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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument filed 07/16/2026 is found persuasive, and second non-final office action is being issued herein. Furthermore, claims 4-11 have been amended. No claims are new.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-2, 9, 11, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102[a][1] as being anticipated by Grufman; Stefan et al. (US 20210289695 A1)
In regards to claim 1, Grufman teaches, A theft prevention system comprising: (See paragraph 3, One function desired in such tools is the detection of the tool being lifted from the ground. For instance, this function may be used to prevent theft.)
a robotic garden tool including (See paragraph 25, Self-propelled robotic tools, for instance in the form of robotic lawnmowers 1 as shown in FIG. 1, have become widely used.)
a housing, (See paragraph 4, In known self-propelled robotic tools, a common way to provide a lifting detection function is to provide sensors in between an outer housing of the robotic tool and its inner chassis.)
a set of wheels coupled to the housing and configured to rotate to propel the robotic garden tool on an operating surface, (See fig. 2, paragraph 30, In the illustrated case two driving wheels 5 are located at the rear end of the robotic tool and two swiveling wheels 7 are located in the front…paragraph 33, Generally, the present disclosure relies on that driving of the wheels, particularly accelerations and decelerations…paragraph 25, robotic tool that operates over a working area. )
at least one wheel motor coupled to one or more wheels of the set of wheels, the at least one wheel motor configured to drive rotation of the one or more wheels, and (See paragraph 30, The driving wheels 5 may typically each be individually driven by an electric motor…paragraph 31, driving wheels 5, typically driven by individual electric motors 11, such as brushless permanent magnet motors, the robotic tool may include an inertia measurement unit, IMU, 13 )
a first electronic processor configured to (See paragraph 32, the robotic tool includes a processing unit 15 such as a CPU or the like)
detect a potential theft event associated with the robotic garden tool, and (See paragraph 34, the detecting method for detecting lifting of the self-propelled robotic device from the ground involves comparing movement of at least one driving wheel 5 with measured inertia data from an inertial measurement unit 13…paragraph 35, The latter may indicate that the robotic tool has been lifted from the ground or floor, such that a lifting condition may be detected 27…paragraph 37, The residual 39 may be compared to a threshold level to provide a decision 41 whether or not the robotic tool has been lifted…paragraph 3, One function desired in such tools is the detection of the tool being lifted from the ground. For instance, this function may be used to prevent theft. If an unauthorized person tries to remove a robotic lawnmower from the lawn where it is intended to operate, an alarm may sound…)
engage in an anti-theft action in response to detecting the potential theft event, wherein the anti-theft action includes ceasing at least one operation of the robotic garden tool until the first electronic processor receives a code indicating that the potential theft event should be ignored. (See paragraph 3, One function desired in such tools is the detection of the tool being lifted from the ground. For instance, this function may be used to prevent theft. If an unauthorized person tries to remove a robotic lawnmower from the lawn where it is intended to operate, an alarm may sound and the lawnmower may be disabled until authorization takes place, for instance with a code. Disabling the lawnmower if lifted may also be a desired function to prevent injury, as rotating knives on the bottom side of the lawnmower may be very sharp. Also see paragraph 26, 33, 38)
In regards to claim 2, Grufman teaches the theft prevention system of claim 1,
wherein the robotic garden tool includes a user input device, and wherein the first electronic processor is configured to receive the code from the user input device in response to a first user input being received by the user input device. (See paragraph 3, an alarm may sound and the lawnmower may be disabled until authorization takes place, for instance with a code. Grufman does not explicitly mention “user input device”, however, it does mention entering a code for authorization, which requires user input device.)
In regards to claim 9, Grufman teaches the theft prevention system of claim 1,
wherein the robotic garden tool further comprises: a lift sensor coupled to the first electronic processor and configured to allow the first electronic processor to detect the potential theft event by determining that a first measured value received from a lift sensor exceeds a first predetermined threshold; and (See paragraph 4, a common way to provide a lifting detection function is to provide sensors in between an outer housing of the robotic tool and its inner chassis. Then, if someone lifts the robotic tool by grabbing the outer housing, the sensors will indicate that the chassis is suspended from the housing, and lifting may be indicated. Such sensors may comprise permanent magnets and Hall sensors indicating movement of said permanent magnets.)
an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor coupled to the first electronic processor and configured to allow the first electronic processor to detect the potential theft event by determining that a second measured value received from the IMU sensor exceeds a second predetermined threshold; wherein the first electronic processor is configured to detect the potential theft event by determining that the first measured value received from the lift sensor exceeds the first predetermined threshold, that the second measured value received from the inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor exceeds the second predetermined threshold, or that both the first measured value exceeds the first predetermined threshold and the second measured value exceeds the second predetermined threshold. (See paragraph 31, the robotic tool may include an inertia measurement unit, IMU, 13 including for instance accelerometers 13a and/or gyroscopes 13b… paragraph 34, detecting lifting of the self-propelled robotic device from the ground involves comparing movement of at least one driving wheel 5 with measured inertia data from an inertial measurement unit 13. The method includes the following steps. Driving data is collected 21 related to the driving of the at least one driving wheel, and measured inertia data is collected 23 from an inertial measurement unit 13, IMU…paragraph 35, estimation function that in a first alternative determines, for a given wheel movement, which inertia measurement unit response would be expected. For instance, if the robotic tool being standing still begins moving by turning the wheels this will be detected as an acceleration by acceleration sensors in the IMU. Likewise, if the robotic tool turns, this will be detected by acceleration sensors and/or gyroscopes in the IMU 13. There may be determined 25 a residual parameter corresponding to a difference between the measured inertia data and estimated inertia data resulting from the driving data being input to said estimation function. If this residual parameter is small, it is most likely that the robotic tool moves freely on the ground or floor. However, if the residual parameter is large, this may be the result of the wheels spinning in the air, and consequently the IMU 13 not giving any corresponding response. The latter may indicate that the robotic tool has been lifted from the ground or floor, such that a lifting condition may be detected 27...paragraph 37, The residual 39 may be compared to a threshold level to provide a decision 41 whether or not the robotic tool has been lifted…paragraph 44, the lifting of a moving robotic tool without provoking a distinct, unexpected IMU response, typically a retardation, will most likely be an unusual event)
In regards to claim 11, Grufman teaches the theft prevention system of claim 1,
wherein the first electronic processor is configured to:determine a load of the one or more wheels; anddetect the potential theft event by determining that thea load of the one or more wheels has changed in a manner that indicates that the one or more wheels are no longer in contact with the operating surface. (See paragraph 33, Generally, the present disclosure relies on that driving of the wheels, particularly accelerations and decelerations will result in corresponding responses from an inertia measurement unit 13 (cf. FIG. 3) as long as the driving wheels rest on the ground and carry at least some of the weight of the self-propelled robotic tool. When the robotic tool is lifted, partially or wholly, from the ground or floor, this relationship between driving of the wheels and the inertia response becomes more or less disconnected…paragraph 35, if the residual parameter is large, this may be the result of the wheels spinning in the air, and consequently the IMU 13 not giving any corresponding response…paragraph 45, It should be noted that the wheels need not move in this situation, it is sufficient that a torque is applied to the wheels. As long as the driving wheels are connected to the ground they will remain still, and if the wheels begin to spin this may be determined as a lifting condition using a wheel sensor 35. This indicates detected change in wheel loading).
In regards to claim 16, Grufman teaches the theft prevention system of claim 1,
wherein the robotic garden tool includes a task motor configured to drive rotation of a working element configured to perform a task; and wherein the at least one operation of the robotic garden tool that is ceased includes operation of the at least one wheel motor, operation of the task motor, or both the operation of the at least one wheel motor and the operation of the task motor. (See paragraph 32, an accumulator 19 may be included, as well as a cutting motor 11, for instance for driving a mowing blade/knife…paragraph 3, the lawnmower may be disabled until authorization takes place, for instance with a code. Disabling the lawnmower if lifted may also be a desired function to prevent injury, as rotating knives on the bottom side of the lawnmower may be very sharp…paragraph 33, That condition, if detected, can be used to detect a lifting condition and taking appropriate action, for instance by sounding an alarm and/or disabling the robotic tool to a greater or lesser extent)
In regards to claim 19, Grufman teaches the theft prevention system of claim 1,
further comprising an external device configured to communicate with the robotic garden tool, wherein the first electronic processor is configured to:receive a lock command from the external device;cease or prevent the at least one operation of the robotic garden tool in response to receiving the lock command;receive an unlock command from the external device; allow the at least one operation of the robotic garden tool in response to receiving the unlock command. (See paragraph 3, One function desired in such tools is the detection of the tool being lifted from the ground. For instance, this function may be used to prevent theft. If an unauthorized person tries to remove a robotic lawnmower from the lawn where it is intended to operate, an alarm may sound and the lawnmower may be disabled until authorization takes place, for instance with a code. As noted above, entering “code” requires input device, and entering wrong code can be interpreted as claimed “lock command” to maintain disabled state.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grufman; Stefan et al. (US 20210289695 A1) in view of BORSDORF RONNY et al. (WO 2019168069 A1)
In regards to claim 3, Grufman teaches the theft prevention system of claim 1.
Grufman does not specifically teach, further comprising an external device including a first network interface configured to communicate with a second network interface of the robotic garden tool, wherein the second network interface is coupled to the first electronic processor;wherein the first electronic processor is configured to receive the code via the second network interface in response to the code being received by the external device via a first user input on the external device.
Borsdorf further teaches, further comprising an external device including a first network interface configured to communicate with a second network interface of the robotic garden tool, wherein the second network interface is coupled to the first electronic processor; wherein the first electronic processor is configured to receive the code via the second network interface in response to the code being received by the external device via a first user input on the external device. (See paragraph 45, the 1/0 44b functions as a communication interface and can be connected to an external communication device (for example, a smartphone) 350 via a network 302. For example, the user can input authentication information (PIN code) from the communication device 350…paragraph 79, the user can input the authentication information (PIN code) from the communication device 350. If the input of the correct authentication information (PIN code) is confirmed, the ECU 44 controls driving of the driving motor 225 to open the members 230a and 230b, thereby releasing the locked state. According to this embodiment, the anti-theft function can be improved by the physical locking between the work vehicle 10 and the charging ST 200. That is, the autonomous work vehicle can be locked to the charging station for anti-theft performance.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Grufman to further comprise system taught by Borsdorf because user can conveniently unlock the lawnmower using smartphone instead of entering a code on lawnmower machine and/or designated areas, thereby improving user experience and allowing user to reoperate lawnmower when he/she is far away.
In regards to claim 17, Grufman teaches the theft prevention system of claim 1.
Grufman does not specifically teach, wherein the anti-theft action includes the first electronic processor controlling the at least one wheel motor to move the robotic garden tool toward a docking station to dock at the docking station.
Borsdorf further teaches, wherein the anti-theft action includes the first electronic processor controlling the at least one wheel motor to move the robotic garden tool toward a docking station to dock at the docking station. (See paragraph 101, On the other hand, if it is determined whether all the scheduled works are complete (YES in step S 1702), the ECU 44 controls the movement of the work vehicle 10 to return the work vehicle 10 to a charging ST 200…paragraph 103, the ECU 44 or the charging station ECU 210 locks the autonomous work vehicle to the charging station for anti-theft performance by the locking operation)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Grufman to further comprise system taught by Borsdorf because user can conveniently unlock the lawnmower using smartphone instead of entering a code on lawnmower machine and/or designated areas, thereby improving user experience and allowing user to reoperate lawnmower when he/she is far away.
Claims 4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grufman; Stefan et al. (US 20210289695 A1) in view of Heinemann; Stefan (US 20200039607 A1)
In regards to claim 4, Grufman teaches the theft prevention system of claim 1.
Grufman teaches entering code to unlock and reenabling the robotic garden tool (paragraph 3), however, does not specifically teach, wherein the … tool includes a battery pack compartment configured to removably receive a battery pack that is configured to provide power to the at least one wheel motor; wherein the battery pack compartment includes a mechanical battery pack lock configured to remain mechanically locked until […instruction] is received by the first electronic processor, and mechanically unlock in response to […instruction] being received by the first electronic processor.
Heinemann further teaches, wherein the … tool includes a battery pack compartment configured to removably receive a battery pack that is configured to provide power to the at least one wheel motor; (See paragraphs 31-32, A battery 18 that is received in a battery compartment 20 that is formed at a seat tube 21 of a frame 22 of the vehicle is provided to supply both the drive motor 10 and the frame lock 16 with electric energy… The battery 18 has a power connection, not shown, that enables a charging of the battery 18 directly at the vehicle. The battery 18 can furthermore be removed from the battery compartment 20 for maintenance purposes or replacement purposes or for a charging remote from the vehicle.)
wherein the battery pack compartment includes a mechanical battery pack lock configured to remain mechanically locked until […instruction] is received by the first electronic processor, and mechanically unlock in response to […instruction] being received by the first electronic processor. (See paragraph 33, To prevent an unauthorized removal and an unintended falling of the battery 18 out of the battery compartment 20, a battery lock 24 is provided that secures the battery 18 in the battery compartment 20. In the present embodiment, the battery lock 24 is integrated into the battery compartment 20 and is configured such that it automatically adopts a locked state as soon as the battery 18 is inserted into the battery compartment 20, for example in that a latch, not shown, preloaded by a spring latches into a latching recess of the battery 18 or of a battery housing or blocks a lever pivoted on the insertion of the battery 18. The battery 18 received in the battery compartment 20 is in this manner normally secured by the locked battery lock 24…paragraph 34-35, The unlocking of the battery lock 24 takes place electrically… The control unit implemented in the onboard computer 12 is provided to control the battery lock 24 and also controls the drive motor 10 and the frame lock 16. In the present embodiment, the unlocking of the battery lock 24 is triggered by a user input at the onboard computer 12, for example in that the user presses a corresponding button on the onboard computer 12)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Grufman to further comprise system taught by Heinemann because security can be further added and enhanced on top of Grufman’s locking wheel/motor component of the vehicle to Heinemann’s mechanically locking the battery pack (paragraph 33).
In regards to claim 6, Grufman- Heinemann teaches the theft prevention system of claim 4, wherein the first electronic processor is configured to control whether the mechanical battery pack lock is in a mechanically locked position or a mechanically unlocked position by controlling a secondary motor coupled to a mechanical locking device of the mechanical battery pack lock. (See Heinemann paragraph 35, The control unit implemented in the onboard computer 12 is provided to control the battery lock 24 and also controls the drive motor 10 and the frame lock 16…paragraph 9, The unlocking of the battery lock is therefore ultimately controlled by the motor control...paragraph 34, The unlocking of the battery lock 24 takes place electrically. For this purpose, the battery lock comprises an electric drive by which the latch can be at least temporarily moved against the restoring force of the spring into an unlocked position releasing the battery 18. For example, the electric drive can comprise an electric motor and an eccentric member that is connected between the electric motor and the latch…paragraph 19, The battery lock may comprise a latch that locks the battery received in the battery compartment in a locked position and that can be brought by an electric drive into an unlocked position in which the latch releases the battery received in the battery compartment.)
In regards to claim 7, Grufman teaches the theft prevention system of claim 1.
Grufman teaches entering code to unlock and reenabling the robotic garden tool (paragraph 3), however, does not specifically teach, wherein the … tool includes a battery pack compartment configured to removably receive a battery pack that is configured to provide power to the at least one wheel motor; wherein the battery pack compartment includes a mechanical battery pack lock configured to remain mechanically locked until the […instruction] is received by the mechanical battery pack lock via a manual user input, and mechanically unlock in response to the […instruction] being received by the mechanical battery pack lock via the manual user input.
Heinemann further teaches, wherein the … tool includes a battery pack compartment configured to removably receive a battery pack that is configured to provide power to the at least one wheel motor; (See paragraphs 31-32, A battery 18 that is received in a battery compartment 20 that is formed at a seat tube 21 of a frame 22 of the vehicle is provided to supply both the drive motor 10 and the frame lock 16 with electric energy… The battery 18 has a power connection, not shown, that enables a charging of the battery 18 directly at the vehicle. The battery 18 can furthermore be removed from the battery compartment 20 for maintenance purposes or replacement purposes or for a charging remote from the vehicle.)
wherein the battery pack compartment includes a mechanical battery pack lock configured to remain mechanically locked until the […instruction] is received by the mechanical battery pack lock via a manual user input, and mechanically unlock in response to the […instruction] being received by the mechanical battery pack lock via the manual user input. (See paragraph 33, To prevent an unauthorized removal and an unintended falling of the battery 18 out of the battery compartment 20, a battery lock 24 is provided that secures the battery 18 in the battery compartment 20. In the present embodiment, the battery lock 24 is integrated into the battery compartment 20 and is configured such that it automatically adopts a locked state as soon as the battery 18 is inserted into the battery compartment 20, for example in that a latch, not shown, preloaded by a spring latches into a latching recess of the battery 18 or of a battery housing or blocks a lever pivoted on the insertion of the battery 18. The battery 18 received in the battery compartment 20 is in this manner normally secured by the locked battery lock 24…paragraph 34-35, The unlocking of the battery lock 24 takes place electrically… The control unit implemented in the onboard computer 12 is provided to control the battery lock 24 and also controls the drive motor 10 and the frame lock 16. In the present embodiment, the unlocking of the battery lock 24 is triggered by a user input at the onboard computer 12, for example in that the user presses a corresponding button on the onboard computer 12)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Grufman to further comprise system taught by Heinemann because security can be further added and enhanced on top of Grufman’s locking wheel/motor component of the vehicle to Heinemann’s mechanically locking the battery pack (paragraph 33).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grufman; Stefan et al. (US 20210289695 A1) in view of Ishikawa; Satoshi (US 6095270 A)
In regards to claim 8, Grufman teaches the theft prevention system of claim 1.
Grufman does not specifically teach, wherein the robotic garden tool includes a battery pack compartment configured to removably receive a battery pack that is configured to provide power to the at least one wheel motor; wherein the battery pack compartment includes a battery pack lock including a tool receiving portion configured to receive a non-standardized tool; and wherein the battery pack lock is configured to remain locked until the non-standardized tool is received in the tool receiving portion and rotated, and unlock in response to the non-standardized tool being received in the tool receiving portion and rotated.
Ishikawa further teaches, wherein the robotic garden tool includes a battery pack compartment configured to removably receive a battery pack that is configured to provide power to the at least one wheel motor; wherein the battery pack compartment includes a battery pack lock including a tool receiving portion configured to receive a non-standardized tool; and wherein the battery pack lock is configured to remain locked until the non-standardized tool is received in the tool receiving portion and rotated, and unlock in response to the non-standardized tool being received in the tool receiving portion and rotated.(See fig. 5-8, abstract, A battery carrier, battery box and locking assembly for an electric power assisted vehicle… The battery box comprises a base portion having a cup shape and which is adapted to detachably receive the battery carrier. The battery carrier and the guide portion have interengaging parts for locating and assisting in the insertion and removal of the battery carrier from the base portion of the battery box. A lock is provided in the battery box for detachably locking the battery carrier in the battery box. The lock is designed so that the key which operates it can only be removed when the lock is in the locked position…col. 6, lines 31-47, Thus, if it is desired to remove the battery carrier 65 for charging of the batteries, the key 87 must be inserted into the tumbler 107 and the key rotated in a counter clockwise direction as shown by the arrow in FIG. 8… When this occurs, the action of the spring 101 will be sufficient to urge both the locking member 94 to the left so as to clear the notch 97 in the battery carrier 96 and permit its removal.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Grufman to further comprise system taught by Ishikawa because security can be further added and enhanced on top of Grufman’s locking the vehicle to Ishikawa locking the battery pack (figs. 5-8, abstract, and associated paragraphs).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grufman; Stefan et al. (US 20210289695 A1) in view of Morgan; Gerald A. et al. (US 20100148947 A1)
In regards to claim 12, Grufman teaches the theft prevention system of claim 1.
Grufman teaches robotic garden tool however does not specifically teach, wherein the first electronic processor is configured to detect the potential theft event by determining that the robotic garden tool has been outside of a predetermined virtual boundary for longer than a predetermined time period.
Morgan further teaches, wherein the first electronic processor is configured to detect the potential theft event by determining that the robotic garden tool has been outside of a predetermined virtual boundary for longer than a predetermined time period. (see fig.5, paragraph 46, the system of the present invention periodically or continuously monitors 304 vehicle 109 position with respect to geo-fence 501… In one embodiment, position monitoring is performed by periodic signals from GPS module 114 to operations center 101 via wireless network 105, so that processor 102 can compare current vehicle 109 position with geo-fence 501 to detect geo-fence violations…paragraph 40, detection that the vehicle has not moved in some period of time. Such encompasses vehicle going outside the geo-fence and not moving for some period of time. Also see paragraph 4)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Grufman to further comprise system taught by Morgan because security can be further added and enhanced on top of Grufman locking the vehicle to Morgan’s implementation of geo-fence to limit or prevent theft (paragraph 4).
In regards to claim 13, Grufman teaches the theft prevention system of claim 1.
Grufman teaches robotic garden tool however does not specifically teach, wherein the first electronic processor is configured to detect the potential theft event by determining that the robotic garden tool is outside of a predetermined virtual boundary by a distance greater than a predetermined distance.
Morgan further teaches, wherein the first electronic processor is configured to detect the potential theft event by determining that the robotic garden tool is outside of a predetermined virtual boundary by a distance greater than a predetermined distance. (see fig.5, paragraph 46, the system of the present invention periodically or continuously monitors 304 vehicle 109 position with respect to geo-fence 501… In one embodiment, position monitoring is performed by periodic signals from GPS module 114 to operations center 101 via wireless network 105, so that processor 102 can compare current vehicle 109 position with geo-fence 501 to detect geo-fence violations…fig. 4, 5E, paragraph 49, When a geo-fence violation is detected 401, operations center 101 issues one or more alerts according to predefined settings and preferences. For example, operations center 101 can transmit a geo-fence violation alert 107 to owner 110 and/or to an external agent 108 such as a local police department. Also see paragraph 5, 12, maximum distance)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Grufman to further comprise system taught by Morgan because security can be further added and enhanced on top of Grufman locking the vehicle to Morgan’s implementation of geo-fence to limit or prevent theft (paragraph 4).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grufman; Stefan et al. (US 20210289695 A1) in view of Davis; Anthony M. et al. (US 20200090175 A1)
In regards to claim 14, Grufman teaches the theft prevention system of claim 1.
Grufman teaches robotic garden tool however does not specifically teach, wherein the robotic garden tool includes a battery pack compartment configured to receive a battery pack that is configured to provide power to the at least one wheel motor; and wherein the first electronic processor is configured to detect the potential theft event by determining that the battery pack compartment is attempted to be accessed, that the battery pack is attempted to be removed, or both that the battery pack compartment is attempted to be accessed and that the battery pack is attempted to be removed.
Davis further teaches, wherein the robotic garden tool includes a battery pack compartment configured to receive a battery pack that is configured to provide power to the at least one wheel motor; and (See paragraph 33, the external power source is a power tool battery pack that is selectively engageable with the power tool and includes one or more battery cells, such as a lithium-ion (Li-Ion) battery cells or NiCad battery cells…paragraph 71, Turning now to FIG. 7, a block diagram of a rechargeable external battery pack 700 is shown, according to some embodiments. The battery pack 700 may be similar to and used as the external power source 212, described above, and is an example of a power tool device 110 implemented as a power tool battery pack…paragraph 73, The output terminals 708 can be used to transfer power from the battery pack 700 to a device coupled to the battery pack, such as the tools 200 described above…paragraph 33, By selectively enabling and disabling the power switches 214, power from the power supply 210 is selectively applied to stator windings of the motor 216 to cause rotation of a rotor of the motor 216. )
wherein the first electronic processor is configured to detect the potential theft event by determining that the battery pack compartment is attempted to be accessed, that the battery pack is attempted to be removed, or both that the battery pack compartment is attempted to be accessed and that the battery pack is attempted to be removed. (See paragraph 4, The electronic power tool includes an electronic processor and a communication interface in communication with the electronic processor. The communication interface is configured to receive a first electronic message that includes a lock code. The communication interface is further configured to transmit the first received electronic message to the electronic processor. The electronic processor is configured to prevent operation of the electronic power tool based on the first received electronic message…paragraph 55, Once the tool receives the locking code, the tool 200 is locked at process block 508. In some examples, the locking of the tool 200 results in the tool 200 being prevented from operating. For example, when the tool 200 is locked, the processing circuit 202 is configured to prevent power from being provided to the power switches 214, which in turn prevents operation of the motor 216…paragraph 73, The switching device 706 can allow the battery pack 700 to be “locked,” meaning that power will not be provided to the output terminals 708 until the switching device 706 is controlled to close, thereby providing power from the terminals 712, 714 to the output terminals 708…paragraph 68, Upon receiving the unlock code at the tool 200, the tool 200 is unlocked at process block 608. For example, the tool 200, upon receipt of the unlock code, may unlock the tool in response to verifying the authenticity of the unlock code. To authenticate the unlock code, the processing circuit 202 of the power tool 200 may apply an algorithm to a received unlock code. As an example, the processing circuit 202 may authenticate the unlock code by comparing the unlock code to a previously received lock code or a previously stored unlock code and determining that the compared codes match. Also see paragraphs 69 and 75. Entering code is detecting potential theft event)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Grufman to further comprise system taught by Davis because security can be further added and enhanced on top of Grufman locking the vehicle to Davis’s locking the battery pack (paragraph 20).
In regards to claim 15, Grufman -Davis teaches the theft prevention system of claim 14, wherein the anti-theft action includes controlling a user interface of the robotic garden tool to prompt a user to enter the code in order to access the battery pack. (See Davis paragraph 68, Upon receiving the unlock code at the tool 200, the tool 200 is unlocked at process block 608. For example, the tool 200, upon receipt of the unlock code, may unlock the tool in response to verifying the authenticity of the unlock code. To authenticate the unlock code, the processing circuit 202 of the power tool 200 may apply an algorithm to a received unlock code. As an example, the processing circuit 202 may authenticate the unlock code by comparing the unlock code to a previously received lock code or a previously stored unlock code and determining that the compared codes match. Also see paragraphs 69 and 75. Entering code is detecting potential theft event. See paragraph 79, The charging station ECU 210 can be connected to an external communication device (for example, a smartphone) 350 via an 1/0 and a network 302 functioning as a communication interface. For example, the user can input the authentication information (PIN code) from the communication device 350)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grufman; Stefan et al. (US 20210289695 A1) in view of Naylor; Matthew John et al. (US 8295541 B2)
In regards to claim 20, Grufman teaches the theft prevention system of claim 1.
Grufman teaches robotic garden tool however does not specifically teach, further comprising a security camera configured to monitor an expected location of the robotic garden tool, wherein the first electronic processor, a second electronic processor located remote from the robotic garden tool, or both the first electronic processor and the second electronic processor are configured to: analyze, using an image analysis technique, image data captured by the security camera; determine, based at least partially on the image analysis of the image data, that the robotic garden tool is not located in the expected location; and detect the potential theft event in response to determining that the robotic garden tool is not located in the expected location.
Naylor further teaches, further comprising a security camera configured to monitor an expected location of the robotic garden tool, (See col. 1, lines 5-11, determining whether an object, situated in a region of interest and viewed in a sequence of images is located in an expected position or has moved, been tampered with or otherwise altered…col. 1, lines 25-30, One important application is the use of video camera systems to monitor sensitive areas in locations such as museums or art galleries which include valuable items that could be potentially removed by a member of the public…See fig. 5) wherein the first electronic processor, a second electronic processor located remote from the robotic garden tool, or both the first electronic processor and the second electronic processor are configured to: analyze, using an image analysis technique, image data captured by the security camera;(See col. 1, lines 40-55, With the advent of more sophisticated image processing algorithms, and the associated computer hardware to implement these algorithms in real time, a number of attempts have been made to automate this process. A naive approach to this problem includes the direct comparison of either individual or groups of pixel intensities of subsequent sequential images or frames which make up a digital video signal…col. 12, line 66 thru col. 13, line 5, A second separate algorithm would then be customised to determine if an object of interest is missing from the detection region.) determine, based at least partially on the image analysis of the image data, that the robotic garden tool is not located in the expected location; ((See col. 1, lines 5-11, determining whether an object, situated in a region of interest and viewed in a sequence of images is located in an expected position or has moved, been tampered with or otherwise altered…)and detect the potential theft event in response to determining that the robotic garden tool is not located in the expected location. (col. 1, lines 25-30, One important application is the use of video camera systems to monitor sensitive areas in locations such as museums or art galleries which include valuable items that could be potentially removed by a member of the public…See fig. 5)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Grufman to further comprise system taught by Naylor because security can be further added and enhanced on top of Grufman locking the vehicle to Naylor’s implementation of security camera to further limit or prevent theft.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 10, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, JAMES J LEE can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/JUSTIN S LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights