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 the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed December 23, 2025. Claim 36 has been amended. Claims 21-40 are pending and are examined below.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed December 23, 2025 with respect to the previous double patenting rejections have been fully considered.
Applicant has filed a terminal disclaimer rendering the previous rejections moot.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed December 23, 2025 with respect to the previous claim objections have been fully considered. Applicant has amended claim 36 rendering the previous objection moot.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed December 23, 2025 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson, US 20110295423 A1, in view of Matthews, US 20160157275 A1, hereinafter referred to as Anderson, and Matthews, respectively.
As to claim 21, Anderson discloses a method of spraying a turf site, the method comprising:
identifying a plurality of regions of the turf site for spraying with a mobile turf sprayer (Worksite areas 120, i.e. “plurality of regions to be sprayed” – See at Fig. 1 and ¶26);
determining a location of the mobile turf sprayer as it moves about the turf site (Navigation system – See at least Fig. 1 and ¶61);
determining that the mobile turf sprayer is located at an unsprayed portion of at least one region of the plurality of regions by tracking sprayed portions of the plurality of regions (Determine whether a task has been performed for worksites – See at least ¶153-154; Plurality of worksite areas – See at least Abstract; Track completion of various tasks including spraying and proceeding to next worksite area upon completion of work for a current worksite area – See at least ¶107-108 and 155); and
automatically spraying the unsprayed portion of the at least one region of the plurality of regions as the mobile turf sprayer moves about the turf site (Autonomously move to next worksite as process continues – See at least ¶159).
Anderson fails to explicitly disclose displaying a graphical user interface on a display of the mobile turf sprayer, the graphical user interface including an indicator to graphically depict the sprayed portions and the unsprayed portions of the plurality of regions. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Anderson and include the feature of displaying a graphical user interface on a display of the mobile turf sprayer, the graphical user interface including one or more regions of the plurality of regions associated with the selected region type, a path the mobile turf sprayer takes across the one or more regions of the plurality of regions associated with the selected region type, and a color coding to graphically depict the sprayed portions and the unsprayed portions of the one or more regions of the plurality of regions associated with the selected region type, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Matthews is directed to an analogous work device with respect to the claimed sprayer, as this class of mobile devices or work machines including autonomous lawn mowers, autonomous cleaning devices, etc., are functionally interchangeable, and providing an appropriate user interface to execute the various functions of a mobile device, like the claimed sprayer is an obvious feature of these types of machines (Display via distinguishing colors worked area versus un-worked area – See at least ¶25 of Matthews).
Claims 22, 24, 28-30, 32, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson, US 20110295423 A1, in view of Matthews, US 20160157275 A1, as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Letsky, US 20120265391 A1, hereinafter referred to as Anderson, Matthews, and Letsky, respectively.
As to claim 22, the combination of Anderson and Matthews fails to explicitly disclose defining boundaries of the plurality of regions by performing a boundary definition function that includes tracking a location of the mobile turf sprayer as the mobile turf sprayer drives around perimeters of the plurality of regions. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Anderson and Matthews and include the feature of defining boundaries of the plurality of regions by performing a boundary definition function that includes tracking a location of the mobile turf sprayer as the mobile turf sprayer drives around perimeters of the plurality of regions, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Letsky teaches it is well-known and routine in the art of autonomously navigating work machines, like the machines of Anderson and Matthews, to build maps comprising regions and respective boundaries (Setup/perimeter mapping mode – See at least ¶82 of Letsky).
As to claim 24, the combination of Anderson and Matthews fails to explicitly disclose:
initiating the boundary definition function upon selection of a boundary definition option displayed on the graphical user interface;
collecting location data from the mobile turf sprayer until receiving a selection of a done option on the graphical user interface;
generating boundary data defining the boundaries of the plurality of regions based on the location data collected from the mobile turf sprayer; and
storing the boundary data in a control system for the mobile turf sprayer.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Anderson and Matthews and include the feature of displaying a graphical user interface on a display of the mobile turf sprayer, the graphical user interface including one or more regions of the plurality of regions associated with the selected region type, a path the mobile turf sprayer takes across the one or more regions of the plurality of regions associated with the selected region type, and a color coding to graphically depict the sprayed portions and the unsprayed portions of the one or more regions of the plurality of regions associated with the selected region type, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Letsky is directed to an analogous work device with respect to the claimed sprayer, as this class of mobile devices or work machines including autonomous lawn mowers, autonomous cleaning devices, etc., are functionally interchangeable, and providing an appropriate user interface to execute the various functions of a mobile device, like the claimed sprayer (Setup mode initiated via external device, i.e., computer, etc. - See at least ¶82 and Fig. 17 of Letsky; Terminate setup mode, CCP signal, via proper button on interface – See at least ¶100 of Letsky).
As to claim 28, Anderson discloses defining areas for the plurality of regions by tracking a location of the mobile turf sprayer while the mobile turf sprayer drives over the plurality of regions (Analyze area to determine area completion, i.e., defining as worked or unworked, as machine traverse worksite areas - See at least ¶110).
As to claim 29, Anderson discloses portions of the turf site sprayed by the mobile turf sprayer are included within an area of a region of the plurality of regions (Determine whether a task has been performed for worksites – See at least ¶153-154; Plurality of worksite areas – See at least Abstract; Track completion of various tasks including spraying and proceeding to next worksite area upon completion of work for a current worksite area – See at least ¶107-108 and 155).
As to claim 30, Anderson discloses the area of the region is defined by a starting point, a specified width, a path of movement of the mobile turf sprayer, and an ending point (Worksite area defined in terms of nodes, locations, and positions, which are analogous to the claimed area dimensions – See at least ¶120 and Fig. 9).
As to claim 32, Anderson discloses classifying each region of the plurality of regions into at least one of a work region, an excluded region, a disabled region, and a categorized region (Classify worksite into regions including work and non-worksite, i.e., excluded and/or disabled – See at least ¶143 and Fig.9; Examiner notes each of these designations is also analogous to “categorized” given the plain English definition of “categorized.”).
As to claim 40, Anderson discloses a method of treating a turf site, the method comprising:
identifying a plurality of regions of the turf site for treatment (Worksite areas 120, i.e. “plurality of regions to be sprayed” – See at Fig. 1 and ¶26);
associating each region of the plurality of regions of the turf site with a region type, each region type being based on physical characteristics of the turf site (Worksite info defines work areas, i.e. “region type” – See at least ¶121; Additionally, define keep-out areas, i.e. “region type” – See at least ¶122; Various physical characteristics associated with regions of the worksite – See at least ¶124-125, 140 and Fig. 9);
determining a location of a mobile treatment device moving about the turf site (Navigation system – See at least Fig. 1 and ¶61);
determining the mobile treatment device is located at an untreated portion of at least one region of the plurality of regions by tracking treated portions of the plurality of regions (Determine whether a task has been performed for worksites – See at least ¶153-154; Plurality of worksite areas – See at least Abstract; Track completion of various tasks including spraying and proceeding to next worksite area upon completion of work for a current worksite area – See at least ¶107-108 and 155); and
automatically treating the untreated portion of the at least one region of the plurality of regions as the mobile treatment device moves about the turf site (Autonomously move to next worksite as process continues – See at least ¶159).
Anderson fails to explicitly disclose displaying a graphical user interface on a display of the mobile treatment device, the graphical user interface including an indicator to graphically depict the treated portions and the untreated portions of the plurality of regions. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Anderson and include the feature of displaying a graphical user interface on a display of the mobile treatment device, the graphical user interface including an indicator to graphically depict the treated portions and the untreated portions of the plurality of regions, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Matthews is directed to an analogous work device with respect to the claimed sprayer, as this class of mobile devices or work machines including autonomous lawn mowers, autonomous cleaning devices, etc., are functionally interchangeable, and providing an appropriate user interface to execute the various functions of a mobile device, like the claimed sprayer is an obvious feature of these types of machines (Display via distinguishing colors worked area versus un-worked area – See at least ¶25 of Matthews).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson, US 20110295423 A1, in view of Matthews, US 20160157275 A1, and in view of Letsky, US 20120265391 A1, as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Balutis, US 20150271991 A1, hereinafter referred to as Anderson, Matthews, Letsky, and Balutis, respectively.
As to claim 25, the combination of Anderson, Matthews, and Letsky fails to explicitly disclose pausing the boundary definition function to suspend collection of the location data in response to receiving a selection of a pause option on the graphical user interface. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Anderson, Matthews, and Letsky and include the feature of pausing the boundary definition function to suspend collection of the location data in response to receiving a selection of a pause option on the graphical user interface., with a reasonable expectation of success, because Balutis teaches it is well-known and routine in the art of autonomously navigating work machines, like the machines of Anderson, Matthews, and Letsky to provide a pause option when defining boundaries (START/PAUSE button when teaching perimeter – See at least ¶55 of Balutis).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson, US 20110295423 A1, in view of Matthews, US 20160157275 A1, as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Park et al., US 20170265703 A1, hereinafter referred to as Anderson, Matthews, and Park, respectively.
As to claim 26, the combination of Anderson and Matthews fails to explicitly disclose:
generating a graphical display of the turf site;
providing a boundary definition tool to draw boundaries around the plurality of regions; and
generating boundary data defining the boundaries around the plurality of regions based on the boundaries drawn by the boundary definition tool.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Anderson and Matthews and include the feature of generating a graphical display of the turf site, providing a boundary definition tool to draw boundaries around the plurality of regions, and generating boundary data defining the boundaries around the plurality of regions based on the boundaries drawn by the boundary definition tool, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Park teaches it is well-known and routine in the art of autonomously navigating work machines, like the machines of Anderson and Matthews, to provide an interface where a user can modify work area boundaries by drawing lines on the interface (User may draw line along perimeter to define areas to be worked – See at least ¶162 and Fig. 8 of Park).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson, US 20110295423 A1, in view of Matthews, US 20160157275 A1, and in view of Park et al., US 20170265703 A1 as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Feigh et al., US 20100286859 A1, hereinafter referred to as Anderson, Matthews, Park, and Feigh, respectively.
As to claim 27, the combination of Anderson, Matthews, and Park fails to explicitly disclose the boundary definition tool includes at least one of a first type of drawing tool that allows freeform shapes to be drawn on the graphical display of the turf site, and a second type of drawing tool that allows one or more geometric shapes to be drawn on the graphical display of the turf site. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Anderson, Matthews, and Park and include the feature of generating a graphical display of the turf site, providing a boundary definition tool to draw boundaries around the plurality of regions, and generating boundary data defining the boundaries around the plurality of regions based on the boundaries drawn by the boundary definition tool, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Feigh teaches it is well-known and routine in the art of user interfaces for vehicle control to allow for a user to input both freeform and geometric gestures to identify areas on a displayed map (See at least ¶32 of Feigh).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson, US 20110295423 A1, in view of Matthews, US 20160157275 A1, as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of De Nale et al., US 20180054954 A1, hereinafter referred to as Anderson, Matthews, and De Nale, respectively.
As to claim 31, the combination of Anderson and Matthews fails to explicitly disclose the starting point and the ending point are defined by toggling a spray control option which starts or stops the spraying. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Anderson and Matthews and include the feature of the starting point and the ending point are defined by toggling a spray control option which starts or stops the spraying, with a reasonable expectation of success, because the purposes of both Anderson and Matthews is to work a given area, and to spray (work) outside of those areas would undermine the purpose and effectiveness of those inventions.
Additionally, the combination of Anderson and Matthews fails to explicitly disclose the specified width is a distance between a most distal spray nozzle on a boom of the mobile turf device. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Anderson and Matthews and include the feature of the specified width is a distance between a most distal spray nozzle on a boom of the mobile turf device, with a reasonable expectation of success, because De Nale teaches it is well-known and routine for a width of a working area, (in this case the vehicle’s path) to be the width of the work machine’s implement (See at least ¶24 of De Nale).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson US 20110295423 A1, in view of Matthews, US 20160157275 A1, and in view of Godbole et al., US 20140259897 A1, hereinafter referred to as Anderson, Matthews, and Godbole respectively.
As to claim 33, Anderson discloses a mobile turf sprayer for spraying a turf site, the mobile turf sprayer comprising:
a positioning system for determining a location of the mobile turf sprayer (Navigation system – See at least Abstract);
a display (Display – See at least ¶47); and
a computing device including at least a processing device and a computer readable storage device, the computing device communicatively coupled with the spray system, the positioning system, and the display, the computer readable storage device storing data instructions executable by the computing device to cause the computing device to:
identify a plurality of regions of the turf site for spraying with product (Worksite areas 120, i.e. “plurality of regions to be sprayed” – See at Fig. 1 and ¶26);
use the positioning system to determine a location of the mobile turf sprayer (Navigation system – See at least Abstract);
determine the mobile turf sprayer is located at an unsprayed portion of at least one region of the plurality of regions by tracking sprayed portions of the plurality of regions (Determine whether a task has been performed for worksites – See at least ¶153-154; Plurality of worksite areas – See at least Abstract; Track completion of various tasks including spraying and proceeding to next worksite area upon completion of work for a current worksite area – See at least ¶107-108 and 155); and
automatically spray the unsprayed portion of the at least one region of the plurality of regions as the mobile turf sprayer moves about the turf site (Autonomously move to next worksite as process continues – See at least ¶159).
Anderson fails to explicitly disclose displaying a graphical user interface on a display of the mobile turf sprayer, the graphical user interface including an indicator to graphically depict the sprayed portions and the unsprayed portions of the plurality of regions. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Anderson and include the feature of displaying a graphical user interface on a display of the mobile turf sprayer, the graphical user interface including one or more regions of the plurality of regions associated with the selected region type, a path the mobile turf sprayer takes across the one or more regions of the plurality of regions associated with the selected region type, and a color coding to graphically depict the sprayed portions and the unsprayed portions of the one or more regions of the plurality of regions associated with the selected region type, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Matthews is directed to an analogous work device with respect to the claimed sprayer, as this class of mobile devices or work machines including autonomous lawn mowers, autonomous cleaning devices, etc., are functionally interchangeable, and providing an appropriate user interface to execute the various functions of a mobile device, like the claimed sprayer is an obvious feature of these types of machines (Display via distinguishing colors worked area versus un-worked area – See at least ¶25 of Matthews).
The combination of Anderson and Matthews fails to explicitly disclose:
a tank for holding a product; and
a spray system including a plurality of nozzles for spraying the product from the tank.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Anderson and Matthews and include the feature of a tank for holding a product and a spray system including a plurality of nozzles for spraying the product from the tank, as taught by Godbole (Tank item 16 – See at least Fig. 1 and ¶17; Sprayer machine – See at least ¶18; Multi-nozzle – See at least ¶23), with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide the customary equipment for performing the spraying of Anderson.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson US 20110295423 A1, in view of Matthews, US 20160157275 A1, and in view of Godbole et al., US 20140259897 A1, as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Letsky, US 20120265391 A1, hereinafter referred to as Anderson, Matthews, and Letsky, respectively.
As to claim 34, the combination of Anderson and Matthews fails to explicitly disclose defining boundaries of the plurality of regions by performing a boundary definition function that includes tracking a location of the mobile turf sprayer as the mobile turf sprayer drives around perimeters of the plurality of regions. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Anderson and Matthews and include the feature of defining boundaries of the plurality of regions by performing a boundary definition function that includes tracking a location of the mobile turf sprayer as the mobile turf sprayer drives around perimeters of the plurality of regions, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Letsky teaches it is well-known and routine in the art of autonomously navigating work machines, like the machine of Anderson, to build maps comprising regions and respective boundaries (Setup/perimeter mapping mode – See at least ¶82 of Letsky).
Claims 36, 38, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson US 20110295423 A1, in view of Matthews, US 20160157275 A1, and in view of Godbole et al., US 20140259897 A1, as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Letsky, US 20120265391 A1, hereinafter referred to as Anderson, Matthews, and Letsky, respectively.
As to claim 36, the combination of Anderson, Matthews and Godbole fails to explicitly disclose:
generating a graphical display of the turf site;
providing a boundary definition tool to draw boundaries around the plurality of regions; and
generating boundary data defining the boundaries around the plurality of regions based on the boundaries drawn by the boundary definition tool.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Anderson and include the feature of generating a graphical display of the turf site, providing a boundary definition tool to draw boundaries around the plurality of regions, and generating boundary data defining the boundaries around the plurality of regions based on the boundaries drawn by the boundary definition tool, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Park teaches it is well-known and routine in the art of autonomously navigating work machines, like the machines of Anderson and Matthews, to provide an interface where a user can modify work area boundaries by drawing lines on the interface (User may draw line along perimeter to define areas to be worked – See at least ¶162 and Fig. 8 of Park).
As to claim 38, Anderson discloses defining areas for the plurality of regions by tracking a location of the mobile turf sprayer while the mobile turf sprayer drives over the plurality of regions (Analyze area to determine area completion, i.e., defining as worked or unworked, as machine traverse worksite areas - See at least ¶110).
As to claim 39, Anderson discloses the area of the region is defined by a starting point, a specified width, a path of movement of the mobile turf sprayer, and an ending point (Worksite area defined in terms of nodes, locations, and positions, which are analogous to the claimed area dimensions – See at least ¶120 and Fig. 9).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson, US 20110295423 A1, in view of Matthews, US 20160157275 A1, in view of Godbole et al., US 20140259897 A1, and Letsky, US 20120265391 A1, as applied to claim 36 above, and further in view of Feigh et al., US 20100286859 A1, hereinafter referred to as Anderson, Matthews, Godbole, Letsky, and Feigh, respectively.
As to claim 37, the combination of Anderson, Matthews, Godbole, and Letsky fails to explicitly disclose the boundary definition tool includes at least one of a first type of drawing tool that allows freeform shapes to be drawn on the graphical display of the turf site, and a second type of drawing tool that allows one or more geometric shapes to be drawn on the graphical display of the turf site. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Anderson, Matthews, Godbole, and Letsky, and Godbole and include the feature of generating a graphical display of the turf site, providing a boundary definition tool to draw boundaries around the plurality of regions, and generating boundary data defining the boundaries around the plurality of regions based on the boundaries drawn by the boundary definition tool, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Feigh teaches it is well-known and routine in the art of user interfaces for vehicle control to allow for a user to input both freeform and geometric gestures to identify areas on a displayed map (See at least ¶32 of Feigh).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23, and 35 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lail Kleinman whose telephone number is (571)272-6286. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/LAIL A KLEINMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights