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
Claims 1-17 is pending.
No amendment is made.
No new claim is added.
Response to arguments
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 01/16/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered but not persuasive. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Applicant remarks:
Chen does not mention the word between, at all particularly in relation to a measurement of distances –“determine a distance (d) between the virtual boundary and boundary wire at the boundary location”.
Office Response:
Holgersson discloses determining distances between a work tool and a boundary. In the instant application, there are two boundaries. Therefore, the distance between the boundaries is determinable merely by comparing these two data points. It would have been obvious Holgersson’s method of determining the status (crossed the boundary or within the boundary) based on distance with Chen’s physical boundary and virtual boundary with the motivation of maintaining situational awareness of distance thresholds.
Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
Therefore, Examiner maintains the 35.U.S.C 103 rejection and repeat the rejection as before with updated motivational statement.
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.
Claims 1-7,9-12,14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over WO 2021183018 A1 to Holgersson et al. (herein after Holgersson”) in view of CN113115621 to Chen et al. (herein after “Chen”).
Regarding claim 1, Holgersson teaches A robotic lawnmower system (See Holgersson This application relates to robotic work tools and in particular to a system and a method for providing an improved navigation for a robotic work tool, such as a lawnmower)
the robotic lawnmower comprising one or more magnetic sensors (See Holgersson magnetic sensors 170), one or more satellite navigation sensors and a controller (See Holgersson satellite navigation sensor 190), wherein the controller (controller 110) is configured to: cause the robotic lawnmower to operate in the operational area according to the virtual boundary based on the one or more satellite navigation sensors(See Holgersson satellite navigation sensor 190), determine that the robotic lawnmower is approaching the boundary wire, determine a distance (d) between the virtual boundary and the boundary wire at the boundary location, compare the determined distance (d) to a mode determination distance (D) (See Holgersson claim 1 determine (620) a distance (d) to the boundary (230); determine (630) whether the distance (d) is inside a threshold distance (D), and if so disregard (640) the proximity sensor (180); and, if not, take (650) evasive action to avoid the sensed obstacle (SI, S2, O, B).), and if the determined distance (d) is greater than the mode determination distance D, the robotic lawnmower is configured to cross the boundary wire and continue operating within the virtual boundary, or if the determined distance (d) is less than the mode determination distance (D), the robotic lawnmower is configured to continue to operate within the boundary wire. (See Holgersson This enables the controller 110 to determine whether the robotic lawnmower 100 is close to the boundary wire and approximately how close the robotic lawnmower is to the boundary wire; If it is determined that the determined distance d is within the threshold distance D, then the robotic work tool 100 is configured to disregard 640 the proximity sensor 180 and the sensed location ill, il2, il3, ilB. The proximity sensor 180 may be disregarded by being deactivated thereby not determining the sensed location or the proximity sensor may be disregarded by not utilizing the sensed location; figure 4)
Holgersson teaches the distance from threshold signal level 240 of the magnitude of the senses magnetic field to the boundary wire. However, Holgersson does not expressly disclose or otherwise teach the distance from the virtual boundary and boundary wire (two separate boundaries). Nevertheless, Chen same field of endeavor teaches comprising a boundary wire ( See Chen 100 physical boundary 100 which is similar as boundary wire, para[0012] Furthermore, the inner boundary marking unit and the physical boundary are both conductive wires, and an alternating current flows through the conductive wires.)
and a robotic lawnmower arranged to operate in an operational area bounded by a virtual boundary (See Chen para[0016] a virtual boundary setting unit, configured to set a virtual boundary, wherein the virtual boundary surrounds the physical boundary, and a virtual map covering the working area is formed within the virtual boundary;, see Chen similar Virtual boundary 110)
It would have been obvious Holgersson’s method of determining the status (crossed the boundary or within the boundary) based on distance with Chen’s physical boundary and virtual boundary with the motivation of maintaining situational awareness of distance thresholds.
Regarding claim 2, Holgersson and Chen remain applied as claim 1. Holgersson teaches the distance from threshold signal level 240 of the magnitude of the senses magnetic field to the boundary wire. However, Holgersson does not expressly disclose or otherwise teach the distance from the virtual boundary and boundary wire (two separate boundaries). Nevertheless, Chen same field of endeavor teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine a boundary location, and determine the distance (d) between the virtual boundary and the boundary wire at the boundary location. (see Chen para[0040] Continue to travel a certain distance along the physical boundary 100 and then return to the work area.).
It would have been obvious Holgersson’s method of determining the status (crossed the boundary or within the boundary) based on distance with Chen’s physical boundary and virtual boundary with the motivation of maintaining situational awareness of distance thresholds.
Regarding claim 3, Holgersson and Chen remain applied as claim 1. Holgersson teaches the distance from threshold signal level 240 of the magnitude of the senses magnetic field to the boundary wire, wherein the controller is further configured to, if the determined distance (d) is less than the mode determination distance (D), obey the boundary wire and turn or reverse away from the boundary wire. (See Holgersson [column 11 lines 15-20] As the robotic lawnmower approaches the first stone, that is inside the work area and close to the boundary wire 230, the proximity sensor 180 senses an imaginary or sensed location ill for the first stone SI (indicated by a dotted representation of the stone SI). As the robotic lawnmower 100 approaches the imaginary location ill as determined by the proximity sensor 180, the robotic lawnmower 100 will take evasive action and turn away to avoid a collision as indicated by the dashed line.).
Regarding claim 4, Holgersson and Chen remain applied as claim 1. Holgersson teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine the distance (d) to be the shortest distance between the virtual boundary and the boundary wire (see Holgersson [page 12, lines 25-30] As can be seen in figure 4, there is no longer any sensing of the stone SI received from the proximity sensor, which would lead the robotic lawnmower 100 to collide with the stone SI. In order to reduce the impact of such a collision the robotic lawnmower 100 is configured to reduce its speed when it is determined that the distance d is below (or within) the distance D corresponding to the threshold signal level of the magnitude of the sensed magnetic field. ).
Regarding claim 5, Holgersson and Chen remain applied as claim 1. Holgersson teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine the distance (d) to be a distance between the virtual boundary and the boundary wire in a current heading of the robotic lawnmower. (See Holgersson In embodiments, where the robotic lawnmower 100 is arranged with a navigation sensor, the magnetic sensors 170 are optional. In such systems, and also other systems utilizing a boundary wire, the robotic lawnmower may be arranged to determine a distance to the boundary of the work area by comparing a current location determined through the navigation sensor, to a stored location of the boundary.).
Regarding claim 6, Holgersson and Chen remain applied as claim 1. Holgersson teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine the distance (d) to be a distance between the virtual boundary and the boundary wire in a direction between similarly extending sections of the virtual boundary and the boundary wire (See Holgersson figure 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
309
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 (Holgersson)
Regarding claim 7, Holgersson and Chen remain applied as claim 1. Holgersson teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine the distance (d) to be a distance between the virtual boundary and the boundary wire in a direction substantially parallel to a normal to the boundary wire. (see Holgersson distance (d) in figure 4 ).
Regarding claim 9, Holgersson and Chen remain applied as claim 1. Holgersson teaches wherein the boundary location is a location of the boundary wire (See Holgersson [Pare 9 lines 5-10] other systems utilizing a boundary wire, the robotic lawnmower may be arranged to determine a distance to the boundary of the work area by comparing a current location determined through the navigation sensor).
Regarding claim 10, Holgersson and Chen remain applied as claim 1. Holgersson teaches wherein the boundary location is a current location of the robotic lawnmower. (See Holgersson page 9 In such systems, and also other systems utilizing a boundary wire, the robotic lawnmower may be arranged to determine a distance to the boundary of the work area by comparing a current location determined through the navigation sensor, to a stored location of the boundary. In such systems the boundary is virtual and corresponds to positions or locations stored in the memory 120 of the robotic lawnmower 100.)
Regarding claim 11, Holgersson and Chen remain applied as claim 1. Holgersson teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine that the boundary wire is being approached by detecting an amplitude of a magnetic field emitted by the boundary wire. (see Holgersson [page 2, line 2-5 ]The amplitude of the sensed magnetic field is proportional to the derivate of the control signal. A large variation (fast and/or of great magnitude) results in a high amplitude or magnitude for the sensed magnetic field.)
Regarding claim 12, Holgersson and Chen remain applied as claim 1. Holgersson teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine that the boundary wire is being approached by detecting that the amplitude of the magnetic field increases above a threshold amplitude detection level. (See Holgersson [page 7, lines 7-10]The magnitude of the magnetic field varies with the distance to the boundary wire. In principle, the magnitude decrease as the distance to the boundary wire increases. )
Regarding claim 14, Holgersson and Chen remain applied as claim 1. Holgersson teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine that the boundary wire is being approached by detecting that the amplitude of the magnetic field by detecting that the amplitude of the magnetic field shifts in polarity. (See Holgersson [page 7, lines 11-18]As the magnetic field has a different polarity depending on which side of the boundary it is sensed, the magnitude of the magnetic field changes abruptly in the immediate vicinity of the boundary, going from the strongest magnitude in one polarity (for example positive) to the strongest polarity in the other polarity (for example negative) as the boundary wire is crossed. This enables the controller 110 to determine whether the robotic lawnmower 100 is crossing the boundary wire by sensing a change in polarity, or inside or outside an area enclosed by the boundary wire by sensing the polarity.)
Regarding claim 15, Holgersson and Chen remain applied as claim 1. Holgersson teaches wherein the satellite navigation sensor is a Global Positioning System, GPS, sensor.(see Holgersson [page 8-page 9 ]satellite navigation sensor 190. The beacon navigation sensor may be a Radio Frequency receiver, such as an Ultra Wide Band (UWB) receiver or sensor, configured to receive signals from a Radio Frequency beacon, such as a UWB beacon. Alternatively or additionally, the beacon navigation sensor may be an optical receiver configured to receive signals from an optical beacon. The satellite navigation sensor may be a GPS (Global Positioning System) device, a RTK (Real-Time Kinematic) device or other Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) device. In embodiments, where the robotic lawnmower 100 is arranged with a navigation sensor, the magnetic sensors 170 are optional.)
Regarding claim 16, Holgersson and Chen remain applied as claim 1. Holgersson teaches wherein the satellite navigation sensor is a Real-Time Kinetics, RTK, sensor. (see Holgersson [page 8-page 9 ]satellite navigation sensor 190. The beacon navigation sensor may be a Radio Frequency receiver, such as an Ultra Wide Band (UWB) receiver or sensor, configured to receive signals from a Radio Frequency beacon, such as a UWB beacon. Alternatively or additionally, the beacon navigation sensor may be an optical receiver configured to receive signals from an optical beacon. The satellite navigation sensor may be a GPS (Global Positioning System) device, a RTK (Real-Time Kinematic) device or other Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) device. In embodiments, where the robotic lawnmower 100 is arranged with a navigation sensor, the magnetic sensors 170 are optional.)
Regarding claim 17, Holgersson teaches A method for use in a robotic lawnmower system system (See Holgersson This application relates to robotic work tools and in particular to a system and a method for providing an improved navigation for a robotic work tool, such as a lawnmower)
the robotic lawnmower comprising one or more magnetic sensors, one or more satellite navigation sensors(See Holgersson magnetic sensors 170), and a controller, wherein the method comprises: causing the robotic lawnmower to operate in the operational area according to the virtual boundary based on the one or more satellite navigation sensors(See Holgersson satellite navigation sensor 190), determining that the robotic lawnmower is approaching the boundary wire, determining a distance (d) between the virtual boundary and the boundary wire, comparing the determined distance (d) to a mode determination distance (D) (See Holgersson claim 1 determine (620) a distance (d) to the boundary (230); determine (630) whether the distance (d) is inside a threshold distance (D), and if so disregard (640) the proximity sensor (180); and, if not, take (650) evasive action to avoid the sensed obstacle (SI, S2, O, B).), and if the determined distance (d) is greater than the mode determination distance D, causing the robotic lawnmower to cross the boundary wire and continue operating within the virtual boundary, or if the determined distance (d) is less than the mode determination distance (D), causing the robotic lawnmower to continue to operate within the boundary wire (See Holgersson This enables the controller 110 to determine whether the robotic lawnmower 100 is close to the boundary wire and approximately how close the robotic lawnmower is to the boundary wire; If it is determined that the determined distance d is within the threshold distance D, then the robotic work tool 100 is configured to disregard 640 the proximity sensor 180 and the sensed location ill, il2, il3, ilB. The proximity sensor 180 may be disregarded by being deactivated thereby not determining the sensed location or the proximity sensor may be disregarded by not utilizing the sensed location; figure 4).
Holgersson teaches the distance from threshold signal level 240 of the magnitude of the senses magnetic field to the boundary wire. However, Holgersson does not expressly disclose or otherwise teach the distance from the virtual boundary and boundary wire (two separate boundaries). Nevertheless, Chen same field of endeavor teaches comprising a boundary wire ( See Chen 100 physical boundary 100 which is similar as boundary wire, para[0012] Furthermore, the inner boundary marking unit and the physical boundary are both conductive wires, and an alternating current flows through the conductive wires.)
and a robotic lawnmower arranged to operate in an operational area bounded by a virtual boundary (See Chen para[0016] a virtual boundary setting unit, configured to set a virtual boundary, wherein the virtual boundary surrounds the physical boundary, and a virtual map covering the working area is formed within the virtual boundary;, see Chen similar Virtual boundary 110),
It would have been obvious Holgersson’s method of determining the status (crossed the boundary or within the boundary) based on distance with Chen’s physical boundary and virtual boundary with the motivation of maintaining situational awareness of distance thresholds.
Claim 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over WO 2021183018 A1 to Holgersson et al. (herein after Holgersson”) in view of CN113115621 to Chen et al. (herein after “Chen”) and WO 2020156684 A1 to Dalfra et al. (herein after “Dalfra”).
Regarding claim 8, Holgersson and Chen remain applied as claim 1. However, Holgersson and chen do not teach wherein two sections are similarly extending if they are parallel or their extensions are within the same general heading, within an angular range of 5, 10, 20 or 30 degrees. Nevertheless, Dalfra same field of endeavor teaches wherein two sections are similarly extending if they are parallel or their extensions are within the same general heading, within an angular range of 5, 10, 20 or 30 degrees (See Dalfra para[0006] the strip and connector are designed such that the strip is prevented from rotating in the connector and the ends are accommodated such that the angle between the polarities is less than 180 degrees).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine Holgersson’s method of determining the status (crossed the boundary or within the boundary) using distance with Dalfra’s angular range in order to allow to connect one end of the magnetic strip to the other end or to one end of a similar magnetic strip (see Dalfra para[0006]).
Regarding claim 13, Holgersson and Chen remain applied as claim 1. However, Holgersson and chen do not teach wherein wherein the controller is further configured to determine that the boundary wire is being approached by detecting that the amplitude of the magnetic field increases at a rate above a threshold rate detection level. Nevertheless, Dalfra same field of endeavor teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine that the boundary wire is being approached by detecting that the amplitude of the magnetic field increases at a rate above a threshold rate detection level. (See Dalfra para [0048] The rate of increase of the magnetic field and the time interval between t1 and t2 will depend on a number of factors including the speed of travel of the device and the angle at which the magnetic field is approached by the device. The device may be controlled to slow down as the magnetic field strength increases from the background level between times tO and t1 , and to speed up after time t2 as the magnetic field strength decreases. Therefore each of the first and second predetermined patterns may be further defined by a minimum or maximum rate of change of magnetic field strength).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine Holgersson’s method of determining the status (crossed the boundary or within the boundary) using distance with Dalfra’s angular range in order to allow to connect one end of the magnetic strip to the other end or to one end of a similar magnetic strip (see Dalfra para[0006]).
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 NAZIA AFRIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-6.
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, Scott A Browne can be reached at 5712700151. 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.
/NAZIA AFRIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights