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 .
Summary
This communication is a First Office Action Non-Final Rejection on the merits.
Claims 1 – 12, 16, 23, 26, 31, 33 – 35 and 37 are currently pending and considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 12, 16, 23, 26, 31 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herrera (US 2021/0360853 A1).
As per claim 1, Herrera teaches the limitations of:
a method for generating a visually discernible pattern in a lawn, said method comprising the steps of.
- providing a lawn maintenance vehicle on a lawn, said lawn maintenance vehicle comprising a lawn maintenance tool (See at least abstract; a system and method for an autonomous robot to automate watering, mowing, fertilizing and several other gardening services. Consisting of a robot body having at least one motor arranged to propel the robot body via a wheel arrangement and drive a cutting blade or trimmer line, wherein the robot body also has predefined areas for including at least one more motor to drive a sprayer, trimmer or edging blade. Wherein the robot body includes a navigation system arranged to assist a controller to control operation of the robot within predefined operating and target areas),
- maneuvering said lawn maintenance vehicle on said lawn such that said lawn maintenance tool travels along a plurality of maintenance paths including a first maintenance path and a second maintenance path (See at least abstract; a system and method for an autonomous robot to automate watering, mowing, fertilizing and several other gardening services. Consisting of a robot body having at least one motor arranged to propel the robot body via a wheel arrangement and drive a cutting blade or trimmer line, wherein the robot body also has predefined areas for including at least one more motor to drive a sprayer, trimmer or edging blade. Wherein the robot body includes a navigation system arranged to assist a controller to control operation of the robot within predefined operating and target areas),
- wherein said plurality of maintenance paths are calculated using a computer processing arrangement, said calculation being based on a digital representation of said lawn and a pattern to be generated in said lawn, said pattern comprising a plurality of zones including a first zone having a first lawn maintenance direction and a second zone having a second lawn maintenance direction different from said first lawn maintenance direction (See at least paragraph 153 – 155; If a camera is included, the user can see what the gardener visualizes using the camera attached to the gardener through the Manual/CAM tab 608. If no camera is included or the camera is not operating, the Manual/CAM tab 608 shows the user the best virtual representation of the gardener's surroundings. As illustrated in FIG. 7, an example of how a user can set the boundaries of the working area by using the map provided by the software or mobile program is shown. Users place circles 700 around the perimeter of the working areas and non-working areas and designate each area respectively. The circles placed by the user can be modified and moved using the small triangle 701 attached to the circle. Users can use circles 703 to set specific target areas that they want the gardener to focus on either for spraying, cutting, seeding or checking the health status of the area. As illustrated in FIG. 9, a few examples of different mowing patterns that the autonomous gardener can provide on a lawn are shown. A traditional pattern 900, is defined as a mowing pattern where the cutting direction goes back and forth from end to end of the lawn. A diamond pattern 901, is defined as a mowing pattern where the cutting directions overlap each other at a set angle, preferably at a 60 to 120 degree angle. A random pattern 902, is defined as a mowing pattern where the cutting direction is random and based on the random movements of the gardener over the working area.),
- wherein said first and second maintenance paths are arranged in said first zone such that a first overlap is formed between said first and second maintenance paths, wherein one of said first and second maintenance paths is arranged such that a second overlap is formed between said one maintenance path and said second zone, wherein said first overlap is different from said second overlap (See at least paragraph 155), and
- wherein said visually discernible pattern is generated in said lawn by said lawn maintenance tool being moved along said plurality of maintenance paths (See at least paragraph 155 and 158; The controller then finds the farthest point from the current starting point 829, wherein the farthest point is defined as a point within the working area that has the greatest distance possible between two points in the same working area. After the farthest point is calculated, the controller builds a plan for the mowing path, incorporating the mowing pattern (900, 901, 902) given by the user, between the start and farthest point 828 by finding sequential GPS coordinates between the points. The controller will continue to try and build the path (827 & 815) for some allotted time or attempts until an error message is eventually sent out. Once the path is built (827 & 835), the gardener will then go through its process of cutting the grass 826 by mowing each row 821 of an area, wherein a row is defined as a path created by the controller that has a start and farthest point from start (end point) and sequential points in between the start and end point. This process includes detecting objects with the help of sensors 822. Once an object is detected 813, we use the sensors to move around the object 824 and go to the next point to cut 820. The gardener will then check to see if it has reached the current point in the built mowing path plan by using navigation data. If the current point has been reached then the gardener will continue to the next point. Otherwise, the gardener will try reaching the current point for an allotted amount of time before moving on to the next point. The gardener checks if the row is finished mowing 823 by checking if the final ending point has been reached by the gardener. If the endpoint is not reached 814, the gardener has more points within the row to cut 821. Once the endpoint is reached 810, we check if mowing is done 818 by using the navigation system to check if the gardener has reached the end point of all rows within a working area. If all rows within a working area are not done 811, the controller will move the gardener to the next row 819 and onto the first point within the row 820 to start mowing 821. If mowing is determined to be done (818 & 809), by using the navigation system to check if all rows have been finished, the controller will move the gardener back to its docking station 817 for charging and resting until the next task. Throughout the entire process, the gardener checks for rain or for a low battery. If either one of these cases is true, the controller will save its current state in the built mowing path plan or spraying plan and return the gardener home for charging. Once the charging is done, it will finish its mowing or spraying at the last saved path plan point. This entire process, from spraying to mowing, will happen on a schedule or manual basis. When the gardener is not watering, fertilizing or mowing 802, the controller will use navigation data to decide if the gardener is home or not 816. If not home 807, the controller will take the gardener home 817. If home 808, the controller will power off 825 and put the gardener in charge mode 825 as it has finished its gardening tasks.).
As per claim 2, Herrera teaches the limitations of:
wherein said second overlap is smaller than said first overlap (See at least figure 9 and paragraph 155).
As per claim 3, Herrera teaches the limitations of:
wherein said second overlap is user selectable (See at least paragraph 155).
As per claim 4, Herrera teaches the limitations of:
wherein said first maintenance path and said second maintenance paths are arranged along said first lawn maintenance direction (See at least paragraph 155 and figure 9).
As per claim 5, Herrera teaches the limitations of:
wherein three or more maintenance paths are arranged in said first zone (See at least figure 9).
As per claim 6, Herrera teaches the limitations of:
wherein said step of maneuvering comprises maneuvering said lawn maintenance vehicle such that said lawn maintenance tool travels along a route, said route comprising said plurality of maintenance paths, and wherein said route is calculated using said computer processing arrangement (See at least paragraph 155 and figure 9).
As per claim 7, Herrera teaches the limitations of:
wherein said step of maneuvering comprises maneuvering said lawn maintenance vehicle such that two or more subsequent maintenance paths along a route comprising said plurality of maintenance paths are separated by a plurality of other maintenance paths of said plurality of maintenance paths (See at least paragraph 155 and figure 9).
As per claim 8, Herrera teaches the limitations of:
wherein said step of maneuvering said lawn maintenance vehicle comprises maneuvering said lawn maintenance vehicle on the basis of input provided by a guidance system (See at least paragraph 152 and 158).
As per claim 9, Herrera teaches the limitations of:
wherein said guidance system is based on real-time kinematic positioning (See at least paragraph 152 and 158).
As per claim 10, Herrera teaches the limitations of:
wherein said step of maneuvering said lawn maintenance vehicle comprises engaging said lawn maintenance tool when said lawn maintenance tool is travelling along said plurality of maintenance paths and disengaging said lawn maintenance tool when said lawn maintenance vehicle is maneuvering in between said plurality of maintenance paths (See at least paragraph 158).
As per claim 11, Herrera teaches the limitations of:
wherein said engaging lawn maintenance tool and said disengaging said lawn maintenance tool is carried out automatically (See at least paragraph 158).
As per claim 12, Herrera teaches the limitations of:
wherein the lawn maintenance vehicle is configured to automatically maneuver along said plurality of maintenance paths (See at least paragraph 153, 155 and 158).
As per claim 16, Herrera teaches the limitations of:
wherein said method comprises a step of providing a said pattern to be generated in said lawn is provided via a user interface of an electronic device (See at least claim 9 limitations).
As per claim 23, Herrera teaches the limitations of:
wherein each zone of said plurality of zones is associated with a constraint defining an allowable maintenance direction (See at least figure 7 and 9).
Regarding claims 26, 31, and 37:
Claims 26, 31 and 37 are rejected using the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 1 – 12, 16 and 23 above, respectively.
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.
Claims 33 – 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrera in view of Senneff et al. (Hereinafter Senneff) (US 2009/0037041 A1).
As per claim 33, Herrera teaches the limitation of plurality of maintenance paths (Please refer the rejections above) but does not teach the limitations of:
wherein said lawn maintenance vehicle is configured to be operated by a driver, and wherein said lawn maintenance system is configured to convey driving instructions to said driver, said driving instructions being based on said calculated the maintenance path.
Senneff teaches the limitation of:
wherein said lawn maintenance vehicle is configured to be operated by a driver, and wherein said lawn maintenance system is configured to convey driving instructions to said driver, said driving instructions being based on said calculated the maintenance path (See at least paragraph 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein said lawn maintenance vehicle is configured to be operated by a driver, and wherein said lawn maintenance system is configured to convey driving instructions to said driver, said driving instructions being based on said calculated the maintenance path as taught by Senneff in the system of Herrera, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 34, the combination of Herrera and Senneff teaches the limitation of:
wherein said lawn maintenance system comprises a display, and wherein said lawn maintenance system is configured to convey said driving instructions using comprises a display for displaying driving instructions to a driver of said lawn maintenance vehicle (Senneff, see at least paragraph 35).
As per claim 35, the combination of Herrera and Senneff teaches the limitation of:
wherein said computer processing arrangement and said display are retrofitted to said lawn maintenance vehicle (Senneff, see at least paragraph 35).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Du et al. (US 2025/0031609 A1) discloses mowing method and apparatus, robotic lawn mower and storage medium.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IG T AN whose telephone number is (571)270-5110. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
IG T AN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/IG T AN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
