Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s arguments filed 12/19/2025 regarding the rejection of claims 6-12 under 35 USC 112(b), particularly of claim 6 in which a term “occasional” renders the claim indefinite have been fully considered and rejection to claims 6-12 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument filed 12/19/2025 regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 6 under USC 102 as being anticipated by Willgert et al. (US 20180263181A1) have been fully considered but are moot due to amended claims 1 and 6.
3. With regards to amended independent claims 1 and 6, the applicant argues that Noonan et al. (US 5204814A) does not disclose a determination of a malfunction relating to new or ongoing condition, and that Noonan also does not disclose disabling a function of equipment causing the malfunction signal in response to determining that the malfunction signal is associated with the new condition and not related to the safety feature, and directing the work took to return to the to the service point in response to determining that the malfunction signal is associated with the ongoing condition and not related to the safety feature.
However, examiner argues that independent claims 1 and 6 were never rejected under Noonan, but of Willgert, and that Noonan was used to reject claim 7, in which the claim is now cancelled. Examiner also argues that although part of claim 7 language have been included into claims 1 and 6, the independent claims 1 and 6 were further amended that requires new search and consideration. Therefore, argument made against amended independent claims 1 and 6 are unpersuasive and moot.
4. Regarding amended independent claims 1 and 6, examiner notes, as stated above, that the amendment requires further search and consideration. Thus, having been done that, found Derouen (US 20220318767A1) and Burns et al. (US 9446517B2) teach the new limitations amended into the independent claims 1 and 6. Burns et al. teaches a robotic work tool that detects a fault in a failed arm, prevents further movement of the failed arm, and once the failed arm is determined to only affect the performance of the failed, it will offer and perform degraded operation to continue operation without the failed arm, i.e. new malfunction condition that is not of concern of safe continuation of robotic work tool system and only disable the new malfunction equipment (see [col 5 ln 26 thru col 6 ln 5] and Fig. 3). Derouen teaches a vehicle with a device to keep diagnosing vehicle parameter to evaluate faults, which includes faults that persists, i.e. ongoing, and/or worsen over time that has to do with both safety and non-safety features, such as a tire pressure that decreases at a certain rate, and then navigate and/or direct the vehicle to a service facility (see [0097] and [0100]).
5. Applicant argues other claims 2-5 and 8-13 are patentable for their dependency from independent claims 1 and 6.
This argument is unpersuasive as each independent claim has been fully rejected and for the reasons as given above, and as shown in rejections of previous Office Action.
Claim Objections
6. In claim 1, the phrase “work took” should be changed to “work tool”.
In claim 1, the phrase “to the to the service point” should be changed to “to the service point”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 11 are rejected under 35 USC 3 as being unpatentable over Willgert et al. (US 20180263181 A1) in view of Burns et al. (US 9446517B2) in further view of Derouen (US 20220318767A1).
Regarding claim 1, Willgert teaches a robotic work tool comprising a control unit (see [0035]-[0037] in general where robotic work tool, lawnmower, comprises of controller), the control unit being configured for executing operations including receiving malfunction signals, for issuing navigational instructions to driving motors of the work tool, wherein the control unit is further configured for the issuance of navigational instructions for the return of the work tool to a service point on receipt of a malfunction signal (see [0047], [0057]-[0059] and Fig. 6 where a vibration sensor of a robotic work tool, i.e. lawnmower, sends signal to a controller when there is irregularity through damage or lost. Mowing operation of the work tool will cease once vibrations are beyond a threshold and the work tool will be configured to return to charging station or other servicing station, i.e. a navigational instruction to return.).
Willgert does not teach: determining whether the malfunction signal relates to a safety feature, determining whether the malfunction signal is associated with a new condition or an ongoing condition, disabling a function of equipment causing the malfunction signal in response to determining that the malfunction signal is associated with the new condition and not related to the safety feature, and directing the work tool to return to the service point in response to determining that the malfunction signal is associated with the ongoing condition and not related to the safety feature.
However, Burns teaches a robotic work tool that detects a fault in a failed arm, prevents further movement of the failed arm, and once the failed arm is determined to only affect the performance of the failed, it will offer and perform degraded operation to continue operation without the failed arm, i.e. new malfunction condition that is not of concern of safe continuation of robotic work tool system and only disable the new malfunction equipment (see [col 5 ln 26 thru col 6 ln 5] and Fig. 3).
Further, Derouen teaches a vehicle with a device to keep diagnosing vehicle parameter to evaluate faults, which includes faults that persists, i.e. ongoing, and/or worsen over time that has to do with both safety and non-safety features, such as a tire pressure that decreases at a certain rate, and then navigate and/or direct the vehicle to a service facility (see [0097] and [0100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify a robotic work tool with damage detection of Willgert by incorporating teaching of Burns and Derouen such that the robotic work tool detects a new or persisting error where new malfunction condition that is not of safety concern causes disabling of malfunctioning equipment while persisting, i.e. ongoing, malfunction causes a navigation to a service facility, i.e. service point.
The motivation to disable equipment with new malfunction condition is that, as indicated by Burns, this would allow a prevention of loss of full control and allowing surviving components to provide function of a failed equipment so that there is continuation of work with less cost in losses (see [col 1 lns 28-47]).
The motivation to navigate to a service facility when there is an ongoing malfunction is that, as indicated by Derouen, this would allow for automated vehicles are able to receive automatic maintenance and navigation to a service facility through predetermined data set and set appointments automatically using work schedules of the facility instead of an intervention of operators to navigate a vehicle to a suitable facility and having the hassle to call and schedule a separate appointments (see [0003]-[0008]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Willgert in view of Burns and Derouen teaches the work tool according to claim 1,
wherein the work tool further comprises a cutting disk and a cutting disk motor (see [0036] where robotic work tool consists of a grass cutting device that is driven by a cutter motor and is a disc carrying one or more cutting plates or blades.), and
the cutting disk and the cutting disk motor are configured to issue malfunction signals in case of a blockage of the cutting disk (see [0043], Figs 3-4 where a damage detector 162 is configured directly onto a cutter motor 165 and shaft 163 to sense vibration including from a grass cutting device and if the vibration is above a threshold, lawn mower is determined to be damaged, i.e. signals malfunction from cutting disk and cutting disk motor.).
Regarding claim 4, modified Willgert in view of Burns and Derouen teaches the work tool according to claim 1,
wherein the work tool further comprises a positional device for tracking the position of the work tool (see [0037] where robotic work tool has a position determining device such as a GNSS and GPS to locate current position of the robotic work tool.), and
a communication device, and the control unit is configured to transmit positional information to a remote receiver via the communication device of the location of the work tool at the time that the malfunction signal is received (see [0039] and [0060] where robotic work tool is set up with wireless communication interface such as a smartphone using Bluetooth, LTE, etc. and the communication interface is used to provide an indication for position of where a damage, i.e. malfunction, has occurred.).
Regarding claim 5, modified Willgert in view of Burns and Derouen teaches the work tool according to claim 1, wherein the work tool is a lawn mower (see [0036] where it specifically mentions that a robotic work tool is a lawnmower tool; see also Fig. 1 where there is a depiction of lawnmower.).
Regarding claim 6, modified Willgert in view of Burns and Derouen teaches a method of running a robotic work tool comprising a control unit (see [0035]-[0037] in general where robotic work tool, lawnmower, comprises of a controller), the method comprising the steps of:
an iterative issue of navigational instructions from the control unit to driving motors of the work tool, and receipt of malfunction signals from one or more units of the work tool, wherein the method comprises a step of issue of navigational instructions for return to a service point, when a malfunction signal is received (see [0047], [0057]-[0059] and Fig. 6 where a vibration sensor of a robotic work tool, i.e. lawnmower, sends signal to a controller when there is irregularity through damage or lost. Mowing operation of the work tool will cease once vibrations are beyond a threshold and the work tool will be configured to return to charging station or other servicing station; note also in [0036] and Fig. 1 that controller 110 is connected to motors 150 which are driving motors.).
Willgert does not teach: wherein the method further comprises:
determining whether the malfunction signal relates to a safety feature;
determining whether the malfunction signal is associated with a new condition or an ongoing condition;
disabling a function of equipment causing the malfunction signal in response to determining that the malfunction signal is associated with the new condition and not related to the safety feature, and
directing the work took to return to the to the service point in response to determining that the malfunction signal is associated with the ongoing condition and not related to the safety feature.
However, Burns teaches a robotic work tool that detects a fault in a failed arm, prevents further movement of the failed arm, and once the failed arm is determined to only affect the performance of the failed, it will offer and perform degraded operation to continue operation without the failed arm, i.e. new malfunction condition that is not of concern of safe continuation of robotic work tool system and only disable the new malfunction equipment (see [col 5 ln 26 thru col 6 ln 5] and Fig. 3).
Further, Derouen teaches a vehicle with a device to keep diagnosing vehicle parameter to evaluate faults, which includes faults that persists, i.e. ongoing, and/or worsen over time that has to do with both safety and non-safety features, such as a tire pressure that decreases at a certain rate, and then navigate and/or direct the vehicle to a service facility (see [0097] and [0100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify a robotic work tool with damage detection of Willgert by incorporating teaching of Burns and Derouen such that the robotic work tool detects a new or persisting error where new malfunction condition that is not of safety concern causes disabling of malfunctioning equipment while persisting, i.e. ongoing, malfunction causes a navigation to a service facility, i.e. service point.
The motivation to disable equipment with new malfunction condition is that, as indicated by Burns, this would allow a prevention of loss of full control and allowing surviving components to provide function of a failed equipment so that there is continuation of work with less cost in losses (see [col 1 lns 28-47]).
The motivation to navigate to a service facility when there is an ongoing malfunction is that, as indicated by Derouen, this would allow for automated vehicles are able to receive automatic maintenance and navigation to a service facility through predetermined data set and set appointments automatically using work schedules of the facility instead of an intervention of operators to navigate a vehicle to a suitable facility and having the hassle to call and schedule a separate appointments (see [0003]-[0008]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Willgert in view of Burns and Derouen teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the method comprises a step that positional information is sent from the work tool to a remote device (see [0039] and [0060] where robotic work tool is set up with wireless communication interface such as a smartphone using Bluetooth, LTE, etc. and the communication interface is used to provide an indication for position of where a damage, i.e. malfunction, has occurred; see also [0037] where robotic work tool has a position determining device such as a GNSS and GPS to locate current position of the robotic work tool.).
8. Claims 3, 12, and 13 are rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willgert in view Burns and Derouen in further view of Foster et al. (US 20220007570 A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Willgert in view of Burns and Derouen teaches the work tool according to claim 2,
Modified Willgert in view of Burns and Derouen does not teach wherein the cutting disk is configured to be raised on a malfunction signal therefrom.
However, Foster et al. does teach raising a deck, i.e. raising cutting disk and blades, if it is determined that mowing operations are degraded, such as blade speed was reduced, current is reduced, or due to vegetation, i.e. malfunction of blades not cutting correctly, to restore mowing operations (see Fig. 1B, [0025] and [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify a robotic work tool with damage detection of modified Willgert in view of Burns and Derouen by incorporating teaching of Foster such that the robotic work tool raises its deck that includes cutting disc or blades when there is a malfunction during mowing operations.
The motivation to raised deck with cutting disc and blades is that, as indicated by Foster, this would allow the robotic work tool to be able to prevent any damage to the work tool from obstacles, hills, slope, vegetation, etc., as well as improper mulching of cut grass and poor fertilization, and restore mowing operations (see [0001], [0025], and [0043]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Willgert in view of Burns and Derouen teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the method comprises a step of receipt of the positional information by the remote device (see [0037] and [0039] where a robotic work tool is has a position determining device such as GNSS and GPS and is in communication with a wireless communicating device such as a smartphone or personal computer with Bluetooth and LTE.),
Modified Willgert in view of Burns and Derouen does not teach a step of receipt of the positional information by the remote device, which includes a dedicated app.
However, Foster does teach a memory and a processor in a server, which is a remote device, that can store and perform methods in an operating system through a software application, i.e. a dedicated app (see [0084] and [0097] where memory of a remote device is same or similar to memory of a system 600 in Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify a robotic work tool with damage detection of modified Willgert in view of Burns and Derouen by incorporating teaching of Foster such that the robotic work tool is connected to a remote device with a software application.
The motivation to connect to a remote device with a software application is that, as indicated by Foster, this would allow the robotic work tool to be able to prevent any damage to the work tool from obstacles, hills, slope, vegetation, etc., as well as improper mulching of cut grass and poor fertilization, and restore mowing operations by raising and controlling the robotic work tool cutting motor and its disc and blades remotely (see [0001], [0025], and [0043]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Willgert in view of Burns and Derouen teaches a system comprising the robotic work tool according to claim 1, a remote device (see [0037] and [0039] where a robotic work tool is has a position determining device such as GNSS and GPS and is in communication with a wireless communicating device such as a smartphone or personal computer with Bluetooth and LTE.),
Modified Willgert in view of Burns and Derouen does not teach a dedicated app stored in the remote device.
However, Foster does teach a memory and a processor in a server, which is a remote device, that can store and perform methods in an operating system through a software application, i.e. a dedicated app (see [0084] and [0097] where memory of a remote device is same or similar to memory of a system 600 in Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify a robotic work tool with damage detection of modified Willgert in view of Burns and Derouen by incorporating teaching of Foster such that the robotic work tool is connected to a remote device with a software application.
The motivation to connect to a remote device with a software application is that, as indicated by Foster, this would allow the robotic work tool to be able to prevent any damage to the work tool from obstacles, hills, slope, vegetation, etc., as well as improper mulching of cut grass and poor fertilization, and restore mowing operations by raising and controlling the robotic work tool cutting motor and its disc and blades remotely (see [0001], [0025], and [0043]).
9. Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willgert in view of Burns and Derouen in further view of Noonan et al. (US 5204814 A).
Regarding claim 8, modified Willgert in view of Burns and Derouen teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the method comprises a step of disabling the malfunctioning feature before allowing the work tool to return to the service point (see Willgert [0059] where if sensed vibration is above a threshold, lawnmower will discontinue mowing operation and will return to a charging station or to servicing station.).
Modified Willgert in view of Burns and Derouen does not particularly teach: a step of disabling the malfunctioning feature before allowing the work tool to return to the service point if the malfunction does not relate to a safety feature.
However, does teach halt of engine and cutter blades if a lawn mower encounters a blocked path, if it is lost, a bumper opened, or tilt sensor shows unsafe state, i.e. determining a dangerous malfunction and situation relating to a safety feature (see [col 7 lns 3-53]). With Noonan [col 7 lns 3-53], it shows no halt if there is no safety related malfunction, i.e. if all engine and blades are not stopped, then method of Willgert [0059] above will apply.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the robotic work tool of modified Willgert in view of Burns and Derouen, as already modified by Noonan, by further incorporating the teachings of Noonan, such that the robotic work tool will halt its engine and cutter blades when it is determined to be in a malfunction mode that is unsafe.
The motivation to stop all the function of robotic work tool is that, as indicated by Noonan, this would allow for the robotic work tool, i.e. lawn mower, to stop during malfunction or detection of obstacles in front to prevent cutting blades coming in contact with obstacles or people so as to not hurt people nor damage the work tool (see [col 3 lns 30-54] and [col 7 lns 3-53]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Willgert in view of Burns and Derouen teaches the method according to claim 6,
Modified Willgert in view of Burns and Derouen do not teach: wherein the method comprises a step of disabling all features of the work tool if the malfunction relates to a safety feature.
However, Noonan teaches the lawnmower will perform a halt of engine and cutter blades if a lawn mower encounters a blocked path, if it is lost, a bumper opened, or tilt sensor shows unsafe state, i.e. determining a dangerous malfunction and situation relating to a safety feature (see [col 7 lines 3-53]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the robotic work tool of modified Willgert in view of Burns and Derouen, as already modified by Noonan, by further incorporating the teachings of Noonan, such that the robotic work tool will halt its engine and cutter blades when it is determined to be in a malfunction mode that is unsafe.
The motivation to stop all the function of robotic work tool is that, as indicated by Noonan, this would allow for the robotic work tool, i.e. lawn mower, to stop during malfunction or detection of obstacles in front to prevent cutting blades coming in contact with obstacles or people so as to not hurt people nor damage the work tool (see [col 3 lns 30-54] and [col 7 lns 3-53]).
10. Claims 9 are rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willgert in view of Burns, Derouen, and Noonan in further view of Foster.
Regarding claim 9, modified Willgert in view of Burns, Derouen and Noonan teaches the method according to claim 8,
Modified Willgert in view of Burns, Derouen, and Noonan does not teach wherein the disabling of the malfunctioning feature comprises raising a stopped cutting disk to its maximum height.
However, Foster et al. does teach raising a deck, i.e. raising cutting disk and blades, if it is determined that mowing operations are degraded, such as blade speed was reduced, current is reduced, or due to vegetation, i.e. malfunction of blades not cutting correctly or at all, to restore mowing operations. It must also be noted that the deck may not be raised above a maximum height, which indicates that there are embodiments where cutting disk or blades are stuck and deck is raised until its maximum height while still not resolving the issue. In addition, Foster indicates an incremental raising of the cutting disk and blades, which includes increment of bottom to maximum height (see Fig. 1B, [0025] and [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify a robotic work tool with damage detection of modified Willgert in view of Burns, Derouen, and Noonan by incorporating teaching of Foster such that the robotic work tool raises its deck that includes cutting disc or blades when there is a malfunction during mowing operations.
The motivation to raised deck with cutting disc and blades is that, as indicated by Foster, this would allow the robotic work tool to be able to prevent any damage to the work tool from obstacles, hills, slope, vegetation, etc., as well as improper mulching of cut grass and poor fertilization, and restore mowing operations (see [0001], [0025], and [0043]).
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. Koenig (EP 1531292A2), detects issue with clutch where a clutch is engaged when it is commanded to disengaged, but do not completely disable axis with faulted actuator if engaged gear is still be able to use successfully to drive.
12. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYANG AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-4162. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/H.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661