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
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 04/24/2025. Claims 1 - 8 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/20/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claim(s) 4 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) and is further objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the rejection was addressed and the claim was rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7 – 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
7. Claims 4 – 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
8. Claims 4 – 5 mention “…number of grass…”. What exactly does number of grass mean? Is it providing a specific range, an approximation, or an exact number of grass that is detected? As claimed, a “number of grass” is indefinite. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as any type of approximation of an amount of grass detected.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220061212A1 (hereinafter, “Zeiler”), and further in view of US20200019180A1 (hereinafter, “Chae”).
11. Regarding claim 1, Zeiler teaches an autonomous lawnmower, comprising [0021]: Zeiler teaches “an autonomous lawn care device in the form of an autonomous lawn mower 100”.
a lawnmower body that performs a lawn-mowing operation while autonomously traveling ([0103] Fig. 9); Zeiler teaches a lawn mower (100) cutting the lawn autonomously.
a controller that controls the lawnmower body, based on operational content recorded ([0031], [0040] Fig. 4); The lawn mower (100) contains a controller (400). The controller (400) is coupled to the sensors (102). The sensors (102) can be digital imaging sensors which can record content which then provides data to the controller for the controller (400) to control the lawn mower (100) causing the controller (400) to be based on these digital imaging sensors.
a forward imager oriented forward in a traveling direction of the lawnmower body; and ([0031] Fig. 1) Zeiler teaches “…the sensors 102 on the autonomous lawn mower 100 may be positioned around the autonomous lawn mower 100…”. Figure 1 shows the positioning of the sensors (102) and the positioning of the sensors (102) are shown to be oriented forward towards the travel direction of the lawn mower (100).
12. Zeiler does not explicitly teach a backward imager oriented backward in the traveling direction of the lawnmower body, wherein
when a backward imaging result detected by the backward imager is within a predetermined range of conditions, the controller determines the operational content, based on a forward imaging result detected by the forward imager.
However, Chae teaches a backward imager oriented backward in the traveling direction of the lawnmower body, wherein ([0265], [0300] Fig. 6) Chae teaches “a rear camera for photographing a rear area 740 of the robot cleaner”.
when a backward imaging result detected by the backward imager is within a predetermined range of conditions,… ([0258], [0300] Fig. 6) Chae teaches determining whether a completed cleaning operation satisfies a desired condition using an image of a rear area of the robot cleaner (51). Specifically, the controller analyzes the rear area image to determine whether the cleaning of an already cleaned area is complete ([0258] Fig. 6). This is done by a rear camera [0300]. When the image indicates that cleaning is not complete, the controller controls the driving unit and cleaning unit to perform a recleaning operation. Accordingly, the rear image is evaluated against a predefined completion criterion, which corresponds to determining whether a backward imaging result is within a predetermined range of conditions. This same logic can be applied to the autonomous lawn mower considering both vehicles are of very similar components.
…the controller determines the operational content, based on a forward imaging result detected by the forward imager [0235], [0258]. Chae teaches a sensor unit (5150) which may include a camera in the forward section of the robot cleaner (51) thereby constituting a forward imager. Since paragraph [0258] discloses that when an image of a rear area of the robot cleaner (51) indicates that cleaning of an already cleaned area is not complete, the controller controls the driving unit and cleaning unit to perform a recleaning operation. Due to the controller determining the recleaning operation and associated travel of the robot using image information acquired by the sensor unit (5150) which may include a camera, Chae teaches determining operational content based on a forward imaging result detected by the forward imager.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Zeiler with the teachings of Chae, to further improve work quality of a lawn by determining whether the work was effective with the rear imager.
13. Regarding claim 2, Zeiler teaches the autonomous lawnmower according to claim 1, wherein the forward imaging result includes at least information on condition of unmown grass [0064]. Zeiler teaches the lawn mower (100) being able to identify environmental parameters (condition of unmown grass) of the unmown grass such as grass height and moisture levels of the unmown grass. These environmental parameters are based on the sensor module (422) which is in communication with the sensors (102). The sensors (102) being digital imaging sensors. Therefore, the digital imaging sensors results contain information on the condition of unmown grass.
14. Regarding claim 3, Zeiler teaches the autonomous lawnmower according to claim 2, wherein the information on condition of unmown grass includes at least information on moisture content of grass [0031], [0052]. Zeiler teaches including moisture sensors on the lawn mower (100) to detect moisture level of the lawn that is going to be cut.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220061212A1 (hereinafter, “Zeiler”), and further in view of US20200019180A1 (hereinafter, “Chae”), and further in view of US20190075724A1 (hereinafter, “Becke”).
16. Regarding claim 6, Zeiler teaches the autonomous lawnmower according to claim 2, wherein the backward imaging result includes… ([0031] Fig. 1) Due to Zeiler teaching the sensors (102) being located around the lawn mower (100), the lawn mower (100) may also be implemented in the back of the lawn mower (100) oriented backwards in the backwards direction.
Zeiler does not explicitly teach …at least information on an amount of grass discharged from the lawnmower body.
However, Becke teaches …at least information on an amount of grass discharged from the lawnmower body [0094], [0102] – [0104]. Becke teaches measuring the discharge from the lawn mower (10) using a grass chute discharge sensor (52).
Zeiler and Becke are analogous art because Zeiler teaches implementing sensors located around the lawn mower, including the back of the lawn mower while Becke teaches measuring the discharge from the lawn mower. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to integrate Becke’s discharge measurement techniques into Zeiler’s rear facing sensor system in order to enhance operational awareness of mowing performance by enabling the controller to evaluate the amount and flow of discharged grass in real time. Such a combination would provide predictable improvements, including improved mowing efficiency, clog detection, and more accurate adjusting of mowing parameters based on real time discharge conditions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Becke, to modify the teachings of the modified Zeiler reference to include the teachings of Becke to further improve discharge analysis for more accurate adjustments when it comes to the blades on the lawn mower.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-6229. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5pm EST.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached on (571) 270-7429. 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.
/DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights