claim 12….wherein the user defines or edits the boundary segments by selecting positions directly on the displayed image of the work area”. The examiner notes that claim 12 is a system claim, however the cited recitation does not limit the system, rather it is directed to the user and what the user is capable of performing. The claim does not positively recite the user is not part of the system. It is not clear what is intended by the recitation of “wherein the user defines or edits the boundary segments by selecting positions directly on the displayed image of the work area”. For example, it is not clear whether the user is intended to be part of the claimed system or if the system includes a user interface that is configured to allow the user to define or edit the boundary segments.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: creating images of the work area. Claim 9 recites “defining boundary segments of the work area on the images”. Claim 9 does not positively recite creating images. Rather, claim 9 recites in the preamble a mobile device having a camera configured to capture images which is met by a smart phone having a camera.
Claims 2-8, 10-11 and 21 depend from claim 9 and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on their dependency on claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-17, 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US-20230345865-A1, hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses for defining or editing a boundary of a work area in a robotic lawnmower system including a robotic lawnmower and a mobile device (see at least Lee Figure 1a and 1b, and [0002] “The present disclosure relates to robotic garden tools, particularly to methods and systems for creating one or more virtual boundaries for a robotic garden tool within an operating area.” See also [0035] FIG. 1A illustrates a communication system 100 that may include a robotic garden tool 105 (e.g., a robotic lawn mower 105 that may also be referred to as a robotic mower 105), a docking station 110 for the robotic mower 105, an external device 115, a base station device 145, a satellite 150, and a server 152 according to some example embodiments.” See also Lee claim 8.),
the robotic lawnmower being configured to process the work area and to determine a position of the robotic lawnmower in the work area (see at least Lee Figure 1a and 1b, robotic lawn mower 105. See at least Lee [0005] “In addition to any combination of features described above, the second electronic processor of the external device may be configured such that during operation of the robotic garden tool as the robotic garden tool moves on the operating surface in the operating area, the second electronic processor may (I) receive a second location signal from the satellite, and (II) transmit second calibration information regarding the second location signal to the robotic garden tool. The first electronic processor of the robotic garden tool may be configured such that during operation of the robotic garden tool as the robotic garden tool moves on the operating surface in the operating area, the first electronic processor may one or more of (I) receive the second location signal from the satellite, (II) receive the second calibration information from the external device, (III) determine a current location of the robotic garden tool based on (i) the second location signal received by the first electronic processor from the satellite and (ii) the second calibration information from the external device, and (IV) control operation of the at least one wheel motor to control movement of the robotic garden tool based on the current location of the robotic garden tool and the virtual boundary.” See also [0002] [0003] [0035] and [0068-0069] “…[0069] In some embodiments, the first electronic processor 205 uses the first location signal to determine a current location of the robotic mower 105.” See also Lee claim 1 and 15.), and
the mobile device having a camera configured to capture images of the work area and display the images via a user interface(see at least Lee, Figure 1A, mobile device 115 See also [0041] for user interface of external device “The external device 115 may be, for example, a smart phone (as illustrated), a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wireless communication router that allows another external device 115 that is located remotely from the robotic mower 105 to communicate with the robotic mower 105, or another electronic device capable of communicating with the robotic mower 105. The external device 115 may generate a user interface and allow a user to access and interact with robotic mower information. The external device 115 may receive user inputs to determine operational parameters/instructions for the robotic mower 105, enable or disable features of the robotic mower 105, and the like.” See also Figures 2 and 3 and [0057] “The second network interface 315 may also include a second GPS receiver (e.g., a second RTK GNSS receiver) configured to receive a location signal from one or more satellites 150. In some embodiments, at least some of the transceivers and/or receivers of the external device 115 may be combined or share some elements (e.g., an antenna and/or other hardware). In some embodiments, the second electronic processor 305 sends data to and receives data from the robotic mower 105 and/or other devices of the communication system 100 via the second network interface 315.” See also [0058] “For example, the external device 115 may include a battery, a camera, or the like.” See also [0073] and [0076-0077] Regarding creation of waypoints for virtual boundary. See for example [0017] regarding confinement to the virtual boundary. See also claim 1 (mobile device determines position in work area), claim 7 (user interface enabling a user to define boundary as set positions), the method comprising:
receiving, by the mobile device satellite positioning data from a plurality of satellites as well as first correction positioning data from a first reference station for enhancing said satellite positioning data (see at least Lee, Figure 1A, mobile device 115 having second electronic processor 305 that receives a location signal from one or more satellites 150. See at least [0057] “FIG. 3 is a block diagram of the external device 115 according to some example embodiments. In the example shown, the external device 115 includes a second electronic processor 305 electrically connected to a second memory 310, a second network interface 315, a second user input device 320, and a second display 325. … The second network interface 315 may also include a second GPS receiver (e.g., a second RTK GNSS receiver) configured to receive a location signal from one or more satellites 150. …” Further Lee, which teaches the mobile device receives calibration data (correction positioning data from the lawn garden tool acting as a base station or a reference station. See at least Lee [0010] “The method may further include transmitting, with the first electronic processor, calibration information regarding the first location signal to an external device. The robotic garden tool may be configured to remain stationary to act as a first base station with respect to the external device during creation of the virtual boundary by the external device” and [0017] “The robotic garden tool may be configured to remain stationary to act as a first real-time kinematic global navigating satellite systems (RTK GNSS) base station with respect to the external device during creation of a virtual boundary by the external device as the external device is moved in the operating area.” and [0071] “At block 510, the first electronic processor 205 transmits the calibration information regarding the first location signal to the base station device 145. For example, the first electronic processor 205 may transmit the calibration information via a first RF transceiver of the first network interface 215 of the robotic mower 105.”).,
determining, by the mobile device, a position of the mobile device in the work area, (see at least Lee, Figure 1A, mobile device 115. See at least Lee [0003] “ The external device may include a second electronic processor that may be configured to receive the first location signal from the satellite. The second electronic processor may also be configured to receive the calibration information from the robotic garden tool. The second electronic processor may also be configured to determine a plurality of locations of the external device, based on (i) the first location signal received by the second electronic processor from the satellite and (ii) the calibration information from the robotic garden tool, as the external device is moved in the operating area during the creation of the virtual boundary. The second electronic processor may also be configured to store the plurality of locations of the external device as waypoints. The virtual boundary may be generated using the waypoints. The external device may be configured to be hand-held by a user while being moved in the operating area during the creation of the virtual boundary.” and
defining boundary segments of the work area on the images as a set of positions which are transferred to the robotic lawnmower (The examiner notes the 112 rejection above and further that the phrase “which are transferred to the robotic lawnmower” is not positively recited as a method step and is does not limit the claims. Thus, the examiner asserts that Lee teaches defining the boundary segments of the work area. See at least Lee, Figure 1A, mobile device 115 See at least Lee [0003] “The external device may include a second electronic processor that may be configured to receive the first location signal from the satellite. The second electronic processor may also be configured to receive the calibration information from the robotic garden tool. The second electronic processor may also be configured to determine a plurality of locations of the external device, based on (i) the first location signal received by the second electronic processor from the satellite and (ii) the calibration information from the robotic garden tool, as the external device is moved in the operating area during the creation of the virtual boundary. The second electronic processor may also be configured to store the plurality of locations of the external device as waypoints. The virtual boundary may be generated using the waypoints. The external device may be configured to be hand-held by a user while being moved in the operating area during the creation of the virtual boundary.” See also [0041] for user interface of external device “The external device 115 may be, for example, a smart phone (as illustrated), a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wireless communication router that allows another external device 115 that is located remotely from the robotic mower 105 to communicate with the robotic mower 105, or another electronic device capable of communicating with the robotic mower 105. The external device 115 may generate a user interface and allow a user to access and interact with robotic mower information. The external device 115 may receive user inputs to determine operational parameters/instructions for the robotic mower 105, enable or disable features of the robotic mower 105, and the like.” See also Figures 2 and 3 and [0057] “The second network interface 315 may also include a second GPS receiver (e.g., a second RTK GNSS receiver) configured to receive a location signal from one or more satellites 150. In some embodiments, at least some of the transceivers and/or receivers of the external device 115 may be combined or share some elements (e.g., an antenna and/or other hardware). In some embodiments, the second electronic processor 305 sends data to and receives data from the robotic mower 105 and/or other devices of the communication system 100 via the second network interface 315.” See also [0073] and [0076-0077] Regarding creation of waypoints for virtual boundary. See for example [0017] regarding confinement to the virtual boundary. See also claim 1 (mobile device determines position in work area), claim 7 (user interface enabling a user to define boundary as set positions ).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein the robotic lawnmower receives second correction positioning data from the first reference station or a second reference station (see at least Lee [0011-0012] “In addition to any combination of features described above, the method may also include after the creation of the virtual boundary, placing the external device in a stationary manner at a base station location. The external device may be configured to remain stationary to act as a second base station with respect to the robotic garden tool during operation of the robotic garden tool as the robotic garden tool moves on the operating surface in the operating area….[0012] In addition to any combination of features described above, the method may also include during operation of the robotic garden tool as the robotic garden tool moves on the operating surface in the operating area one or more of: (I) receiving, with the second electronic processor of the external device, a second location signal from the satellite, (II) transmitting, with the second electronic processor, second calibration information regarding the second location signal to the robotic garden tool, (III) receiving, with the first electronic processor of the robotic garden tool, the second location signal from the satellite, (IV) receiving, with the first electronic processor, the second calibration information from the external device, (V) determining, with the first electronic processor, a current location of the robotic garden tool based on (i) the second location signal received by the first electronic processor from the satellite and (ii) the second calibration information from the external device, and (VI) controlling, with the first electronic processor, operation of the at least one wheel motor to control movement of the robotic garden tool based on the current location of the robotic garden tool and the virtual boundary.” See also Claims 9 and 10.)
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the mobile device and the robotic lawnmower each receive the first correction positioning data and the second correction positioning data, respectively from the same of the first or the second reference station (the examiner notes the 112 rejection above see at least Lee wherein the mobile device and the robotic lawn mower receive the correction positioning data from the second electronic processor of an external device, such as base station device 145. See at least Figure 1A wherein mobile device 115 and mower 105 are in communication with base station device 145. See also least Lee [0012] “with the second electronic processor of the external device, a second location signal from the satellite, (II) transmitting, with the second electronic processor, second calibration information regarding the second location signal to the robotic garden tool” [0080] “ In some embodiments, the smart phone 115 may provide an extended user interface with respect to the base station device 145 and may control the base station device 145, for example, to enable/disable storing of waypoints. For example, a graphical user interface (GUI) on the second display 325 may display a user-selectable button that enables/disables the base station device 145 to store waypoints. For example, the smart phone 115 may transmit commands to the base station device 145 via an RF transceiver of the second network interface 315 of the smart phone 115. Additionally, the base station device 145 may transmit collected waypoint data to the smart phone 115 for display on the second display 325. In some embodiments, the collected waypoints and/or the virtual boundary 610 may be displayed on the second display 325. In some embodiments, the second electronic processor 305 of the smart phone 115 may receive a user input via the second display 325 that indicates whether certain waypoints and/or portions of the virtual boundary 610 correspond to obstacles within a perimeter virtual boundary 610 around an edge of the operating area 155 or the like.” See also and [0084] “ In some embodiments, the base station device 145 is configured to be placed in a stationary manner at a base station location after the creation of the virtual boundary 610 and is configured to remain stationary to act as a second base station with respect to the robotic mower 105 during operation of the robotic mower 105 as the robotic mower 105 moves on the operating surface in the operating area 155. In other words, after the virtual boundary 610 is created by moving the base station device 145 around the operating area 155, the base station device 145 may return to its typical role/functionality of operating as a stationary RTK GNSS base station for the mobile robotic mower 105. In some embodiments, the third electronic processor 405 of the base station device 145 may determine to switch roles/functionality in response to a user input received by the third input device 420 of the base station device 145 and/or in response to receiving a command from another device in the communication system 100. For example, the command may be received from the robotic mower 105 or the smart phone 115 in response to a user input respectively received by the robotic mower 105 or the smart phone 115.”).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein the first correction positioning data is sent over a radio channel (see at least Lee [0006] “The second electronic processor may be configured to receive the first location signal via a second RTK GNSS receiver of the external device. The second electronic processor may be configured to receive the calibration information via a second radio frequency transceiver of the external device.” See also and [0013] “In some instances, receiving, with the second electronic processor of the external device, the first location may include receiving the first location signal via a second RTK GNSS receiver of the external device. In some instances, receiving the calibration information may include receiving the calibration information via a second radio frequency transceiver of the external device.”)
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein the first correction positioning data is sent over a cellular mobile network (see at least Lee Figure 1A, and [0043] “As another example, the robotic mower 105, external device 115, and/or base station device 145 may transmit information to and/or receive information from the server 152, for example, over a cellular network.”).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein the position of the mobile device is determined based on the satellite positioning data and the first correction positioning data. (see at least Lee, Figure 1A, mobile device 115 and/or 145. See at least Lee [0003] “The external device may include a second electronic processor that may be configured to receive the first location signal from the satellite. The second electronic processor may also be configured to receive the calibration information from the robotic garden tool. The second electronic processor may also be configured to determine a plurality of locations of the external device, based on (i) the first location signal received by the second electronic processor from the satellite and (ii) the calibration information from the robotic garden tool, as the external device is moved in the operating area during the creation of the virtual boundary.” See also Figures 2 and 3 and [0057] “The second network interface 315 may also include a second GPS receiver (e.g., a second RTK GNSS receiver) configured to receive a location signal from one or more satellites 150. In some embodiments, at least some of the transceivers and/or receivers of the external device 115 may be combined or share some elements (e.g., an antenna and/or other hardware). In some embodiments, the second electronic processor 305 sends data to and receives data from the robotic mower 105 and/or other devices of the communication system 100 via the second network interface 315.” See also Lee claims 8 and 11)
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein said first correction positioning data is received via IP communication (see at least Lee [0041] As indicated in FIG. 1A, in some embodiments, the robotic mower 105 is configured to wirelessly communicate with the external device 115 and/or the base station device 145 when the robotic mower 105 is within communication range of the external device 115 and/or the base station device 145 (e.g., via Bluetooth™, WiFi™, or the like” The examiner interprets communication via WiFi™ to correspond to receiving data via IP communication).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses a robotic lawnmower system comprising:
a robotic lawnmower configured to process the work area and to determine a position of the robotic lawnmower in the work area (see at least Lee Figure 1a and 1b, robotic lawn mower 105. See at least Lee [0005] “In addition to any combination of features described above, the second electronic processor of the external device may be configured such that during operation of the robotic garden tool as the robotic garden tool moves on the operating surface in the operating area, the second electronic processor may (I) receive a second location signal from the satellite, and (II) transmit second calibration information regarding the second location signal to the robotic garden tool. The first electronic processor of the robotic garden tool may be configured such that during operation of the robotic garden tool as the robotic garden tool moves on the operating surface in the operating area, the first electronic processor may one or more of (I) receive the second location signal from the satellite, (II) receive the second calibration information from the external device, (III) determine a current location of the robotic garden tool based on (i) the second location signal received by the first electronic processor from the satellite and (ii) the second calibration information from the external device, and (IV) control operation of the at least one wheel motor to control movement of the robotic garden tool based on the current location of the robotic garden tool and the virtual boundary.” See also [0002] [0003], [0035], and [0068-0069] “…[0069] In some embodiments, the first electronic processor 205 uses the first location signal to determine a current location of the robotic mower 105.” See also Lee claim 1 and 15.),
mobile device configured to determine a position of the mobile device in the work area and having a camera configured to capture images of the work area and a display which provides a user interface, enabling a user to define boundary segments of the work area boundary therein as a set of positions which are transferred to the robotic lawnmower (see at least Lee, Figure 1A, mobile device 115. See also [0041] for user interface of external device “The external device 115 may be, for example, a smart phone (as illustrated), a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wireless communication router that allows another external device 115 that is located remotely from the robotic mower 105 to communicate with the robotic mower 105, or another electronic device capable of communicating with the robotic mower 105. The external device 115 may generate a user interface and allow a user to access and interact with robotic mower information. The external device 115 may receive user inputs to determine operational parameters/instructions for the robotic mower 105, enable or disable features of the robotic mower 105, and the like.” See also Figures 2 and 3 and [0057] “The second network interface 315 may also include a second GPS receiver (e.g., a second RTK GNSS receiver) configured to receive a location signal from one or more satellites 150. In some embodiments, at least some of the transceivers and/or receivers of the external device 115 may be combined or share some elements (e.g., an antenna and/or other hardware). In some embodiments, the second electronic processor 305 sends data to and receives data from the robotic mower 105 and/or other devices of the communication system 100 via the second network interface 315.” See also [0058] “For example, the external device 115 may include a battery, a camera, or the like.” See also [0073] and [0076-0077] Regarding creation of waypoints for virtual boundary. See for example [0017] regarding confinement to the virtual boundary. See also claim 1 (mobile device determines position in work area), claim 7 (user interface enabling a user to define boundary as set positions),
wherein the mobile device receives satellite positioning data from a plurality of satellites and correction positioning data from at least one reference station (see at least Lee ((see at least Lee, Figure 1A, mobile device 115 having second electronic processor 305 that receives a location signal from one or more satellites 150. See at least [0057] “FIG. 3 is a block diagram of the external device 115 according to some example embodiments. In the example shown, the external device 115 includes a second electronic processor 305 electrically connected to a second memory 310, a second network interface 315, a second user input device 320, and a second display 325. … The second network interface 315 may also include a second GPS receiver (e.g., a second RTK GNSS receiver) configured to receive a location signal from one or more satellites 150. …” Further Lee, which teaches the mobile device receives calibration data (correction positioning data from the lawn garden tool acting as a base station or a reference station. See at least Lee [0010] “The method may further include transmitting, with the first electronic processor, calibration information regarding the first location signal to an external device. The robotic garden tool may be configured to remain stationary to act as a first base station with respect to the external device during creation of the virtual boundary by the external device” and [0017] “The robotic garden tool may be configured to remain stationary to act as a first real-time kinematic global navigating satellite systems (RTK GNSS) base station with respect to the external device during creation of a virtual boundary by the external device as the external device is moved in the operating area.” and [0071] “At block 510, the first electronic processor 205 transmits the calibration information regarding the first location signal to the base station device 145. For example, the first electronic processor 205 may transmit the calibration information via a first RF transceiver of the first network interface 215 of the robotic mower 105.”).
Claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 2, above.
Claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 3, above.
Claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 5, above.
Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 6, above.
Claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 12, above.
Regarding claim 21, it is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 9, above. The examiner notes that Lee teaches a computer program product comprising a computer-readable storage medium for storing instructions which, when the computer program product is executed on a processor, carries out the method according to claim 9 (see at least Lee [0018] “In addition to any combination of features described above, the calibration information may be configured to be used by a second electronic processor of the external device to (i) determine a plurality of locations of the external device as the external device is moved in the operating area during the creation of the virtual boundary, and (ii) store the plurality of locations of the external device as waypoints. The virtual boundary may be generated using the waypoints. The external device may be configured to be hand-held by a user while being moved in the operating area during the creation of the virtual boundary.” See also [0049] “The first memory 210 may include read only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), other non-transitory computer-readable media, or a combination thereof. The first electronic processor 205 is configured to receive instructions and data from the first memory 210 and execute, among other things, the instructions. In particular, the first electronic processor 205 executes instructions stored in the first memory 210 to perform the methods described herein.”).
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) 4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20230345865-A1, hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Li (CN-116973955-A, hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses the method according to claim 9, including showing that the reference station 145 is within a short range of the mobile device 110 and suggests that it is less than 100 meters (see Figure 1B), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the reference station is located within 100 m from the mobile device.
Li discloses wherein the reference station should be within a predetermined distance of the mobile device (see at least Li page 8, lines 19-26 “It should be noted that when the number of frames of the wireless signal is lost or wrong, the wireless signal verification fails, and the possible reasons are that the distance between the mobile device and the base station is too large, or there is a barrier between the mobile device and the base station. Exemplary, when the third signal detection result is that the distance between the self-mobile device and the base station is greater than a preset distance or there is a barrier between the self-mobile device and the base station, the following can be output: " Please confirm that the distance between the self-mobile device flow station and the base station is ensured to be within 500 meters, and there is no need to have signal abnormal prompt of the shielding object which has great influence to the signal.” ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee with the teaching of Li to limit the distance between the reference station and the mobile device, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Li teaches this ensures the signal does not fail due to proximity issues (see page 8, lines 19-26). Further, while Lee teaches within 500 meters and does not explicitly teach within 100 meters, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select predetermined to a predetermined distance within 100 meters based on the arrangement of the work area for the robotic mower and to ensure proper signal between the base station and mobile device (see Li page 8, lines 19-26).
Claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 4, above.
Claim(s) 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20230345865-A1, hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Palmer (CA-2588269-A1, hereinafter “Palmer”).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses the method according to claim 9 but does not explicitly teach wherein an indication is given in the user interface when the first correction positioning data is received.
Palmer teaches wherein an indication is given in the user interface when the correction positioning data is received (see at least Palmer page 6, lines 14-18 “In a first embodiment of the invention, the control system is operatively connected to an automatic steering system. When the control system determines that the mower is deviating from the desired cutting path, the correction control signal is transmitted to the automatic steering system and the mower is automatically steered in the direction necessary for the mower to once again follow the desired cutting path. In a second embodiment of the invention, the control system is operatively connected to a user display comprising a left indicator light and a right indicator light. When the control system determines that the mower is deviating from the desired cutting path to the right of the desired cutting path, a correction control signal is transmitted to the user display” See also Palmer page 16, lines 15-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee with the teaching of Palmer to provide an indication to the user interface of the correction positioning data, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Palmer teaches this ensures that the mower is on the desired path (see at least Palmer page 2 and page 7).
Claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 7, above.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20230345865-A1, hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Killian et al. (US-20230003897-A1, hereinafter “Killian”).
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses the method according to claim 9 but does not teach wherein said first correction positioning data is received via L-band radio communication.
Killian teaches wherein said first correction positioning data is received via L-band radio communication (see at least Killian [0009] “The GNSS correction data are received in step a), in particular from a (mobile) GNSS receiver (itself) or from a higher-level evaluation system such as a data center. The GNSS correction data (correction data of the service to be checked) are preferably received in step a) via IP (Internet Protocol, e.g. TCP/IP or UDP), L-band, or other signal paths.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee with the teaching of Killian, with a reasonable explication of success, because as Killian teaches the GNSS correction data can be received via a number of communication methodologies and including L-band and further teaches that L-band is a suitable alternative to the signals of Lee (see at least Killian [0009]).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20230345865-A1, hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Ackerman et al. (US 20210018927 A1, hereinafter “Ackerman”).
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches the system of claim 12, but does not explicitly teach wherein the mobile device is configured to produce, on the display, a live image of the work area captured by the camera, and to overlay the boundary segments on the live image such that the boundary segments correspond to positions in the work area, and wherein the user defines or edits the boundary segments by selecting positions directly on the displayed image of the work area.
Ackerman teaches wherein the mobile device is configured to produce, on the display, a live image of the work area captured by the camera, and to overlay the boundary segments on the live image such that the boundary segments correspond to positions in the work area, and wherein the user defines or edits the boundary segments by selecting positions directly on the displayed image of the work area (See at least Ackerman Figure 4, element 406 and [0072-0073] “[0072] At block 432, an application (e.g., application 283) is launched on mobile device 224. At block 434, the launched application generates a user interface on mobile device 224 to obtain images of a worksite for which a boundary map is to be generated….[0073] In one example, the application utilizes augmented reality to integrate virtual content with images of the real world as seen through the camera (or other image capture component) of the mobile device 224. The AR provides motion tracking to understand the position and orientation of the camera relative to the worksite, and to detect the size and location of various types of surfaces, such as horizontal, vertical, and angled surfaces of the ground, walls, landscape, or other objects around the worksite. Through the AR interface, a user is able to generate and place virtual markers (e.g., virtual flags) on images of the worksite that represent the desired boundary for robotic mower 202. Using visual odometry and/or other sensors, mobile device 224 can determine its location and orientation, and thus the position and orientation of the field of view of the camera. Examples of augmented reality interfaces include, but are not limited to, ARKit by Apple, ARCore by Google, to name a few.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee with the teaching of Ackerman, with a reasonable explication of success, because as Ackerman teaches that generating virtual markers on images of the worksite is one alternative for creating worksite boundaries that ensures a lawn garden tool to stay within the desired worksite area (see at least Ackerman [0068]) .
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER M. ANDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5pm MST.
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 on (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.
/JENNIFER M ANDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights