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 .
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 01/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4 and 6-9 remain pending in the application. Claim 5 has been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 USC § 112(d) as it has been amended to claim dependency to itself rather than another preceding claim. For the purposes of interpretation over the prior art, claim 6 has been interpreted as though it is dependent on the independent claim 1.
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).
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.
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.
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 01/28/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, applicant argues that “Fuse does not disclose that the centrum of the lawnmower navigates over a corner as recited in independent claims 1 and 9”, instead contending “that the lawnmower crosses a boundary line, which is completely different than a corner”. This argument is unpersuasive. The corner as claimed in the independent claims is declared to be “a corner in the turn”, and “the corner in the intended pattern”. Therefore, it is not the interpretation of the examiner that the corner is the same as the boundary line. Elaborating further, notice is drawn below to examiner’s annotation of Fig 11 of Fuse. Neither the boundary line Wb nor the corner of the boundary line as outlined by the annotated rectangle are the basis of the given rejection. Instead, the corner “in the turn…in the intended pattern” is the corner mapped in the rejection. This is the corner of the intended pattern outlined by the annotated circle in examiner’s annotation of Fig. 11 of Fuse, included below. As is shown in the figure and taught by Fuse, the mower travels over the beyond the corner in step (a), reverses back over the corner in step (b), then turns in step (c) ([0058-0059]). This maps the limitations previously claimed in claim 5, and amended to be included in the independent claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
678
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotation of Fig. 11 of Fuse
Applicant further argues that “the combination of Fuse and Ishihira fail to teach or suggest a lawnmower with a rotational centrum that deviates from the cutter centrum, while allowing the cutter centrum to remain on the intended path, while the rotational centrum deviates from the path, as recited in independent claims 1 and 9”. This argument is unpersuasive. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the “rotational centrum deviates from the path” while the cutting centrum remains on the path) 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). As shown in the rejection of the claims above, Fuse in view of Ishihira teaches that the rotational centrum deviates from the cutter centrum while turning (see [0037] and [0065] of Ishihira, where the turning operations described result in the rotational centrum being located away from the mower thus deviated from the cutting centrum which is always on the mower), and that the cutter centrum remains on the path (as shown in Figs 11 and 12 of Fuse). Regarding the explicitly included claim language of these limitations argued by applicant, the claims only include "a grass cutter having a centrum (CX) that deviates from a rotational centrum (RX) of the robotic lawnmower" as stated in claims 1 and 9, and that "the grass cutter centrum (CX) [is maintained] over the intended pattern" as stated in the dependent claim 6. However, it is not claimed that the rotational centrum deviates from the path while the cutter centrum is maintained on the path. Applicant is recommended to amend the claims so that this limitation is explicitly considered as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights