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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/28/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Sweden on June 8, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the SE2350694-2 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4 and 6-9 remain pending in the application, with claims 1, 6, and 9 being presently amended. Applicant’s amendment to claim 6 has overcome the 112(d) rejection set forth in the previous Final Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Fuse et al. (EP 4089500 A1) in view of Ishihira (US 20220295698 A1) and Schaedler et al. (US 20030019682 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fuse teaches a robotic lawnmower system comprising
a robotic lawnmower arranged to operate in an operational area according to an intended pattern ([0001] and [0015], see Fig. 12 where the device travels along an intended pattern),
and a controller ([0013]),
wherein the controller is configured to cause the robotic lawnmower to navigate according to the intended pattern maintaining the grass cutter overlapping the intended pattern (see Fig. 12, where the grass cutter overlaps the illustrated intended pattern), and to navigate a turn in the intended pattern by:
moving forwards to a corner in the turn ([0058-0059]),
and moving rearwards and then again moving forwards, all while maintaining the grass cutter overlapping the intended pattern ([0058-0059], see Fig. 12, where the device moves forward during step (a), then reverses and turns during steps (b) and (c)),
wherein the controller is further configured to cause the robotic lawnmower to navigate the turn having the corner in the intended pattern by:
moving forwards until the grass cutter is over the corner ([0058-0059] and see Fig. 12, where the robot moves over the corner as part of step A),
and then reversing and turning so that the robotic lawnmower is enabled to turn while keeping the grass cutter over the intended pattern ([0058-0059] and see Fig. 12, where the robot reverses back over the corner in step B, and turns in step C),
and then moving forwards again bringing the robotic lawnmower in line with the intended pattern all while maintaining the grass cutter over the intended pattern (see Fig 12, where the robotic lawnmower travels forward with its center, and thus the cutting device’s center is being centered on the intended path).
Fuse does not teach that the robotic lawnmower is comprising a grass cutter having a centrum (CX) that deviates from a rotational centrum (RX) of the robotic lawnmower. The robotic lawnmower of Fuse is only explicitly capable of moving in straight lines (see Figs. 10-12, where lawnmower can only move in straight trajectories)
In the same field of endeavor, Ishihira teaches a robotic lawnmower with this same wheel structure ([0037] and [0065]), but teaches an embodiment where the wheels can be configured to drive the robotic lawnmower in a curved trajectory so as to move around an obstacle (see Fig. 5, where the lawnmower moves in an arc around obstacle 9.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the robotic lawnmower of Fuse with the drive functionality of Ishihira based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to enhance the driving operations by allowing the mower to move in curved trajectories so as to allow it to better adapt to obstacles in its oncoming path, and to allow it to better contort its path if the area it is to mow is also of a curved shape, thereby decreasing the time the mowing takes. When moving in this curved fashion, it is implicit that the robotic lawnmower comprises a grass cutter having a centrum (CX) that deviates from a rotational centrum (RX) of the robotic lawnmower as this is an implicit property of the centers of rotation for curved trajectories.
Fuse teaches that the robotic lawnmower continues its travel after it turns the full 90 degrees as necessary to travel over the path’s corner ([0058-0059]). However, this functionality is only for 90 degree turns and is not explicitly extended to other turn degrees, thus Fuse does not teach that the controller is configured to determine that the grass cutter centrum (CX) is in front of the rotational centrum (RX) as regards the direction of the intended pattern.
In the same field of endeavor, Ishihira teaches operations for navigating the robotic lawnmower through a variety of turns, said operations including a step to determine that the grass cutter centrum (CX) is in front of the rotational centrum (RX) as regards the direction of the intended pattern (see Fig. 1B, where the center rotational axis of the cutter 4 is visually located in front of the center of the robotic lawn mower; [0065-68] and see Fig. 4, where when a robot begins turning, its orientation changes to face the new point, and the vehicle only stops its turn when it’s determined that the center line of the robot changes to face the next point in the direction of the intended pattern. When this determination occurs, the grass cutter centrum is located forward towards the direction of travel relative to the rotational centrum of the lawnmower, with the rotational centrum of the lawnmower being located at the center of or closer to the rear wheels of the lawnmower).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Fuse so that the vehicle resumes its moving forward operation when the robotic lawnmower is determined to be facing in the intended direction of travel based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to better allow the robotic lawnmower to adapt its travel for turns that are not 90 degrees. By performing the determination of if the robot has completed its turn based on analyzing the direction of travel instead of the number of degrees turned, the robot is better able to adapt to turns that are of a variety of angles.
While the combination of Fuse and Ishihira teaches that the cutting centrum is maintained over the intended pattern as stated previously, the combination does not teach that the CX deviates from the RX while the CX remains over the intended pattern as the robotic lawnmower navigates the turn.
In the same field of endeavor, Schaedler teaches an invention for performing a zero turn radius (ZTR) steering maneuver, wherein the CX deviates from the RX while the CX remains over the intended pattern as the robotic lawnmower navigates the turn while performing this steering maneuver ([0039], where the rotational centrum RX is between the rear wheels as seen in Fig. 10 when performing a ZTR maneuver, whereas the cutting centrum CX is located forward of the rotational centrum as illustrated by the mower deck 10 of Fig. 1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the turning operation of the prior combination to have the zero turn radius (ZTR) functionality disclosed by Schaedler based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Schaedler, "so as to minimize wear and drag on the ground engaging wheels for a ZTR turn" ([0039]), and to avoid weight distribution problems when the weight of gravity occurring during mower operation on a hill may otherwise pull the mower down the hill and off the intended path ([0005]). ZTR maneuvers are also recognized as being well-known maneuvers that advantageously allow mowers to operate without needing to perform maneuvers that would otherwise cross beyond an intended pattern to be cut.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Fuse teaches wherein the controller is further configured to prioritize maintaining the centrum (CX) of the grass cutter over the intended pattern ([0058-0059], see Fig. 12, where the robot is configured to ensure that the working device 3 is overlapped the path as shown by the circular working range being centered along the path).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Fuse teaches wherein the controller is further configured to maintain the grass cutter inside the turn ([0017], see Fig. 12, where the shaded area indicates that the robotic lawnmower maintains the cutter to continue cutting the area even as it is turning).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Fuse teaches wherein the corner has an angle above 60 degrees (see Fig. 12, where the corners are 90 degrees).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Fuse teaches wherein the controller is further configured to maintain the grass cutter over the intended pattern by maintaining the grass cutter centrum (CX) over the intended pattern ([0058-0059], see Fig. 12, where the robot is configured to ensure that the working device 3 is overlapped the path as shown by the circular working range being centered along the path).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Fuse teaches wherein the controller is further configured to cause the robotic lawnmower to navigate a turn having a first corner in the intended pattern by:
causing the robotic lawnmower to move forwards and to deviate from the first corner to a second position after the first corner where again the grass cutter overlaps the intended pattern ([0058-0059], see Fig. 12, step (a),
and thereafter causing the robotic lawnmower to move in reverse to a third position over the first corner where again the grass cutter overlaps the intended pattern on the first corner and then again moving forwards ([0058-0059], see Fig, 12, where the robot moves in reverse to over the corner in step (b), then continues moving forward along the path).
Regarding claim 9, Fuse teaches a method for use in a robotic lawnmower system comprising
a robotic lawnmower arranged to operate in an operational area according to an intended pattern ([0001] and [0015], see Fig. 12 where the device travels along an intended pattern),
and a controller ([0013]),
wherein the method comprises causing the robotic lawnmower to navigate according to the intended pattern maintaining the grass cutter overlapping the intended pattern (see Fig. 12, where the grass cutter overlaps the illustrated intended pattern), and to navigate a turn in the intended pattern by:
moving forwards to a corner in the turn ([0058-0059]),
and moving rearwards and then again moving forwards, all while maintaining the grass cutter overlapping the intended pattern ([0058-0059], see Fig. 12, where the device moves forward during step (a), then reverses and turns during steps (b) and (c)),
wherein the method further comprises causing the robotic lawnmower to navigate the turn having the corner in the intended pattern by:
moving forwards until the grass cutter is over the corner ([0058-0059] and see Fig. 12, where the robot moves over the corner as part of step A),
and then reversing and turning so that the robotic lawnmower is enabled to turn while keeping the grass cutter over the intended pattern ([0058-0059] and see Fig. 12, where the robot reverses back over the corner in step B, and turns in step C),
and then moving forwards again bringing the robotic lawnmower in line with the intended pattern all while maintaining the grass cutter over the intended pattern (see Fig 12, where the robotic lawnmower travels forward with its center, and thus the cutting device’s center is being centered on the intended path).
Fuse does not teach that the robotic lawnmower is comprising a grass cutter having a centrum (CX) that deviates from a rotational centrum (RX) of the robotic lawnmower. The robotic lawnmower of Fuse is only explicitly capable of moving in straight lines (see Figs. 10-12, where lawnmower can only move in straight trajectories)
In the same field of endeavor, Ishihira teaches a robotic lawnmower with this same wheel structure ([0037] and [0065]), but teaches an embodiment where the wheels can be configured to drive the robotic lawnmower in a curved trajectory so as to move around an obstacle (see Fig. 5, where the lawnmower moves in an arc around obstacle 9.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the robotic lawnmower of Fuse with the drive functionality of Ishihira based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to enhance the driving operations by allowing the mower to move in curved trajectories so as to allow it to better adapt to obstacles in its oncoming path, and to allow it to better contort its path if the area it is to mow is also of a curved shape, thereby decreasing the time the mowing takes. When moving in this curved fashion, it is implicit that the robotic lawnmower comprises a grass cutter having a centrum (CX) that deviates from a rotational centrum (RX) of the robotic lawnmower as this is an implicit property of the centers of rotation for curved trajectories.
Fuse teaches that the robotic lawnmower continues its travel after it turns the full 90 degrees as necessary to travel over the path’s corner ([0058-0059]). However, this functionality is only for 90 degree turns and is not explicitly extended to other turn degrees, thus Fuse does not teach that the controller is configured to determine that the grass cutter centrum (CX) is in front of the rotational centrum (RX) as regards the direction of the intended pattern.
In the same field of endeavor, Ishihira teaches operations for navigating the robotic lawnmower through a variety of turns, said operations including a step to determine that the grass cutter centrum (CX) is in front of the rotational centrum (RX) as regards the direction of the intended pattern (see Fig. 1B, where the center rotational axis of the cutter 4 is visually located in front of the center of the robotic lawn mower; [0065-68] and see Fig. 4, where when a robot begins turning, its orientation changes to face the new point, and the vehicle only stops its turn when it’s determined that the center line of the robot changes to face the next point in the direction of the intended pattern. When this determination occurs, the grass cutter centrum is located forward towards the direction of travel relative to the rotational centrum of the lawnmower, with the rotational centrum of the lawnmower being located at the center of or closer to the rear wheels of the lawnmower).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Fuse so that the vehicle resumes its moving forward operation when the robotic lawnmower is determined to be facing in the intended direction of travel based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to better allow the robotic lawnmower to adapt its travel for turns that are not 90 degrees. By performing the determination of if the robot has completed its turn based on analyzing the direction of travel instead of the number of degrees turned, the robot is better able to adapt to turns that are of a variety of angles.
While the combination of Fuse and Ishihira teaches that the cutting centrum is maintained over the intended pattern as stated previously, the combination does not teach that the CX deviates from the RX while the CX remains over the intended pattern as the robotic lawnmower navigates the turn.
In the same field of endeavor, Schaedler teaches an invention for performing a zero turn radius (ZTR) steering maneuver, wherein the CX deviates from the RX while the CX remains over the intended pattern as the robotic lawnmower navigates the turn while performing this steering maneuver ([0039], where the rotational centrum RX is between the rear wheels as seen in Fig. 10 when performing a ZTR maneuver, whereas the cutting centrum CX is located forward of the rotational centrum as illustrated by the mower deck 10 of Fig. 1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the turning operation of the prior combination to have the zero turn radius (ZTR) functionality disclosed by Schaedler based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Schaedler, "so as to minimize wear and drag on the ground engaging wheels for a ZTR turn" ([0039]), and to avoid weight distribution problems when the weight of gravity occurring during mower operation on a hill may otherwise pull the mower down the hill and off the intended path ([0005]). ZTR maneuvers are also recognized as being well-known maneuvers that advantageously allow mowers to operate without needing to perform maneuvers that would otherwise cross beyond an intended pattern to be cut.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Fuse in view of Ishihira as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Yazaki et al. (US 20130282224 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art remains as applied in claim 7. Fuse does not teach the limitations of the claim for turning with two corners in close proximity.
In the same field of endeavor, Yazaki teaches a lawnmower system that is configured to
cause the robotic lawnmower to navigate a turn having a second corner in the intended pattern whereby the second position overlaps the second corner ([0077], see Fig. 6B, wherein the second position is R3c)
and whereby the controller is further configured to cause the robotic lawnmower to again move forwards from the first corner and to deviate from the second corner to a fourth position after the first corner where again the grass cutter overlaps the intended pattern ([0077], see Fig. 6B, where the fourth position is R3b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Fuse with this three-point turning method based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Yazaki, of significantly reducing the travel distance that the lawnmower needs when performing turns for two corners located in close proximity of each other ([0078]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2026 with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK R. BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/JACK R BREWER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
