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 under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/13/2024 was filed and has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings that were filed on 08/13/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Preliminary Amendment
The Preliminary Amendment filed on 08/13/2024 has been considered by the examiner. Claims 1-19 were cancelled by this amendment. The remaining Claims 20-38 are addressed in this office action.
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.
Claim(s) 20, 23-30, and 34-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlemmer et al. (US 20210176979 A1), and herein after will be referred to as Schlemmer, in view of Mozeika et al. (US 10486311 B2), herein after will be referred to as Mozeika.
Regarding Claim 20, Schlemmer teaches a lawn care apparatus configured to be mounted on a mobile unit (A weed removal system integrated into an agricultural vehicle; [0021]), comprising:
a digital camera configured to be oriented towards a lawn (A digital camera as part of the weed removal system that generates image data of weeds, which is necessarily oriented towards the lawn to capture the weeds; [0020] [0050]);
a control device (An open-loop or closed-loop control device; [0038]); and
at least one tool configured to be controlled by the control device and configured to be lowered to the lawn by a motor (A weed-removal device that is controlled by the control device; [0072]);
wherein images from the digital camera are supplied to an algorithm implemented in the control device to perform object recognition so that, upon recognition of an object, the control device lowers the tool in order for a work step to be performed on the object (The system analyzes images to identify weeds and upon identification the controller actuates the tool to remove the weed; [0051]-[0052], [0070]-[0072]);
wherein the tool is arranged in a lowered state in a detection range of the camera (The camera is positioned in front of the tool where the tool’s working area is in detected range of the camera; [0012]).
Schlemmer does not explicitly teach a constant image coordinate of the camera image is assigned to a contact point of the tool with the lawn.
However, Mozeika discloses a robotic manipulator arm with a gripper that integrates a camera directly into the tool system. Mozeika teaches an inline camera in a palm of the gripper where the inline camera is cenetered within the palm and roll of axis of the wrist motor of the gripper (Col 5 lines 22-38). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because physically centering the camera inline within the palm of the gripper assigns the camera’s optical center as a constant image coordinate to the functional center of the tool.
Schlemmer and Mozeika are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of robotic systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schlemmer to incorporate the teachings of an inline tool centered camera as taught by Mozeika based on the motivation to replace a complex calibration for the grid positioning system with a fixed tool contact point to the camera’s center. This provides the benefit of improving the efficiency of the system by implementing an easy calibrated positioning system for the weeding tool.
Regarding Claim 23, Schlemmer and Mozeika remains as applied above in claim 20. Schlemmer further teaches the tool is configured as a weeding device (The system for an automatic weed removal contains a weed-removal device; [0038]).
Regarding Claim 24, Schlemmer and Mozeika remains as applied above in claim 23. Schlemmer further teaches the weeding device comprises a rotating cutting thread (The weed removal device can be a brush cutter; [0078] [0015]).
Regarding Claim 25, Schlemmer and Mozeika remains as applied above in claim 23. Schlemmer does not explicitly teach wherein the weeding device is arranged on an arm, the arm configured to be pivoted about an axis extending obliquely from a vertical up position to a substantially horizontal position.
However, Mozeika discloses a manipulator arm on a mobile robot that moves from a stowed vertical position to an extended horizontal position (Col 3 lines 12-20, Col 5 lines 7-21). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitations because the manipulator arm is pivotally coupled and is stowed in a vehicle position to the extended position that is analogous to the horizontal position where the path of the arm can extend obliquely. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Schlemmer to incorporate the teachings of a manipulator arm extending from a vertical position to an extended position along on a oblique path as taught by Mozeika based on the motivation to stow and extend the tool when needed to reach a target. This provides the benefit of a stowable weeding device that can be stored when not in use and improves the safety of any unintended object that may be in the pathway of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 26, Schlemmer and Mozeika remains as applied above in claim 20. Schlemmer further teaches the tool is configured as a gripper (The weed-removal device is in the form of a gripping device; [0015]).
Regarding Claim 27, Schlemmer and Mozeika remains as applied above in claim 26. Schlemmer does not explicitly teach the gripper is arranged on an arm, the arm configured to be pivoted about a substantially horizontal axis.
However, Mozeika discloses a robot with a manipulator arm that is pivotally coupled to the main body of the robot with a distal end that receives a gripper (Col 5 lines 7-20). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the manipulator arm comprises a gripper and can pivotally move on a horizontal axis. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Schlemmer to incorporate the teachings of a manipulator arm that is pivotally coupled to the main body of the robot with a gripper as taught by Mozeika based on the motivation to allow the gripper to have a further reach and cover a larger surface area. This provides the benefit of improving the efficiency of the system by extending the gripper to further reaches as opposed to driving the entire vehicle unit to a target.
Regarding Claim 28, Schlemmer and Mozeika remains as applied above in claim 26. Schlemmer does not explicitly teach the gripper comprises at least two parallel gripping elements, the at least two parallel gripping elements being guided to be movable relative towards and away from each other.
However, Mozeika discloses the top cross-sectional view of the gripper where the gripper comprises of two parallel gripping elements that drive each finger to open and close (FIG. 3A, Col 6 lines 4-19). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitations because the gripper fingers are in parallel of each other where the fingers are driven for an open and close motion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Schlemmer to incorporate the teachings of a gripper with two fingers parallel to each other that opens and closes as taught by Mozeika based on the motivation to provide the tool a method of grabbing onto the targeted weed object. This provides the benefit of improving the effectiveness of the system by physically grabbing the targeted weed for removal.
Regarding Claim 29, Schlemmer and Mozeika remains as applied above in claim 28. Schlemmer does not explicitly teach a movement of the gripping elements runs along a respective circular arc; and pivot axes forming a respective center point of the respective circular arcs are arranged evenly along a circle and parallel to one another.
However, Mozeika discloses that the gripper includes a wrist motor configured to rotate the gripper about a gripper roll axis where the inline camera is centered within the palm of the gripper (Col 5 lines 33-36). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitations because the rotation of the gripper via write motor moves the gripping elements along a circular arc where the inline camera is in a center point of the respective circular car and the gripper fingers are parallel to each other. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Schlemmer to incorporate the teachings of a gripper that includes a write motor to rotate the gripper about a gripper roll axis as taught by Mozeika based on the motivation to provide the gripper different orientations to grab the targeted weed object for an improved probability of successfully pulling out a weed.
Regarding Claim 30, Schlemmer and Mozeika remains as applied above in claim 29. Schlemmer does not explicitly teach a drive member is provided, which is rotatably driven by a motor about the axis of the circle and which is drivingly connected to each gripping element in order to drive said gripping element along the respective circular arc.
However, Mozeika discloses that the gripper palm is a drive member that rotates by a wrist motor on a central axis which drives the gripping elements (Col 5 lines 33-36). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed driving mechanism because the gripper palm is the drive member that is rotatably driven by the wrist motor on a gripper roll axis where the gripper elements are mounted to the palm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Schlemmer to incorporate the teachings of the gripper palm driven by the wrist motor on a gripper roll axis as taught by Mozeika based on the motivation to precisely guide the gripper to grasp and rotate the targeted weed removal. This provides the benefit of improving the capabilities of the grabber by giving the ability to approach the target weed in different orientations.
Regarding Claim 34, Schlemmer and Mozeika remains as applied above in claim 20. Schlemmer does not explicitly teach an electric motor drive is provided for lowering and lifting the at least one tool.
However, Mozeika discloses a manipulator arm that performs pivoting motions with a gripper tool that is driven by a motor for the pivoting motion (Col 5 lines 7-20). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the pivoting motion is the lowering and lifting of the gripper tool attached to the end of the arm and is driven by a motor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Schlemmer to incorporate the teachings of a motor for lowering and lifting the gripper tool as taught by Mozeika based on the motivation to provide a source of drive to the tool for performing the functions of removing a target weed. This provides the benefit of a controlled drive for lowering and lifting the weed tool when the tool is needed.
Regarding Claim 35, Schlemmer and Mozeika remains as applied above in claim 20. Schlemmer further teaches the apparatus is an integral component on a robot lawn mower (The weed removal system is integrated into a vehicle; [0021]).
Regarding Claim 36, Schlemmer and Mozeika remains as applied above in claim 20. Schlemmer further teaches the apparatus is a retrofit module to be mounted on a robot lawn mower (The weed removal system can be an attachment to be mounted on a vehicle; [0021]).
Regarding 37, Schlemmer teaches a robot lawn mower (An automatic weed removal system on a vehicle is a robot for lawn care; [0046]), comprising:
a mower having an autonomously operating travel drive (Data comprising GPS data for automated agricultural vehicles; [0023]); and
a lawn care apparatus mounted on the mower (The weed removal system is integrated onto a vehicle; [0046]), the lawn care apparatus including:
a digital camera configured to be oriented towards a lawn (A digital camera as part of the weed removal system that generates image data of weeds, which is necessarily oriented towards the lawn to capture the weeds; [0020] [0050]);
a control device (An open-loop or closed-loop control device; [0038]); and
at least one tool configured to be controlled by the control device and configured to be lowered to the lawn by a motor (A weed-removal device that is controlled by the control device; [0072]);
wherein images from the digital camera are supplied to an algorithm implemented in the control device to perform object recognition so that, upon recognition of an object, the control device lowers the tool in order for a work step to be performed on the object (The system analyzes images to identify weeds and upon identification the controller actuates the tool to remove the weed; [0051]-[0052], [0070]-[0072]);
wherein the tool is arranged in a lowered state in a detection range of the camera (The camera is positioned in front of the tool where the tool’s working area is in detected range of the camera; [0012]).
Schlemmer does not explicitly teach a constant image coordinate of the camera image is assigned to a contact point of the tool with the lawn.
However, Mozeika discloses a robotic manipulator arm with a gripper that integrates a camera directly into the tool system. Mozeika teaches an inline camera in a palm of the gripper where the inline camera is cenetered within the palm and roll of axis of the wrist motor of the gripper (Col 5 lines 22-38). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because physically centering the camera inline within the palm of the gripper assigns the camera’s optical center as a constant image coordinate to the functional center of the tool. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schlemmer to incorporate the teachings of an inline tool centered camera as taught by Mozeika based on the motivation to replace a complex calibration for the grid positioning system with a fixed tool contact point to the camera’s center. This provides the benefit of improving the efficiency of the system by implementing an easy calibrated positioning system for the weeding tool.
Regarding Claim 38, Schlemmer and Mozeika remains as applied above in claim 37. Schlemmer further teaches the digital camera is oriented towards the lawn lying in front of the mower in a direction of travel (The camera is positioned in the direction of movement in front of the tool; [0012]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlemmer in view of Mozeika, as applied in claim 20, and in further view of Robertson et al. (US 10757861 B2), herein after will be referred to as Robertson.
Regarding Claim 21, Schlemmer and Mozeika remains as applied above in claim 20. Schlemmer further teaches the algorithm is configured to detect the center point of a detected object (The server unit analyzes image data to determine the respective weed where the weed-removal device is positioned within a grid for precise positioning to be removed efficiently, which is a center point; [0051] [0012]);
Schlemmer and Mozeika does not explicitly teach the control device is configured to output control commands to the mobile unit for approaching the object from a continuous determination of the distance between the constant image coordinate of the contact point of the tool and the center point of the detected object until the distance is below a predetermined limit value.
However, Robertson discloses an autonomous robotic system that uses a positioning subsystem that includes a computer vision guidance system for picking fruit. Robertson teaches a total positioning system and the picking arm operate under the control of a control subsystem which uses input from the computer vision subsystem to decide where and when to move the robot (Col 45 lines 47-53). Robertson further teaches that the Robot Control Subsystem moves the robot where the picking head and camera moves to a position of a prospective target for the system determines the probability of picking success is greater than a threshold (Col 26-27 lines 59-10). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitations because the control subsystem outputs commands to the robot to move where the picking head and camera gather image data of a target to continuously refine the estimate of probability against a threshold.
Schlemmer, Mozeika, and Robertson are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of robotic systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schlemmer and Mozeika to incorporate the teachings of the control subsystem moving the robot to a position of a prospective target and determining the probability against a threshold as taught by Robertson based on the motivation to provide an autonomous means for the mobile unit to precisely approach a weed target. This provides the benefit of a mobile unit that navigates to a detected target and aligns its tool for removal of the target.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlemmer in view of Mozeika, as applied in claim 20, and in further view of Henning et al. (US 10389820 B2), herein after will be referred to as Henning.
Regarding Claim 22, Schlemmer and Mozeika remains as applied above in claim 20. The prior art combination does not explicitly teach the control device is configured as a single-board computer.
However, Henning discloses a system for programming and controlling a robotic device using an embedded single-board computer (Abstract, Col 3 lines 19-21). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of a control device is configured as a single-board computer because Henning’s system uses an embedded single-board computer.
Schlemmer, Mozeika, and Henning are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of robotic systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schlemmer and Mozeika to incorporate the teachings of an embedded single-board computer as taught by Henning based on the motivation to utilize an efficient processing device that contain all the necessary components on a single-board. This provides the benefit of a self-contained and compact system for the mobile robot.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlemmer in view of Mozeika, as applied in claim 28, and in further view of Keil et al. (US 9624607 B2), herein after will be referred to as Keil.
Regarding Claim 31, Schlemmer and Mozeika remains as applied above in claim 28. The prior art combination does not explicitly teach contact surfaces of the gripping elements are anodised.
However, Keil discloses a gripper for holding electrical or optical lines where gripper jaws comprise of gripping elements that are anodized material (Col 3-4 lines 66-2). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed contact surface of the gripping elements are anodised because the gripper jaw is made from hard-anodized aluminum which implies the contact surface is anodized.
Schlemmer, Mozeika, and Keil are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of robotic grippers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Schlemmer and Mozeika to incorporate the teachings of using hard-anodized aluminum for the gripper jaws as taught by Keil based on the motivation to improve the durability and wear resistance of the gripping elements. This provides the benefit of a long-lasting gripper that can withstand the environmental elements.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlemmer in view of Mozeika, as applied in claim 26, and in further view of Komorida et al. (US 6931827 B2), herein after will be referred to as Komorida.
Regarding Claim 32, Schlemmer and Mozeika remains as applied above in claim 26. The prior art combination does not explicitly teach a collecting container arranged below a discharge position of the gripper.
However, Komorida discloses a grass collecting apparatus for directing the clippings to a grass catcher that is rearward of a mower unit (Col 4 lines 40-43). Komorida further teaches that the grass clippings are guided by the grass collecting duct to accumulate in the grass catcher where the outlet of the duct and the opening of the catcher are opposed to each other (Col 4 lines 46-50, Col 7 lines 14-17). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation because the grass catcher is a container that collects the grass clips and is opposed to each the outlet of the duct where the gripper is to a opposed discharged position of the container.
Schlemmer, Mozeika, and Komorida are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of handling material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Schlemmer and Mozeika to incorporate the teachings of a grass collecting apparatus to accumulate the grass where the container is opposed to the ducting as taught by Komorida based on the motivation to prevent re-rooting or spread seeds and ensure complete removal of the weeds by keeping the weeds in a container. This provides the benefit of ensuring a long-term removal of weeds by collecting the weeds in a container for permanent removal.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlemmer in view of Mozeika, and in view of Komorida, as applied in claim 32, and in further view of Bonnet et al. (US 5839566 A), herein after will be referred to as Bonnet.
Regarding Claim 33, Schlemmer, Mozeika, and Komorida remains as applied above in claim 32. Schlemmer and Mozeika does not explicitly teach the collecting container is hinged to an axis of rotation running horizontally in a region of an upper edge of the collecting container and at right angles to a direction of travel.
However, Komorida discloses a grass catcher for collecting lawn debris where the grass catcher container body is supported by a frame that is vertically pivotable about a transverse support shaft rotatably mounted on the upper frame plate (Col 6 lines 49-61). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of the collecting container hinged to an axis of rotation running horizontally in a region of an upper edge of the collecting container and at the right angels to a direction of travel because the grass catch is a collecting container for collecting lawn debris which is horizontally pivotable about a transverse shaft. The pivotable shaft is mounted on the upper frame plate that is equivalent to the upper region of the container where a transverse shaft runs side to side providing a right angle to the mower’s forward direction of travel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the date of the claimed invention to modify Schlemmer and Mozeika to incorporate the teachings of the catcher container body supported by a vertically pivotable frame about a transverse support shaft rotatably mounted on the upper frame plate as taught by Komorida based on the motivation to provide a support frame for the collection container and the benefit of a complete system of removing and storing the debris.
Schlemmer, Mozeika, and Komorida does not explicitly teach the collecting container configured to be tilted and emptied by approaching a link positioned below the axis of rotation.
However, Bonnet discloses an automated system for tilting and discharging the container on a moving platform where a moveable trip member is in the path of a trigger arm to actuate and tilt a tray about the axis (Col 3 lines 5-8). Bonnet further teaches that each trip mechanism includes an upright shaft and left/right roller assemblies to form a Y configuration (Col 4 lines 47-50) and that trip mechanism are suspended between the upper and lower flights of the conveyor belt (Col 4 lines 65-67). These things are equivalent to the claimed limitation of tilted and emptied by approaching a link positioned below the axis of rotation because the container approaches a moveable trip member and is tilted and discharges the container.
Schlemmer, Mozeika, Komorida, and Bonnet are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of handling material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Schlemmer, Mozeika, and Komorida to incorporate the teachings of the tilting mechanism to discharge the container as taught by Bonnet based on the motivation to provide a method of emptying the container filled with weeds and provide the benefit of a fully automated solution to remove, collect, and empty the system.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent, most relevant, to applicant's disclosure.
Burdoucci (US 20180035606 A1)
Slaughter (US 10993430 B2)
Grant (US 11553634 B2)
Frick (US 20220167552 A1)
Brown (US 11582903 B1)
Cui (US 12141985 B2)
Sandbrook (US 12213393 B2)
Reilly (US 4476668 A)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON whose telephone number is (571)272-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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.
/EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663