ohNotice 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 in parent Application No. CN202310054122.8, filed on 02/03/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/11/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The following limitations are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
“a boundary signal generation apparatus configured to feed a boundary signal to the boundary”
This limitation is expressly recited in claim 1 and again in claim 11. It is also incorporated into claims 2-8 through their dependency from claim 1. Claims 9 and 10 define their respective subject matter by reference to the control method of claim 1, and claim 11 references the autonomous operation device of claim 10.
The term “apparatus” is a generic placeholder. In the limitation as claimed, the modifier “boundary signal generation” describes what the apparatus does, while the additional language “configured to feed a boundary signal to the boundary” recites the function to be performed. The claim does not itself recite the electrical structure by which that function is accomplished. Accordingly, the presumption against application of § 112(f) is overcome for this limitation.
The claimed function is:
feeding a boundary signal to the boundary.
The corresponding structure disclosed in the specification is the boundary-signal generating structure positioned at docking station 900, electrically connected to conductive boundary 800, and configured to supply a pulse current to boundary 800 such that the boundary generates the pulsed electromagnetic boundary signal, and equivalents thereof.
The specification explains that the boundary may be a closed conductive wire electrically connected to the boundary signal generation apparatus at docking station 900. It further explains that, after electrical connection to the boundary, the boundary signal generation apparatus transmits a pulse current to the boundary, causing the boundary to generate the boundary signal. See paragraphs [0046]-[0047], [0052], and [0096], and FIG. 3. For purposes of examination, the disclosure sufficiently identifies the electrical arrangement and pulse-current generating structure associated with the recited function. Accordingly, no separate rejection under § 112(b) is made for failure to disclose corresponding structure for this limitation.
“a signal sensing unit configured to sense the boundary signal”
This limitation is expressly recited in claim 1 and incorporated into claims 2-8. It is also part of the control method referenced by claims 9 and 10 and, through claim 10, by claim 11.
The term “unit” is a generic placeholder. The modifier “signal sensing” and the phrase “configured to sense the boundary signal” identify the function performed but do not themselves recite the particular sensing structure. Accordingly, the limitation is interpreted under § 112(f).
The claimed function is:
sensing the boundary signal.
The corresponding structure disclosed in the specification is an inductor coil configured to sense the pulsed electromagnetic field generated by boundary 800, and equivalents thereof.
Paragraphs [0050]-[0052] explain that the signal sensing unit may use an inductor coil to sense the pulsed electromagnetic boundary signal and further describe the relationship between sensing distance and detection of the electromagnetic field.
Paragraph [0058] additionally discloses an embodiment in which the signal sensing unit has adjustable sensitivity, such that the sensing sensitivity may be increased to achieve an effect corresponding to amplification of the boundary signal. Paragraph [0058] is therefore relevant to the disclosed implementation of the signal sensing unit, but it does not identify a different concrete sensing structure from the inductor coil disclosed in paragraphs [0050]-[0052].
The operational amplification circuit disclosed in paragraph [0056] is not included as corresponding structure for the claimed function of “sensing the boundary signal.” The specification separately identifies that circuit as amplifying the signal sensed by the signal sensing unit. Thus, the amplification circuit performs a different function and should not be imported into this § 112(f) limitation merely because the method later requires increasing amplification gain. Under MPEP § 2181, structure unnecessary to perform the particular claimed § 112(f) function is not imported into the limitation.
“a first communication unit communicatively connected to the boundary signal generation apparatus”
This limitation is recited in claim 2 and incorporated into claims 6-8.
The term “communication unit” operates as a generic placeholder. Claim 2 further requires the first communication unit to communicate with the boundary signal generation apparatus and to transmit an indication signal identifying a working state of that apparatus, but claim 2 does not identify the particular communication circuitry that performs those functions. The limitation is therefore interpreted under § 112(f).
The relevant claimed functions are:
communicating with the boundary signal generation apparatus; and
transmitting an indication signal configured to indicate that the boundary signal generation apparatus is in a working state.
The corresponding structure is the disclosed radio transmission apparatus positioned at the docking station and communicatively connected with the boundary signal generation apparatus, and equivalents thereof.
Paragraph [0064] discloses that the first communication unit is configured on the docking station and may be a radio transmission apparatus operating at 433 MHz, 868 MHz, or 915 MHz. Paragraph [0071] further describes an exemplary 868 MHz ultra-high-frequency radio transmission apparatus that receives an indication associated with the working state of the boundary signal generation apparatus and transmits a direct radio wave to the second communication unit.
The disclosure therefore provides corresponding structure clearly associated with the recited communication and transmission functions.
“a second communication unit … in wireless communication connection with the first communication unit”
This limitation is recited in claim 2 and incorporated into claims 6-8.
The term “second communication unit” likewise operates as a generic placeholder. The claim principally defines the element through the functions of wirelessly communicating with the first communication unit and receiving the indication signal. Accordingly, the limitation is interpreted under § 112(f).
The relevant claimed functions are:
establishing wireless communication with the first communication unit; and
receiving the indication signal transmitted by the first communication unit.
The corresponding structure is the disclosed radio transmission apparatus positioned on the autonomous operation device, matched with the first communication unit, and configured to receive the radio signal transmitted by the first communication unit, and equivalents thereof.
The specification discloses radio transmission apparatuses operating at 433 MHz, 868 MHz, or 915 MHz and specifically explains that the second communication unit may receive the direct radio wave emitted by the first communication unit. See paragraphs [0064] and [0071].
No special-purpose computer algorithm is required as corresponding structure for these communication-unit limitations because the identified functions are performed by the specifically disclosed radio-transmission hardware rather than by a generic processor performing a specialized software function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention.
During examination, a claim is indefinite where, after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claim contains terminology or relationships whose scope cannot be determined with reasonable clarity. Lack of literal antecedent basis does not automatically require rejection; a rejection is appropriate when the missing or ambiguous referent causes uncertainty concerning the scope of the claimed subject matter.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites:
“wherein the first communication unit and/or the second communication module is a radio transmission apparatus, and a working frequency of the radio transmission apparatus is any one of 433 MHz, 868 MHz, and 915 MHz.”
Claim 2, from which claim 8 depends, introduces a “first communication unit” and a “second communication unit.” It does not introduce a “second communication module.”
Accordingly, the recitation of “the second communication module” in claim 8 creates uncertainty as to whether Applicant intends:
the previously recited second communication unit of claim 2; or
a distinct communication component newly introduced in claim 8.
This ambiguity is material because the identity of the element determines which component is required to constitute the claimed radio transmission apparatus.
The specification does use the expression “second communication module” in paragraph [0034], while the substantive embodiment generally uses “second communication unit.” That usage suggests that the two expressions may have been intended to refer to the same component, but the specification cannot be used to rewrite the claim where the claim itself leaves the identity of the element uncertain. Amendment should be made to use consistent terminology.
Claim 8 contains a second ambiguity. The phrase:
“the first communication unit and/or the second communication module is a radio transmission apparatus”
permits the first component, the second component, or both components to be radio transmission apparatuses. Claim 8 then recites:
“a working frequency of the radio transmission apparatus.”
Where only one component is selected, the referent may be ascertainable. Where both components satisfy the preceding alternative, however, two radio transmission apparatuses are present and the singular phrase “the radio transmission apparatus” does not clearly establish whether the recited 433 MHz, 868 MHz, or 915 MHz working frequency applies to:
the first communication apparatus;
the second communication apparatus; or
both communication apparatuses.
MPEP § 2173.05(e) specifically recognizes that a claim may be indefinite when two different elements are previously recited and a subsequent singular reference does not identify which element is intended. Alternative language itself is permissible, but it must leave the alternatives and their associated limitations ascertainable.
Claim 8 is therefore indefinite under § 112(b).
Applicant may resolve these issues, for example, by consistently referring to the “second communication unit” and by expressly stating whether the specified operating frequency applies to each communication unit that is a radio transmission apparatus.
Claim 12
Claim 12 recites:
“An autonomous operation device, comprising the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 10.”
Claim 10, however, does not recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Claim 10 recites:
“An autonomous operation device, configured to perform the control method for an autonomous operation device according to claim 1.”
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is instead the subject matter of claim 9.
Accordingly, the limitation:
“the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 10”
does not identify any subject matter actually recited in claim 10. It is therefore unclear what storage medium claim 12 incorporates and which limitations are intended to define that storage medium.
MPEP § 2173.05(f) recognizes that a claim may properly reference limitations of another claim, including where the referring claim is in a different statutory class, but a § 112(b) rejection is appropriate when the cross-reference itself results in confusion concerning the scope of the claim.
Claim 12 is therefore indefinite under § 112(b).
If Applicant intended claim 12 to incorporate the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 9, amendment of “claim 10” to “claim 9” would appear to address the identified cross-reference defect, subject to further examination of any amended claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) as being of improper dependent form.
Section 112(d) requires that a dependent claim refer to a previously set forth claim, incorporate all limitations of that claim, and specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A dependent claim is improper when it omits or replaces a limitation required by the claim from which it depends rather than retaining that limitation and further narrowing the claimed subject matter. MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim 2
Claim 1 requires that:
“in a case that the boundary signal is not received through the signal sensing unit,”
the control method performs the following:
“controlling the autonomous operation device to stop operation, increasing an amplification gain of the boundary signal by the autonomous operation device, and re-executing the step of detecting whether the boundary signal is received through the signal sensing unit.”
Thus, under claim 1, nonreceipt of the boundary signal requires the claimed stop/increase/re-detect response.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and addresses the same condition in which the boundary signal is not received. Claim 2 requires, before the stop-and-gain-increase operation, determining whether an indication signal transmitted by the first communication unit is received by the second communication unit. Claim 2 then provides:
when the indication signal is received, controlling the autonomous operation device to continue operation; and
when the indication signal is not received, executing the step of controlling the autonomous operation device to stop the operation and increasing the amplification gain of the boundary signal.
Read in light of the specification, this is not merely an additional operation performed while retaining claim 1's unconditional response.
Paragraphs [0065]-[0072] explain the intended operation: when the boundary signal is absent, the device checks for the indication signal; receipt of the indication signal causes the device to continue operation, whereas nonreceipt of the indication signal causes the device to suspend/stop operation and increase amplification gain.
Accordingly, claim 2 replaces the unconditional stop response required by claim 1 with a conditional alternative. In the indication-signal-received branch, the autonomous operation device continues operating rather than performing the stop operation required by claim 1.
Claim 2 therefore does not merely specify a further limitation of the complete subject matter of claim 1. Instead, it modifies the condition under which an expressly required limitation of claim 1 is performed. A dependent claim that replaces an inherited limitation rather than retaining it is improper under § 112(d). MPEP § 608.01(n) expressly explains that a dependent claim must include every limitation of its parent and that replacement of an inherited element or limitation is not proper dependent claiming.
Claim 2 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d).
Applicant may correct the defect by, for example, rewriting claim 2 in independent form with the intended indication-signal control logic expressly recited, or by amending the base claim and dependency structure so that claim 2 genuinely further limits rather than replaces the response required by claim 1.
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.
The rejection in this office action is as follows:
Claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being obvious over Thompson (US 2012/0029754 A1), in view of Holgersson (US 2020/0383265 A1), and further in view of Abramson (US 2012/0041594 A1).
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being obvious over Thompson, in view of Holgersson, further in view of Abramson, and further in view of Askenmalm (US 2021/0272438 A1).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being obvious over Thompson, in view of Holgersson, further in view of Abramson, further in view of Askenmalm, and further in view of Halloran (US 2017/0135543 A1).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being obvious over Thompson, in view of Holgersson, further in view of Abramson, further in view of Askenmalm, and further in view of Dalfra (EP 3 806 616 A1).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being obvious over Thompson, in view of Holgersson, further in view of Abramson, further in view of Askenmalm, and further in view of Tan (US 2018/0081366 A1).
Regarding Claim 1
Disclosure by Thompson
Thompson teaches:
A control method for an autonomous operation device,
See at least Thompson [0015]:
“Vehicle control unit 101 may control all of the electronic functions of the robotic mower.”
Rationale:
This is an express functional teaching. Thompson does not merely disclose a robotic mower as a physical device. Vehicle control unit 101 actively controls the mower's electronic functions. Accordingly, the controller executes control operations directed to robotic mower 100, which functionally constitutes a control method for the claimed autonomous operation device.
wherein the control method is applied to an autonomous operation device,
See at least Thompson [0016]:
“The vehicle control unit may interpret and process information from various sensors, and use that information to control and operate the pair of traction motors to drive the robotic mower over a yard in order to maintain the lawn, and to drive the blade motor.”
Rationale:
Thompson expressly applies the controller's sensing, processing, and control logic to robotic mower 100. Sensor information is converted into propulsion and work-function commands for the mower itself. Thus, Thompson functionally applies the control method to the autonomous operation device.
the autonomous operation device is movable within a working region enclosed by a boundary,
See at least Thompson [0021]:
“robotic mower 100 may operate in a specified area 102 that is surrounded by main or outer boundary wire 103 which may form a loop positioned at or below the ground or turf Surface.”
Rationale:
Robotic mower 100 corresponds to the autonomous operation device. Specified area 102 corresponds to the working region. Main or outer boundary wire 103 surrounds that area as a loop and therefore defines/encloses the working region within which the mower operates.
a boundary signal generation apparatus configured to feed a boundary signal to the boundary
See at least Thompson [0022]:
“boundary drive circuit 106 may be contained in charging station 105, and may drive signals on the main boundary wire and the inner wire.”
Rationale:
Boundary drive circuit 106 functionally performs the claimed signal-generation function because it actively drives an electrical signal onto the main boundary wire. The circuit therefore constitutes a boundary signal generation apparatus configured to feed the boundary signal to the boundary.
is configured on the docking station,
See at least Thompson [0022]:
“boundary drive circuit 106 may be contained in charging station 105”
Rationale:
The boundary drive circuit is expressly physically incorporated into charging station 105. Charging station 105 performs the docking/charging function for robotic mower 100. Thus, the claimed signal generation apparatus is configured on the docking station.
and a signal sensing unit configured to sense the boundary signal
See at least Thompson [0022]:
“The robotic mower may have a boundary wire sensor 119 to detect the waveform”
See also Thompson [0029]:
“sense coil L1 may be an inductor that detects the magnetic field generated by the current flowing in the main or outer boundary wire and/or inner boundary wire.”
Rationale:
Boundary wire sensor 119, including sense coil L1, performs the actual signal-sensing function. The boundary-drive current generates a magnetic field, and the mower-side coil detects that field. The disclosed circuitry therefore functionally senses the boundary signal rather than merely detecting the physical presence of the wire.
is configured in the autonomous operation device,
See at least Thompson [0025]:
“one or more boundary sensors on the robotic mower may receive the encoded boundary wire magnetic signal”
Rationale:
Thompson expressly locates the boundary sensors on robotic mower 100. Accordingly, the signal sensing unit is configured in the autonomous operation device.
and the method comprises:
See at least Thompson [0040]:
“The vehicle control unit then may run the routine described in the block diagram about every 40 milliseconds.”
Rationale:
Thompson expressly executes an ordered control routine using vehicle control unit 101. The routine comprises sensor evaluation and responsive mower-control operations, thereby providing the functional method framework for the subsequent limitations.
detecting, during a working process of the autonomous operation device within the working region,
See at least Thompson [0039]:
“the vehicle control unit may select the type of area coverage used by the robotic mower for mowing within the main boundary wire.”
See also Thompson [0040]:
“the robotic mower may be activated to start area coverage.”
Rationale:
“Area coverage” is the mower's working process—mowing the region enclosed by the main boundary wire. Thompson's boundary sensing is performed by the mower as part of controlling that operation. Thus, the relevant detection occurs while the autonomous device is engaged in its working process within the bounded working region.
whether the boundary signal is received through the signal sensing unit,
See at least Thompson [0035]:
“the boundary sensor circuit may include comparator U1-D which may form a Schmitt trigger comparator circuit to provide an output that indicates whether or not the received signal strength is great enough to be considered a valid signal.”
Rationale:
This disclosure functionally meets the limitation because Thompson does more than simply detect electromagnetic energy. The boundary sensor circuitry determines whether the received boundary signal has sufficient strength to constitute a valid signal. The comparator therefore determines whether usable boundary-signal information has actually been received through the mower's signal sensing unit.
wherein the boundary signal is configured to indicate that the autonomous operation device is located within the working region;
See at least Thompson [0026]:
“the vehicle control unit may cross correlate the received signal ... and determine if the data is inverted, indicating the sensor is outside the main boundary loop, or normal, indicating the sensor is inside the main boundary loop.”
Rationale:
The received boundary signal directly performs the claimed positional-indication function. Thompson evaluates signal orientation/data to determine whether the mower-mounted sensor is inside or outside the main boundary loop. A normal signal therefore indicates that the autonomous mower carrying that sensor is located within the permitted working region.
in a case that the boundary signal is received through the signal sensing unit,
See at least Thompson [0035]:
“If the received signal is greater than the threshold, the output of the comparator will be high.”
Rationale:
The comparator's high output represents the control state in which the boundary signal has been received at sufficient strength to qualify as valid. Thompson therefore expressly identifies the positive-reception condition recited by the claim.
controlling the autonomous operation device to continue operation; and
See at least Thompson [0049]:
“If one or more boundary sensors indicate the robotic mower is not close to the main boundary wire, the vehicle control unit commands the left and right wheel motors to continue rotating forward as indicated in block 502.”
Rationale:
Thompson functionally uses boundary-sensor information to determine that continued forward movement remains permitted and then commands the traction motors to maintain forward operation. Because Thompson elsewhere establishes that its boundary signal identifies the mower's position relative to the permitted boundary, continuing the mower's working operation when the boundary information supports remaining within the operating region performs the claimed continue-operation function.
in a case that the boundary signal is not received through the signal sensing unit,
See at least Thompson [0035]:
“the boundary sensor circuit may include comparator U1-D ... to provide an output that indicates whether or not the received signal strength is great enough to be considered a valid signal.”
See also Thompson [0061]:
“If an obstacle or boundary wire is not detected, in block 1008 the vehicle control unit may determine if the timer exceeds a specified maximum time.”
Rationale:
Thompson expressly recognizes a control state in which the signal received by the boundary-sensing circuitry is insufficient to constitute a valid signal and separately describes the boundary wire as “not detected.” Functionally, this is the no-valid-boundary-signal condition required by the limitation: the signal sensing unit cannot provide reliable boundary information to the controller.
controlling the autonomous operation device to stop operation,
See at least Thompson [0061]:
“If the specified maximum time is exceeded, in block 1010 the vehicle control unit may execute a stuck vehicle task to safely move or stop the robotic mower.”
Rationale:
Thompson expressly provides a stop response arising from continued failure to obtain expected boundary information. The claim requires stopping “in a case” that the boundary signal is not received but does not prohibit intervening fault-confirmation processing. Thompson's controller responds to the unresolved no-boundary-detection condition by entering a safety routine capable of stopping mower propulsion. The disclosed stop therefore performs the claimed safety function of preventing continued unrestricted mower operation when reliable boundary information cannot be established.
and re-executing the step of detecting whether the boundary signal is received through the signal sensing unit.
See at least Thompson [0061]:
“If the timer does not exceed the specified maximum, the vehicle control unit may resume checking if an obstacle or boundary wire is detected in block 1004.”
Rationale:
“Resume checking” sends the controller back to the previously performed boundary-detection determination. Functionally, Thompson therefore repeats the determination of whether a valid boundary signal is available through the boundary sensor rather than merely continuing an unrelated operation.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Thompson
After Thompson has been revieweded, the following Claim 1 limitations remain:
a docking station is configured on the boundary,
increasing an amplification gain of the boundary signal by the autonomous operation device,
Disclosure by Holgersson
Holgersson teaches:
increasing an amplification gain of the boundary signal by the autonomous operation device,
See at least Holgersson [0003]:
“because most, if not all, contemporary robotic working tools use variable gain amplifiers for amplifying the detected signal”
See also Holgersson [0003]:
“This is due to that as the signal becomes weaker, the gain of the amplifier is increased, whereby the interferences will also be amplified.”
Rationale:
Holgersson expressly supplies the particular gain-control relationship missing from Thompson. The amplifier is used in the robotic working tool's boundary-signal receiving path, and its gain is increased as the detected boundary signal weakens. Functionally, increasing that receiver gain raises the amplitude of the sensed boundary signal presented to downstream detection circuitry so that a weak legitimate boundary signal has an improved opportunity to be distinguished from the no-valid-signal condition.
Applied to Thompson, this teaching is particularly direct because Thompson already uses mower-side boundary sensing, amplification, validity thresholding, and a variable-gain amplifier. Holgersson therefore does not require substitution of a fundamentally different sensing architecture; it provides the known control rule for operating the type of receiver already present in Thompson.
Motivation to Combine Thompson and Holgersson
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Thompson and Holgersson before them, to modify Thompson's boundary-signal detection and recovery routine so that, when Thompson's mower fails to obtain a valid boundary signal, the gain of Thompson's mower-side variable-gain boundary receiver is increased in accordance with Holgersson's known weak-signal gain-control technique before the mower repeats its boundary-signal determination.
Thompson itself supplies the technical problem motivating the modification. Thompson recognizes that the received boundary-wire magnetic signal can become very small relative to background noise and evaluates whether the received signal is sufficiently strong to constitute a valid signal. Holgersson addresses the same robotic-working-tool boundary-sensing problem and expressly teaches increasing receiver gain as the signal becomes weaker. Thus, the proposed modification is driven by a problem expressly recognized in the primary reference and a known solution taught in closely analogous robotic-mower art, rather than by Applicant's disclosure.
The modification is technically compatible because Thompson already contains the necessary boundary sensor, receiver amplification circuitry, variable-gain amplifier, controller, and repeated boundary-detection routine. The PHOSITA would merely operate Thompson's existing variable-gain signal path according to Holgersson's known weak-signal control rule. Increasing gain after loss of a valid signal would predictably improve the probability of reacquiring a legitimate weak boundary signal, while Thompson's safe-stop control limits movement when reliable boundary information cannot be recovered.
The combination does not alter Thompson's principle of operation. Thompson would continue to generate a signal on the boundary wire, sense that signal with mower-mounted circuitry, evaluate the sensed signal, and control mower movement according to the boundary determination. Holgersson merely supplies a known sensitivity adjustment for the same signal-reception function.
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Taught by Thompson and Holgersson
After combining Thompson and Holgersson, the following limitation remains:
a docking station is configured on the boundary,
Disclosure by Abramson
Abramson teaches:
a docking station is configured on the boundary,
See at least Abramson [0028]:
“The work area 24 is defined by a boundary 26, formed, for example, of a wire 27 (a boundary marker) arranged around the perimeter of the work area to define a perimeter wire 28 or a perimeter wire loop”
See also Abramson [0046]:
“When a docking station is present along the perimeter wire 28, the robot 22 notes the position of the docking station as part of its mapping”
See also Abramson [0046]:
“the electronics of the main bard 150 of the robot 22, are programmed to detect the position of the docking station along the perimeter wire 28 during its mapping operation”
Rationale:
Abramson expressly establishes both pieces of the claimed spatial relationship. First, perimeter wire 28 forms the boundary of work area 24. Second, the docking station is expressly present “along the perimeter wire 28.” The docking station is therefore physically positioned along the wire that defines the work-area boundary, functionally and structurally meeting “a docking station is configured on the boundary.”
Motivation to Combine Thompson, Holgersson, and Abramson
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Thompson, Holgersson, and Abramson before them, to modify Thompson’s robotic mower system, as further modified by Holgersson’s weak-signal gain-control technique, so that Thompson’s charging/docking station is positioned along the outer boundary wire as expressly taught by Abramson.
Thompson and Abramson are technically compatible robotic-mower boundary architectures. Thompson already has a charging station electrically associated with the boundary-wire system, a station-contained boundary drive circuit, a mower that navigates using the boundary signal, and return-to-station behavior associated with the boundary. Abramson expressly demonstrates the known physical arrangement in which the docking station is placed along the perimeter wire defining the work-area boundary.
A PHOSITA would have had a concrete design reason to use Abramson’s arrangement in Thompson: locating the station on the perimeter allows the same boundary infrastructure used to constrain mower movement to also provide an established physical navigation path to the docking location. Abramson expressly teaches the robot locating and returning toward the docking station along the perimeter wire. The arrangement therefore simplifies docking navigation and integrates the station with the existing perimeter-wire architecture using each component according to its known function.
The modification requires no change in Thompson’s signal-generation, mower-sensing, gain-control, or propulsion principles. Holgersson’s gain modification remains confined to the mower receiver, while Abramson’s teaching concerns the compatible physical location of the charging station relative to the already-existing boundary. The expected result—reliable boundary-based navigation combined with predictable station access—is entirely consistent with the known functions of the cited systems.
After combining Thompson, Holgersson, and Abramson, all limitations of Claim 1 are taught or rendered obvious.
Regarding Claim 3
The combination of Thompson, Holgersson, and Abramson establishes the control method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 3.
Disclosure by Thompson
Control method for an autonomous operation device,
See at least Thompson [0015]:
“Vehicle control unit 101 may control all of the electronic functions of the robotic mower.”
Rationale:
The Thompson/Holgersson/Abramson combination establishes the complete control method of Claim 1 as explained above. Claim 3 incorporates that established method and adds a timer-bounded signal-recovery routine.
further comprising:
See at least Thompson [0061]:
“the vehicle control unit may execute stuck detection in block 1000.”
Rationale:
Thompson expressly adds a further controller-executed routine that monitors failure to encounter or detect the expected boundary and determines how long the unresolved condition persists.
during re-executing the step of detecting whether the boundary signal is received through the signal sensing unit,
See at least Thompson [0061]:
“If the timer does not exceed the specified maximum, the vehicle control unit may resume checking if an obstacle or boundary wire is detected in block 1004.”
Rationale:
Thompson functionally repeats the boundary-detection operation during the recovery loop. “Resume checking” means the controller returns to the earlier determination of whether the boundary wire is detected through the boundary sensor. Accordingly, the subsequent timing operations occur in a control context in which boundary detection is being re-executed.
starting timing in the case that the boundary signal is not received through the signal sensing unit;
See at least Thompson [0061]:
“In block 1002, the vehicle control unit may set a timer based on maximum distance and mower speed.”
See also Thompson [0061]:
“If an obstacle or boundary wire is not detected, in block 1008 the vehicle control unit may determine if the timer exceeds a specified maximum time.”
Rationale:
Thompson expressly uses a timer to measure the unresolved interval associated with failure to encounter or detect the expected boundary. Thompson initializes the timer as part of the stuck-detection routine before evaluating the no-detection condition rather than literally reciting initialization after that condition. Functionally, however, the timer measures the duration of the same unresolved boundary-detection state.
To the extent the claim requires timer initialization specifically upon determining that the boundary signal is not received, resetting or initiating Thompson's timer at entry into the detected no-boundary state would have been an obvious implementation choice. The timer's technical purpose is to measure how long the unresolved condition persists; initializing the timer at the onset of that condition is the conventional way to measure that duration and does not alter the operation or objective of Thompson's timeout routine.
detecting whether a timing duration reaches a preset duration;
See at least Thompson [0061]:
“If an obstacle or boundary wire is not detected, in block 1008 the vehicle control unit may determine if the timer exceeds a specified maximum time.”
Rationale:
The running timer represents the timing duration and Thompson's specified maximum time is the preset duration. Comparing the timer against that maximum functionally determines whether the permitted recovery interval has reached its predetermined endpoint.
in a case that the timing duration does not reach the preset duration,
See at least Thompson [0061]:
“If the timer does not exceed the specified maximum, the vehicle control unit may resume checking if an obstacle or boundary wire is detected in block 1004.”
Rationale:
Thompson expressly defines the negative timeout branch: the timer remains below the specified maximum. The controller then remains in the recovery/rechecking loop rather than entering the terminal stop routine.
in a case that the timing duration reaches the preset duration,
See at least Thompson [0061]:
“If the specified maximum time is exceeded, in block 1010 the vehicle control unit may execute a stuck vehicle task”
Rationale:
The controller necessarily determines that elapsed time has reached or passed the specified maximum before taking the timeout branch. Functionally, this is the claimed condition that the timing duration reaches the preset duration.
controlling the autonomous operation device to stop working.
See at least Thompson [0061]:
“the vehicle control unit may execute a stuck vehicle task to safely move or stop the robotic mower.”
Rationale:
Thompson expressly transitions to a safety routine capable of stopping robotic mower 100 when the recovery interval expires. The stop prevents further unrestricted work operation after the controller has failed to reacquire the expected boundary information within the permitted recovery period.
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Taught by Thompson
re-executing the step of increasing the amplification gain of the boundary signal by the autonomous operation device; and
Disclosure by Holgersson
re-executing the step of increasing the amplification gain of the boundary signal by the autonomous operation device; and
See at least Holgersson [0003]:
“because most, if not all, contemporary robotic working tools use variable gain amplifiers for amplifying the detected signal”
See also Holgersson [0003]:
“as the signal becomes weaker, the gain of the amplifier is increased”
Rationale:
Holgersson expressly teaches adaptive increase of receiver gain as boundary-signal strength weakens. Thompson independently teaches a repeated boundary-reacquisition loop that continues while the preset timeout has not expired. Applying Holgersson's adaptive-gain behavior to Thompson's repeated loop functionally results in additional gain adjustment during successive unsuccessful weak or no-valid-signal detection attempts.
Repeating the same failed measurement at the same receiver sensitivity offers no receiver-side improvement in the likelihood of reacquiring a weak boundary signal. Re-executing the gain increase between successive measurements instead progressively increases sensitivity while Thompson's timer provides a finite safety bound. A PHOSITA therefore would have had a technically grounded reason to perform additional gain increases during Thompson's pre-timeout recovery loop.
Motivation to Combine Thompson, Holgersson, and Abramson for Claim 3
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Thompson, Holgersson, and Abramson before them, to operate the Claim 1 robotic-mower system such that, during Thompson's timer-bounded repeated boundary-detection routine, Holgersson's weak-signal gain-increase operation is re-executed during unsuccessful recovery iterations while the preset duration remains unexpired, and Thompson's mower is stopped when the preset duration is reached.
Thompson supplies the entire temporal-control framework: a timer, repeated boundary checking, comparison against a predetermined maximum time, continued recovery below that maximum, and a safety stop after expiration. Holgersson supplies the adaptive receiver response appropriate to the condition causing the recovery loop—weak boundary-signal reception. Abramson remains part of the combination because it supplies the docking-station-on-boundary limitation inherited from Claim 1.
A PHOSITA would have had a specific engineering reason to execute additional gain increases during the available recovery interval. As Holgersson teaches, weaker signals call for greater receiver gain. Thompson's repeated rechecking provides multiple opportunities to determine whether the increased sensitivity has restored a valid boundary signal. The timer prevents indefinite escalation of the recovery process by establishing a predetermined endpoint after which Thompson invokes its safety stop.
The modification therefore creates a bounded adaptive-recovery loop using known functions already taught by the references: detect; if unsuccessful and time remains, increase receiver sensitivity and detect again; if the allotted recovery interval expires, stop. The expected result is improved weak-signal reacquisition without sacrificing Thompson's safety endpoint.
After combining Thompson, Holgersson, and Abramson, all limitations of Claim 3 are taught or rendered obvious.
Regarding Claim 9
The combination of Thompson, Holgersson, and Abramson establishes the control method of Claim 1, which is incorporated into Claim 9.
Disclosure by Thompson
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
See at least Thompson [0017]:
“The microcontroller may have 512 kB of internal flash memory and 64kbytes of internal RAM.”
See also Thompson [0018]:
“the vehicle control unit may include three external EEPROM integrated circuits.”
Rationale:
Internal flash memory and EEPROM are persistent electronic memory devices whose stored information is not embodied merely in a transitory propagating signal. They therefore function as non-transitory computer-readable storage media within Thompson's robotic-mower controller.
having stored thereon processor-executable instructions,
See at least Thompson [0017]:
“The microcontroller may contain an ARM Cortex M3 core”
See also Thompson [0040]:
“The vehicle control unit then may run the routine described in the block diagram about every 40 milliseconds.”
Rationale:
Thompson expressly provides a microcontroller with non-transitory memory and expressly requires that controller to execute repeated control routines. A microcontroller cannot run the disclosed control routine without processor-executable program instructions implementing that routine. Storing those instructions in the disclosed flash/program memory is therefore at least inherent in, or alternatively an obvious conventional implementation of, Thompson's programmed microcontroller architecture.
wherein the executable instructions are configured to enable a processor of an autonomous operation device
See at least Thompson [0016]:
“Vehicle control unit 101 may be a printed circuit board assembly that serves as the main control board for the robotic mower.”
See also Thompson [0017]:
“the vehicle control unit may include a microcontroller”
Rationale:
The microcontroller is the claimed processor and forms part of vehicle control unit 101 of robotic mower 100. The executable control instructions enable that processor to evaluate sensor information and command mower functions. Thus, the instructions enable a processor of the autonomous operation device.
Claim Limitation Not Fully Established by Thompson Alone
to perform the control method according to claim 1.
Disclosure by Holgersson
to perform the control method according to claim 1.
See at least Holgersson [0003]:
“as the signal becomes weaker, the gain of the amplifier is increased”
Rationale:
Claim 9 requires the stored instructions to cause the processor to perform the complete control method of Claim 1. Thompson already supplies the programmable processor, memory, signal detection, rechecking, and movement-control routines. Holgersson supplies the Claim 1 receiver-gain behavior missing from Thompson. A PHOSITA would have implemented that additional control behavior by programming Thompson's existing controller to control the variable-gain receiver according to the detected boundary-signal condition.
Motivation to Combine Thompson and Holgersson for Claim 9
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Thompson and Holgersson before them, to configure the processor-executable instructions stored in Thompson's non-transitory controller memory to perform Holgersson's known weak-boundary-signal gain-control operation as part of Thompson's existing boundary-sensing control routine.
Thompson already implements mower behavior through a programmable microcontroller repeatedly executing stored control routines. Holgersson's contribution is itself an electronically implemented receiver-control operation rather than a structure requiring a separate computational platform. Programming Thompson's existing processor to execute that additional gain-control rule would therefore have been the ordinary, technically compatible implementation.
Claim Limitation Not Fully Established by Thompson and Holgersson
The complete control method according to Claim 1 still incorporates the station-on-boundary environment supplied by Abramson.
Disclosure by Abramson
to perform the control method according to claim 1.
See at least Abramson [0046]:
“When a docking station is present along the perimeter wire 28, the robot 22 notes the position of the docking station as part of its mapping”
Rationale:
Claim 9 expressly incorporates the full Claim 1 method. Abramson supplies the physical docking-station relationship forming part of the environment in which the Claim 1 method is applied. Thompson's stored control instructions, modified according to Holgersson, therefore operate in the Claim 1 system configuration completed by Abramson.
Motivation to Combine Thompson, Holgersson, and Abramson for Claim 9
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Thompson, Holgersson, and Abramson before them, to store processor-executable instructions in Thompson's expressly disclosed non-transitory controller memory for causing Thompson's processor-controlled robotic mower to perform the Claim 1 method in the combined Thompson/Holgersson/Abramson system.
Thompson already executes software-controlled mower routines using a microcontroller architecture having flash memory and EEPROM. Holgersson adds an electronically controllable gain-response rule to the boundary-receiver process, while Abramson provides the compatible physical placement of the docking station along the work-area boundary. No unconventional programming or storage architecture is required to implement the combined control behavior.
The modification therefore represents the predictable implementation of the combined mower-control method using Thompson's existing programmable controller platform, with a reasonable expectation of success because Thompson already executes the relevant sensing and movement logic electronically.
After combining Thompson, Holgersson, and Abramson, all limitations of Claim 9 are disclosed or rendered obvious.
Regarding Claim 10
The combination of Thompson, Holgersson, and Abramson establishes the control method of Claim 1.
Disclosure by Thompson
An autonomous operation device,
See at least Thompson [0015]:
“robotic mower 100 may be powered by battery pack 109 that may be charged periodically at charging station 105.”
Rationale:
Robotic mower 100 is a mobile device capable of autonomously performing mowing operations under controller control within a prescribed boundary and therefore corresponds structurally and functionally to the autonomous operation device.
Claim Limitation Not Fully Established by Thompson Alone
configured to perform the control method for an autonomous operation device according to claim 1.
See at least Thompson [0015]:
“Vehicle control unit 101 may control all of the electronic functions of the robotic mower.”
See also Thompson [0016]:
“The vehicle control unit may interpret and process information from various sensors, and use that information to control and operate the pair of traction motors”
Rationale:
Thompson expressly configures robotic mower 100 to perform the principal sensing, decision, propulsion, and boundary-control operations of Claim 1. Thompson alone does not establish the complete Claim 1 method because the particular gain increase and station-on-boundary relationship are supplied by the secondary references.
Disclosure by Holgersson
configured to perform the control method for an autonomous operation device according to claim 1.
See at least Holgersson [0003]:
“as the signal becomes weaker, the gain of the amplifier is increased”
Rationale:
Holgersson supplies the receiver-gain control operation required by Claim 1. Thompson already contains a programmable vehicle control unit and variable-gain boundary-receiver circuitry. Configuring those components to perform Holgersson's weak-signal gain response functionally configures the mower to perform the remaining receiver-control portion of Claim 1.
Motivation to Combine Thompson and Holgersson for Claim 10
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Thompson and Holgersson before them, to configure Thompson’s robotic mower and its existing controller/variable-gain boundary receiver to perform Holgersson’s known weak-signal gain-increase operation as part of Thompson’s boundary-signal recovery process.
Thompson already has the hardware required to perform the modification: mower-mounted boundary sensors, receiver amplification circuitry, a variable-gain amplifier, a validity comparator, and a programmable vehicle controller. Holgersson provides a known rule for how that receiver gain responds to weakening boundary signals. The modification therefore uses existing compatible components according to their known functions and predictably improves weak-signal detection.
Claim Limitation Not Fully Established by Thompson and Holgersson
The Claim 1 method incorporated by Claim 10 still includes the station-on-boundary system relationship.
Disclosure by Abramson
configured to perform the control method for an autonomous operation device according to claim 1.
See at least Abramson [0046]:
“When a docking station is present along the perimeter wire 28”
Rationale:
Abramson completes the physical system environment required by Claim 1. Accordingly, Thompson's mower, modified with Holgersson's receiver-gain control, is configured to perform the complete Claim 1 method in the station-on-boundary architecture supplied by Abramson.
Motivation to Combine Thompson, Holgersson, and Abramson for Claim 10
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Thompson, Holgersson, and Abramson before them, to configure Thompson's autonomous robotic mower to perform the Claim 1 control method in the combined system having Holgersson's weak-signal gain response and Abramson's perimeter-located docking station.
Thompson supplies the actual autonomous device and controller, Holgersson supplies a compatible receiver-control enhancement, and Abramson supplies a known physical station arrangement. Each reference retains its established function. The combination therefore predictably produces an autonomous mower configured to perform the complete Claim 1 method.
After combining Thompson, Holgersson, and Abramson, all limitations of Claim 10 are disclosed or rendered obvious.
Regarding Claim 11
The combination of Thompson, Holgersson, and Abramson establishes the autonomous operation device of Claim 10, which is the basis for Claim 11.
Disclosure by Thompson
An autonomous operation device control system,
See at least Thompson [0021]-[0022]:
“robotic mower 100 may operate in a specified area 102”
and:
“boundary drive circuit 106 may be contained in charging station 105”
Rationale:
Thompson discloses an integrated system comprising a controlled robotic mower, bounded operating area, charging station, boundary wire, and boundary-signal driving circuitry. These cooperating components collectively perform autonomous mower boundary control and therefore constitute an autonomous operation device control system.
comprising:
See at least Thompson [0021]:
“robotic mower 100 ... main or outer boundary wire 103 ... charging station 105”
Rationale:
Thompson expressly identifies multiple physical components of the robotic mower control system, thereby satisfying the open-ended transitional language.
a boundary,
See at least Thompson [0021]:
“main or outer boundary wire 103”
Rationale:
Main or outer boundary wire 103 defines the permissible mower operating region and therefore constitutes the claimed boundary.
a docking station,
See at least Thompson [0021]:
“charging station 105”
Rationale:
Charging station 105 is the station to which robotic mower 100 returns for charging and therefore performs the docking-station function.
wherein the boundary encloses a working region,
See at least Thompson [0021]:
“robotic mower 100 may operate in a specified area 102 that is surrounded by main or outer boundary wire 103 which may form a loop”
Rationale:
Boundary wire 103 surrounds specified area 102 as a loop. The boundary therefore encloses the working region.
the autonomous operation device is movable within the working region,
See at least Thompson [0016]:
“control and operate the pair of traction motors to drive the robotic mower over a yard”
See also Thompson [0021]:
“robotic mower 100 may operate in a specified area 102”
Rationale:
The traction motors physically move mower 100 through specified area 102. Thus, the autonomous device is movable within the boundary-defined working region.
and a boundary signal generation apparatus configured to feed a boundary signal to the boundary
See at least Thompson [0022]:
“boundary drive circuit 106 may be contained in charging station 105, and may drive signals on the main boundary wire and the inner wire.”
See also Thompson [0024]:
“the boundary driving circuit may transmit a unique ID on the main or outer boundary wire loop ten times per second”
Rationale:
Boundary drive circuit 106 performs the exact claimed function of generating and feeding/transmitting an electrical boundary signal onto main boundary wire 103.
is configured on the docking station.
See at least Thompson [0022]:
“boundary drive circuit 106 may be contained in charging station 105”
Rationale:
The signal-generation circuit is expressly contained in charging station 105 and therefore configured on the docking station.
Claim Limitations Not Fully Established by Thompson
and the autonomous operation device according to claim 10,
the docking station is located on the boundary,
Disclosure by Holgersson
and the autonomous operation device according to claim 10,
See at least Holgersson [0003]:
“as the signal becomes weaker, the gain of the amplifier is increased”
Rationale:
Claim 10 requires an autonomous operation device configured to perform Claim 1. Holgersson supplies the weak-signal receiver-gain behavior incorporated into Claim 10. When that functionality is configured into Thompson's robotic mower, Thompson's mower satisfies the gain-control portion of the autonomous operation device according to Claim 10.
Motivation to Combine Thompson and Holgersson for Claim 11
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Thompson and Holgersson before them, to use the autonomous robotic mower resulting from their combination as the autonomous operation device in Thompson's existing boundary-wire and charging-station control system.
Thompson already places its mower in that system. Holgersson modifies only the mower's receiver-gain behavior. Using the modified mower within Thompson's existing boundary-control environment therefore represents the intended and predictable use of the modified device.
Claim Limitations Not Fully Established by Thompson and Holgersson
and the autonomous operation device according to claim 10,
to the extent Claim 10 incorporates the complete Claim 1 environment, and
the docking station is located on the boundary,
Disclosure by Abramson
the docking station is located on the boundary,
See at least Abramson [0028]:
“The work area 24 is defined by a boundary 26, formed, for example, of a wire 27 ... arranged around the perimeter of the work area to define a perimeter wire 28”
See Abramson [0046]:
“When a docking station is present along the perimeter wire 28”
Rationale:
Abramson expressly identifies perimeter wire 28 as the structure defining boundary 26 and expressly positions the docking station along that same perimeter wire. The docking station is therefore physically located on the boundary rather than merely electrically connected to it.
and the autonomous operation device according to claim 10,
See at least Abramson [0046]:
“When a docking station is present along the perimeter wire 28, the robot 22 notes the position of the docking station as part of its mapping”
Rationale:
Abramson supplies the remaining station-on-boundary aspect incorporated through Claim 10's dependence on the full Claim 1 environment. Together with Thompson's autonomous mower and Holgersson's gain-control functionality, the combination therefore establishes the complete autonomous operation device according to Claim 10.
Motivation to Combine Thompson, Holgersson, and Abramson for Claim 11
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Thompson, Holgersson, and Abramson before them, to employ the autonomous mower established by Thompson and Holgersson in Thompson’s boundary-control system while locating Thompson’s charging/docking station along the work-area boundary as expressly taught by Abramson.
Thompson already supplies essentially the entire Claim 11 system: a robotic mower, outer boundary loop, enclosed operating region, charging station, and a boundary drive circuit contained in that station and driving signals onto the boundary wire. Abramson contributes a known and directly compatible docking-station placement—along the perimeter wire defining the work-area boundary. Holgersson remains part of the rejection because the claimed system expressly incorporates the Claim 10 autonomous operation device, which in turn performs Claim 1’s gain-recovery method.
The physical modification is technically complementary. Thompson already uses the boundary wire for mower position control and station-related navigation. Abramson demonstrates that placing the docking station along the perimeter wire permits the robot to identify and return to that station using the established perimeter path. A PHOSITA therefore would have had an independent design reason to employ the known perimeter-located docking configuration because it integrates docking navigation with the same boundary infrastructure already used to control autonomous mower position.
The combination requires no change to the function of the boundary signal generator or receiver. Thompson’s station-mounted boundary drive circuit continues to feed the boundary signal, Holgersson’s modification remains within the mower receiver, and Abramson determines only the station’s physical placement. The result would have been predictable and would preserve the intended operation of each reference.
After combining Thompson, Holgersson, and Abramson, all limitations of Claim 11 are disclosed or rendered obvious.
Regarding Claim 12
Disclosure by Thompson
An autonomous operation device,
See at least Thompson [0015]:
“robotic mower 100 may be powered by battery pack 109 that may be charged periodically at charging station 105.”
Rationale:
Robotic mower 100 is the claimed autonomous operation device for the reasons discussed in Claim 10.
comprising the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 10.
To the extent the apparent intended meaning is an autonomous operation device comprising the non-transitory storage medium used to implement the Claim 10 control functionality, see Thompson [0017]:
“The microcontroller may have 512 kB of internal flash memory and 64kbytes of internal RAM.”
See Thompson [0018]:
“the vehicle control unit may include three external EEPROM integrated circuits.”
Rationale:
Thompson expressly places non-transitory flash memory and EEPROM within the vehicle control unit of robotic mower 100. Functionally, those memories provide persistent storage available to the mower's programmed processor/controller.
However, the prior art cannot supply antecedent basis missing from Applicant's claim. Claim 10, as currently drafted, does not itself define a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Accordingly, the phrase “the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 10” remains indefinite notwithstanding Thompson's disclosure.
If Applicant intended Claim 12 to recite an autonomous operation device comprising the storage medium of Claim 9, Thompson's flash/EEPROM memory provides the structural storage-medium disclosure, and the Claim 9 mapping establishes the processor-executable-instruction functionality.
Disclosure by Holgersson
To the extent the apparent intended Claim 12 construction incorporates the Claim 10/Claim 1 control functionality, see Holgersson [0003]:
“as the signal becomes weaker, the gain of the amplifier is increased”
Rationale:
Holgersson supplies the gain-control operation forming part of the Claim 1 method ultimately implemented by the processor-controlled autonomous device.
Disclosure by Abramson
See Abramson [0046]:
“When a docking station is present along the perimeter wire 28”
Rationale:
Abramson supplies the physical docking-station-on-boundary relationship forming part of the Claim 1 environment incorporated into Claim 10 and, under the apparent intended construction, Claim 12.
Motivation to Combine Thompson, Holgersson, and Abramson for Claim 12
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Thompson, Holgersson, and Abramson before them, to provide the autonomous robotic mower of the combined system with Thompson's expressly disclosed non-transitory flash/EEPROM memory storing the processor instructions used to implement the combined Claim 1 control method.
Thompson already places the processor and non-transitory memory in the mower and executes mower-control functions programmatically. Holgersson's gain adjustment is a controller-executable receiver-control operation, while Abramson supplies the physical station arrangement forming part of the Claim 1 environment. Storing the executable logic for the resulting control method in Thompson's preexisting non-transitory controller memory would therefore have been the ordinary and predictable implementation.
Regarding Claim 2
The combination of Thompson, Holgersson, and Abramson (US 2012/0041594 A1) establishes the control method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 2.
Disclosure by Thompson
Thompson teaches:
The control method for an autonomous operation device according to claim 1,
See at least Thompson [0015]:
“Vehicle control unit 101 may control all of the electronic functions of the robotic mower.”
Rationale:
As established for Claim 1, Thompson provides the principal autonomous-mower control system, boundary-signal sensing, validity determination, continued operation, boundary-signal-loss processing, repeated detection, and safe-stop functionality. Holgersson supplies the weak-signal gain-increase operation, and Abramson supplies the docking-station-on-boundary relationship. Accordingly, the parent control method of Claim 1 is established before considering the additional limitations of Claim 2.
and in the case that the boundary signal is not received through the signal sensing unit,
See at least Thompson [0035]:
“the boundary sensor circuit may include comparator U1-D which may form a Schmitt trigger comparator circuit to provide an output that indicates whether or not the received signal strength is great enough to be considered a valid signal.”
See also Thompson [0061]:
“If an obstacle or boundary wire is not detected, in block 1008 the vehicle control unit may determine if the timer exceeds a specified maximum time.”
Rationale:
Thompson functionally establishes the no-valid-boundary-signal state that initiates the additional Claim 2 logic. Comparator U1-D distinguishes a received signal having sufficient strength to constitute valid boundary information from one that does not, while the controller separately recognizes the state in which the boundary wire is not detected. Accordingly, Thompson's controller can determine that reliable boundary-signal information is unavailable through the mower-side signal sensing unit.
before controlling the autonomous operation device to stop the operation
See at least Thompson [0061]:
“If an obstacle or boundary wire is not detected, in block 1008 the vehicle control unit may determine if the timer exceeds a specified maximum time.”
See also Thompson [0061]:
“If the specified maximum time is exceeded, in block 1010 the vehicle control unit may execute a stuck vehicle task to safely move or stop the robotic mower.”
Rationale:
Thompson expressly teaches that an intervening controller determination may occur after boundary-signal non-detection and before the mower is stopped. Functionally, this is significant because Claim 2 likewise inserts an additional diagnostic determination between the no-boundary-signal condition and execution of the stop response. Thus, Thompson already establishes a control architecture in which the controller does not necessarily stop immediately upon non-detection but may first evaluate additional information.
the control method further comprises:
See at least Thompson [0040]:
“The vehicle control unit then may run the routine described in the block diagram about every 40 milliseconds.”
Rationale:
Thompson's controller executes sequential, conditional decision routines based upon sensed conditions. Accordingly, the primary reference provides the programmable control architecture for performing further diagnostic operations following boundary-signal non-reception.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Thompson
However, Thompson does not explicitly disclose the following Claim 2 limitations:
wherein a first communication unit communicatively connected to the boundary signal generation apparatus
is configured on the docking station;
a second communication unit is configured on the autonomous operation device,
wherein the second communication unit is in wireless communication connection with the first communication unit;
and increasing the amplification gain of the boundary signal by the autonomous operation device,
detecting whether an indication signal transmitted by the first communication unit is received through the second communication unit,
wherein the indication signal is configured to indicate that the boundary signal generation apparatus is in a working state;
in a case that the indication signal is received through the second communication unit,
controlling the autonomous operation device to continue the operation; and
in a case that the indication signal is not received through the second communication unit,
executing the step of controlling the autonomous operation device to stop the operation
and increasing the amplification gain of the boundary signal by the autonomous operation device.
Disclosure by Holgersson
Holgersson next teaches:
and increasing the amplification gain of the boundary signal by the autonomous operation device,
See at least Holgersson [0003]:
“because most, if not all, contemporary robotic working tools use variable gain amplifiers for amplifying the detected signal”
See also Holgersson [0003]:
“This is due to that as the signal becomes weaker, the gain of the amplifier is increased, whereby the interferences will also be amplified.”
Rationale:
Holgersson expressly supplies the gain-control function absent from Thompson's claimed sequence. The gain is adjusted in the robotic working tool's boundary-signal receiver and is specifically increased as the boundary signal weakens. Functionally, the increase raises receiver sensitivity to a weak boundary signal so that the mower has an improved opportunity to recover usable boundary information rather than treating weak reception as complete signal loss.
and increasing the amplification gain of the boundary signal by the autonomous operation device.
See at least Holgersson [0003]:
“as the signal becomes weaker, the gain of the amplifier is increased”
Rationale:
Claim 2 separately requires the gain increase as the action executed in the negative indication-signal branch. Holgersson expressly supplies that recovery operation. What Holgersson does not teach is using nonreceipt of a separate wireless working-state indication to select that operation. The communication-dependent trigger therefore remains unresolved for the later reference.
Motivation to Combine Thompson and Holgersson
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Thompson and Holgersson before them, to modify Thompson's boundary-signal recovery process so that, when Thompson's mower fails to obtain a valid boundary signal, the gain of Thompson's existing mower-side variable-gain receiver is increased in accordance with Holgersson's known weak-signal gain-control technique.
The reason for the modification arises from Thompson itself. Thompson evaluates whether the boundary signal has sufficient amplitude to constitute a valid signal and recognizes that the received boundary signal may become difficult to distinguish from background noise. Holgersson addresses the same weak-boundary-signal condition in robotic working tools and expressly teaches increasing receiver gain as the signal weakens.
The references are technically complementary because Thompson already provides the mower-side boundary sensor, signal-amplification circuitry, variable-gain receiver, controller, and repeated boundary-detection logic. Holgersson therefore supplies a known operating rule for existing compatible hardware rather than requiring redesign of Thompson's sensing system.
Increasing gain in the unresolved weak/no-valid-signal condition predictably improves the likelihood that a legitimate weak boundary signal will again become detectable. Thompson's existing stop functionality remains available as the safety response where reliable boundary information cannot ultimately be restored.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Thompson and Holgersson
After Thompson and Holgersson are combined, the following remain:
wherein a first communication unit communicatively connected to the boundary signal generation apparatus
is configured on the docking station;
a second communication unit is configured on the autonomous operation device,
wherein the second communication unit is in wireless communication connection with the first communication unit;
detecting whether an indication signal transmitted by the first communication unit is received through the second communication unit,
wherein the indication signal is configured to indicate that the boundary signal generation apparatus is in a working state;
in a case that the indication signal is received through the second communication unit,
controlling the autonomous operation device to continue the operation; and
in a case that the indication signal is not received through the second communication unit,
executing the step of controlling the autonomous operation device to stop the operation
Disclosure by Abramson
Abramson establishes the docking-station-on-boundary relationship inherited from Claim 1, but does not materially teach the newly added Claim 2 wireless working-state communication or conditional control logic.
See at least Abramson [0046]:
“When a docking station is present along the perimeter wire 28, the robot 22 notes the position of the docking station as part of its mapping”
Rationale:
Abramson remains necessary to the overall rejection because Claim 2 incorporates Claim 1. Abramson expressly provides the station-on-boundary configuration that completes the parent claim. However, Abramson does not disclose the separate first and second wireless communication units carrying an indication of the operating state of the boundary-signal-generation system. Accordingly, none of the remaining Claim 2 limitations is artificially assigned to Abramson.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Thompson, Holgersson, and Abramson
After all three preceding references are combined, the following remain:
wherein a first communication unit communicatively connected to the boundary signal generation apparatus
is configured on the docking station;
a second communication unit is configured on the autonomous operation device,
wherein the second communication unit is in wireless communication connection with the first communication unit;
detecting whether an indication signal transmitted by the first communication unit is received through the second communication unit,
wherein the indication signal is configured to indicate that the boundary signal generation apparatus is in a working state;
in a case that the indication signal is received through the second communication unit,
controlling the autonomous operation device to continue the operation; and
in a case that the indication signal is not received through the second communication unit,
executing the step of controlling the autonomous operation device to stop the operation
Disclosure by Askenmalm
wherein a first communication unit communicatively connected to the boundary signal generation apparatus
See at least Askenmalm [0034]:
“The charging station 210 comprises a charging unit ... and a signal generator 240.”
See also Askenmalm [0035]:
“The signal generator 240 is connected (directly or indirectly) to the boundary wire 230 through connectors 231 for feeding a control signal 235 through the boundary wire 230.”
See also Askenmalm [0039]:
“the charging station 210 may also comprise a communication interface 215 enabling the charging station to establish communication with the robotic lawnmower 100”
Rationale:
Askenmalm places signal generator 240 and communication interface 215 within the same charging-station control architecture. More importantly, communication interface 215 participates in transmitting information regarding the operating condition of the boundary-wire system whose control signal is generated by signal generator 240. Thus, interface 215 is functionally connected to the signal-generation subsystem rather than being an unrelated wireless interface.
is configured on the docking station;
See at least Askenmalm [0039]:
“the charging station 210 may also comprise a communication interface 215”
Rationale:
Communication interface 215 is expressly a component of charging station 210. It therefore functionally and structurally satisfies the claimed first communication unit configured on the docking station.
a second communication unit is configured on the autonomous operation device,
See at least Askenmalm [0024]:
“The robotic lawnmower 100 may further be arranged with a wireless communication interface 115”
Rationale:
Wireless communication interface 115 is expressly carried by robotic lawnmower 100 and therefore constitutes the claimed second communication unit configured on the autonomous operation device.
wherein the second communication unit is in wireless communication connection with the first communication unit;
See at least Askenmalm [0024]:
“The robotic lawnmower 100 may further be arranged with a wireless communication interface 115 for communicating with other devices ... or the charging station.”
See also Askenmalm [0039]:
“communication interface 215 enabling the charging station to establish communication with the robotic lawnmower 100”
Rationale:
Askenmalm expressly provides complementary communication interfaces at the mower and station and expressly establishes communication between them. The disclosed Bluetooth, GSM, and LTE examples further establish that the communication may be wireless. Thus, interfaces 115 and 215 function as the claimed wirelessly connected second and first communication units.
detecting whether an indication signal transmitted by the first communication unit is received through the second communication unit,
See at least Askenmalm [0059]:
“Through the respective communication interfaces 115/215, the charging station 210 and the robotic lawnmower 100 may provide information to one another regarding the operating status of the boundary wire (i.e. working / not working)”
Rationale:
Askenmalm expressly transmits operating-status information from one system component to another through interfaces 115/215. For mower 100 to use station-originated status information, the mower controller necessarily determines whether that expected information has been received through communication interface 115.
The reference does not expressly describe Applicant's particular “receipt/no-receipt heartbeat” decision rule. However, using receipt of an expected periodically or conditionally transmitted “working” status message as confirmation that the remote boundary system remains operational is a conventional and predictable implementation of Askenmalm's expressly disclosed status channel. Without determining whether the expected status was received, the mower could not meaningfully use that channel as an independent health indication.
wherein the indication signal is configured to indicate that the boundary signal generation apparatus is in a working state;
See at least Askenmalm [0059]:
“the charging station 210 and the robotic lawnmower 100 may provide information to one another regarding the operating status of the boundary wire (i.e. working / not working)”
See also Askenmalm [0035]:
“The signal generator 240 is connected ... to the boundary wire 230 ... for feeding a control signal 235 through the boundary wire 230.”
Rationale:
Signal generator 240 is the source of the boundary-wire control signal. Askenmalm separately communicates whether that boundary system is “working / not working.” Accordingly, transmitting the positive “working” status from the station provides the functional information required by the claim—that the station-side boundary-signal-generation function is operating.
in a case that the indication signal is received through the second communication unit,
See at least Askenmalm [0024]:
“the robotic lawnmower 100 is configured to communicate with a charging station ... for receiving and/or transmitting information on an operating status of the boundary wire.”
Rationale:
Askenmalm expressly establishes the positive status-reception state: mower interface 115 receives operating-status information from the charging-station communication system. In the proposed combination, receipt of the positive “working” information supplies an independent confirmation that the station-side boundary system remains operational despite the local mower sensor's failure to obtain a valid magnetic boundary signal.
controlling the autonomous operation device to continue the operation; and
See at least Askenmalm [0059]:
“the charging station 210 and the robotic lawnmower 100 may provide information to one another regarding the operating status of the boundary wire (i.e. working / not working)”
Rationale:
Askenmalm does not expressly state the precise branch “receipt of working indication → continue operation.” The function is nevertheless rendered obvious by the references as a whole.
Thompson and Holgersson establish that failure to obtain a local boundary signal may result from weak reception rather than an actual failure of the station-side boundary system. Askenmalm's independently received “working” status resolves that ambiguity by confirming that the boundary system remains operational. Once that confirmation is available, a PHOSITA would have had a technically grounded reason not to invoke a fault stop solely because the local magnetic signal is temporarily weak.
Continuing the mower's existing operational/recovery process gives functional effect to Askenmalm's independent status information and predictably avoids false shutdowns caused by local reception weakness. Thus, the positive branch is not based merely on the presence of the word “working”; it follows from the actual diagnostic role of the independent status path in the combined system.
in a case that the indication signal is not received through the second communication unit,
See at least Askenmalm [0059]:
“Through the respective communication interfaces 115/215, the charging station 210 and the robotic lawnmower 100 may provide information to one another regarding the operating status of the boundary wire”
Rationale:
An operational-status communication system necessarily has a complementary state in which the expected status information is not successfully received. A PHOSITA implementing the disclosed station-to-mower health/status channel would necessarily distinguish between successful receipt of the expected working-state status and absence of that expected status; otherwise the communication could not serve as an independent indication of system operation.
executing the step of controlling the autonomous operation device to stop the operation
See at least Askenmalm [0056]:
“The robotic lawnmower system 200 may be configured to detect that the control signal is no longer being transmitted by enabling the charging station to detect this, and/or by enabling the robotic lawnmower 100 to detect this.”
See also Askenmalm [0057]:
“As it is detected that a break B has occurred, the robotic lawnmower system is configured to emit an alert to this effect.”
Rationale:
The claimed limitation does not merely require a generic stop; it requires selecting the stop response when the independent indication is not received. In the proposed combination, local boundary-signal reception has already failed. If the separate station-originated working-state confirmation is also unavailable, neither independent information path verifies that the boundary-control system remains functional.
Under that condition, applying Thompson's established safe-stop operation would have been the predictable fail-safe response. Continuing autonomous movement while both the local boundary signal and the independent system-health confirmation are unavailable would risk movement without reliable knowledge of the work-area delimiter. Thus, the combined teachings functionally support selecting Thompson's stop response specifically for the negative indication-signal branch.
Motivation to Combine Thompson, Holgersson, Abramson, and Askenmalm
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Thompson, Holgersson, Abramson, and Askenmalm before them, to further modify the Claim 1 control method so that, after Thompson's local boundary-sensing circuitry fails to obtain a valid boundary signal but before the mower executes the stop-and-gain-recovery response, the mower evaluates whether Askenmalm's independent station-originated working-state indication has been received; to continue the operating/recovery process when that positive working-state indication is received; and to execute Thompson's stop response together with Holgersson's gain-recovery operation when that independent confirmation is not received.
The reason for the modification follows from a diagnostic ambiguity expressly created by the prior art. Thompson recognizes that the boundary signal may become extremely weak relative to background noise. Holgersson likewise teaches that signal strength decreases with separation from the boundary and that receiver gain is increased as the signal weakens. Thus, local non-detection does not uniquely identify failure of the station-side boundary-signal generator.
Askenmalm supplies a second, independent information path that addresses that uncertainty. Through its mower and charging-station communication interfaces, the system communicates whether the boundary system is “working / not working.” A PHOSITA would have recognized that consulting this independent status before treating local signal loss as a system fault would improve fault discrimination.
If the positive station-originated indication is received, the generator/boundary system is independently confirmed operational, providing a rational basis to continue operation or recovery rather than unnecessarily stop because of a local weak-signal event. If the positive indication is not received and the local boundary signal is also unavailable, neither information path confirms proper boundary-system operation; stopping propulsion then provides the predictable safety response, while increasing receiver gain attempts to recover a possibly weak local signal.
The references thus form a logical functional sequence rather than an arbitrary aggregation: Thompson supplies local detection and safety control; Holgersson supplies weak-signal receiver recovery; Abramson supplies the inherited station-on-boundary architecture; and Askenmalm supplies independent system-health confirmation used to select the appropriate preexisting control response. The expected benefits—reduced false stops, improved fault discrimination, improved weak-signal recovery, and preservation of boundary safety—would have been predictable to a PHOSITA.
Regarding Claim 5
The combination of Thompson, Holgersson, and Abramson establishes the control method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 5.
Disclosure by Thompson
Thompson teaches:
The control method for an autonomous operation device according to claim 1,
See at least Thompson [0015]:
“Vehicle control unit 101 may control all of the electronic functions of the robotic mower.”
Rationale:
The Thompson/Holgersson/Abramson combination establishes the full Claim 1 method. Claim 5 adds a terminal condition for the gain-recovery process and a user-directed alarm after that terminal condition has been reached.
further comprising:
See at least Thompson [0059]:
“the vehicle control unit memory may record and store the time when an obstacle or boundary wire has been last detected”
Rationale:
Thompson expressly performs additional recovery/fault-monitoring logic when expected boundary detection is absent. This additional control routine supplies the functional framework for determining when automatic recovery has failed and a different response should begin.
in a case that the boundary signal is still not received through the signal sensing unit after a preset condition is met,
See at least Thompson [0059]:
“may determine the robotic mower is stuck if a prespecified amount of time elapses before the robotic mower encounters an obstacle or boundary wire again.”
See also Thompson [0061]:
“If the specified maximum time is exceeded ... the vehicle control unit may execute a stuck vehicle task”
Rationale:
Thompson expressly teaches monitoring continued boundary non-detection and transitioning to a terminal fault state once a predetermined recovery condition has been satisfied. Functionally, Thompson therefore teaches the general claimed relationship: boundary information remains unavailable after a preset recovery limit is reached.
Thompson's particular preset limit is time rather than maximum receiver gain. Accordingly, Thompson establishes the control-flow architecture but not the specific gain-based terminal criterion later recited by Claim 5.
controlling the autonomous operation device to stop working,
See at least Thompson [0061]:
“If the specified maximum time is exceeded, in block 1010 the vehicle control unit may execute a stuck vehicle task to safely move or stop the robotic mower.”
Rationale:
Thompson expressly performs the claimed terminal safety function. When automatic recovery has exceeded its predetermined allowable condition without recovering the expected boundary information, the controller may stop the robotic mower. Functionally, this prevents continued autonomous work after the boundary-control system cannot reliably support safe operation.
wherein the preset condition comprises:
See at least Thompson [0059]:
“a prespecified amount of time”
Rationale:
Thompson expressly establishes that the no-boundary recovery process is governed by a predetermined terminal condition. The particular content of Applicant's preset condition—maximum amplification gain—is not taught by Thompson and therefore remains for the next reference.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Thompson
After Thompson, the following remain:
and controlling the autonomous operation device to issue a third alarm signal
configured to prompt a user to perform manual check,
the amplification gain of the boundary signal by the autonomous operation device reaching a maximum amplification gain.
Disclosure by Holgersson
the amplification gain of the boundary signal by the autonomous operation device reaching a maximum amplification gain.
See at least Holgersson [0003]:
“because most, if not all, contemporary robotic working tools use variable gain amplifiers for amplifying the detected signal”
See also Holgersson [0003]:
“This is due to that as the signal becomes weaker, the gain of the amplifier is increased, whereby the interferences will also be amplified.”
Rationale:
Holgersson expressly teaches using a variable-gain boundary receiver and increasing its gain as the boundary signal weakens. Holgersson additionally identifies the negative consequence of continued gain escalation: interference is amplified together with the desired signal.
Functionally, a variable-gain receiver has a finite available or useful gain range. As successive weak-signal recovery attempts increase gain, the receiver necessarily reaches its highest available or practically usable amplification. Once that condition is reached and the boundary signal remains unavailable, further execution of the gain-control recovery function cannot provide additional receiver sensitivity and may further worsen interference.
Accordingly, a PHOSITA implementing Holgersson's adaptive gain control in Thompson's preset-condition recovery architecture would have recognized reaching maximum available/useful gain as a natural objective condition indicating that the electronic gain-recovery mechanism has been revieweded.
Motivation to Combine Thompson and Holgersson
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Thompson and Holgersson before them, to implement Thompson's predetermined recovery-ending condition such that automatic boundary-signal recovery is considered revieweded when the mower-side variable-gain receiver has reached its maximum usable amplification gain and a valid boundary signal nevertheless remains unavailable.
Thompson expressly teaches terminating unsuccessful boundary recovery upon satisfaction of a predetermined limit and then entering a safety response. Holgersson supplies the adaptive receiver process being bounded: gain is progressively increased as the signal becomes weaker, while interference is correspondingly amplified.
A PHOSITA would therefore have recognized a finite receiver capability as an appropriate terminal criterion. Once maximum usable gain has been reached, no further gain increase remains available to improve receiver sensitivity, and additional amplification may merely increase interference. Using that objectively identifiable receiver limit as the preset endpoint therefore provides a technically meaningful basis for ending automatic recovery.
The modification predictably prevents futile gain escalation, ties the terminal decision to reviewedion of the actual electronic recovery capability, and preserves Thompson's safe-stop response once reliable boundary sensing cannot be restored.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Thompson and Holgersson
The following remain:
and controlling the autonomous operation device to issue a third alarm signal
configured to prompt a user to perform manual check,
Disclosure by Abramson
Abramson remains part of Claim 5 because the claim depends from Claim 1 and therefore incorporates the station-on-boundary configuration established by Abramson. Abramson does not materially teach the newly added alarm/manual-inspection functionality.
See at least Abramson [0046]:
“When a docking station is present along the perimeter wire 28”
Rationale:
Abramson supplies the inherited Claim 1 station configuration but does not disclose a post-recovery alarm prompting manual fault inspection. Accordingly, the remaining Claim 5 limitations remain unresolved after Abramson.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Thompson, Holgersson, and Abramson
and controlling the autonomous operation device to issue a third alarm signal
configured to prompt a user to perform manual check,
Disclosure by Askenmalm
and controlling the autonomous operation device to issue a third alarm signal
See at least Askenmalm [0057]:
“As it is detected that a break B has occurred, the robotic lawnmower system is configured to emit an alert to this effect.”
See also Askenmalm [0057]:
“the alert is emitted through the alert means 185 of the robotic lawnmower 100.”
Rationale:
Askenmalm expressly teaches causing the autonomous robotic mower to issue an alert when a boundary-system fault condition is detected. Thus, the alert performs the same functional role as the claimed alarm signal: it notifies the user that autonomous boundary-system operation has entered a fault state requiring attention.
The term “third” does not require a different underlying alert technology; it identifies the alarm within Applicant's claimed alarm sequence. Because Claim 5 presently lacks antecedent basis for first and second alarm signals, that issue remains separately addressed under §112(b), but it does not change the technical function of the alarm for purposes of §103.
configured to prompt a user to perform manual check,
See at least Askenmalm [0050]:
“the inventors are therefore proposing an ingeniously simple manner of alerting the user ... to the fact that the boundary wire 230 has suffered a break”
See also Askenmalm [0066]:
“the user U or another user may later retrieve the position P and know at least approximately where to start looking.”
See also Askenmalm [0068]:
“Knowing where to look greatly reduces the time needed to find the break in the boundary wire 230.”
Rationale:
Askenmalm's alert functionality is specifically tied to human fault investigation. The user is informed that a boundary-wire fault has occurred and is provided information assisting the user in determining where to begin looking for the fault. Functionally, the alert therefore prompts the user to transition from automatic mower operation to physical/manual inspection of the boundary system.
In the proposed combination, that manual-check function becomes appropriate only after the Thompson/Holgersson automatic recovery process has reached maximum usable receiver gain without recovering the boundary signal. At that point, electronic gain recovery has been revieweded, making user inspection the predictable next troubleshooting stage.
Motivation to Combine Thompson, Holgersson, Abramson, and Askenmalm
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Thompson, Holgersson, Abramson, and Askenmalm before them, to further modify the Claim 1 boundary-signal recovery method so that, when the boundary signal remains unavailable after the mower's variable-gain receiver reaches its maximum usable amplification gain, Thompson's mower is stopped and an Askenmalm-type fault alert is issued to prompt the user to manually inspect the boundary system.
The proposed sequence follows the technical progression disclosed by the prior art rather than Applicant's claim as a roadmap. Thompson establishes that unresolved boundary-signal failure eventually requires termination of autonomous operation. Holgersson supplies adaptive gain increase as a known electronic mechanism for attempting recovery from weak boundary signals and explains why such gain adjustment has a practical limit—interference increases along with desired signal amplitude. Abramson remains part of the combination because Claim 5 inherits the Claim 1 perimeter-located docking station. Askenmalm teaches transitioning a detected boundary-system fault to user notification and physical troubleshooting.
A PHOSITA would have had reason to attempt automatic gain-based recovery before requiring user intervention because increasing receiver sensitivity may restore a merely weak signal without manual service. Once maximum usable gain has been reached and the signal remains unavailable, however, the automatic receiver-recovery mechanism has revieweded its available control range. Continued gain escalation would provide no further predictable receiver benefit and may further amplify interference.
Stopping the mower at that point preserves Thompson's boundary safety. Alerting the user then transfers the unresolved fault to the human troubleshooting process expressly taught by Askenmalm. The resulting functional progression—automatic recovery, reviewedion of receiver gain, safe stop, and manual inspection—is technically coherent, uses each reference according to its established function, and would have produced predictable improvements in safety, fault handling, and serviceability.
Regarding Claim 4
The combination of Thompson, Holgersson, and Abramson establishes the control method of Claim 3, which is the basis for Claim 4.
Disclosure by Thompson
Thompson teaches:
The control method for an autonomous operation device according to claim 3,
See at least Thompson [0061]:
“If the timer does not exceed the specified maximum, the vehicle control unit may resume checking if an obstacle or boundary wire is detected in block 1004.”
See also Thompson [0061]:
“If the specified maximum time is exceeded, in block 1010 the vehicle control unit may execute a stuck vehicle task to safely move or stop the robotic mower.”
Rationale:
As established in the rejection of Claim 3, Thompson supplies the timer-bounded boundary-detection recovery framework, including repeated boundary detection before expiration of a specified maximum time and a safety response after expiration. Holgersson supplies the repeated weak-signal gain adjustment, while Abramson supplies the inherited docking-station-on-boundary relationship. Accordingly, the combination establishes the complete control method according to Claim 3 from which Claim 4 depends.
wherein after the timing duration reaches the preset duration,
See at least Thompson [0061]:
“If the specified maximum time is exceeded, in block 1010 the vehicle control unit may execute a stuck vehicle task”
Rationale:
Thompson expressly distinguishes the state in which its timer has reached or exceeded the specified maximum time from the earlier state in which the controller continues attempting recovery. Thus, Thompson supplies the temporal trigger required by Claim 4: the subsequent fault-handling operation occurs after the allowed boundary-recovery duration has expired.
the control method further comprises:
See at least Thompson [0061]:
“the vehicle control unit may execute a stuck vehicle task”
Rationale:
Upon expiration of the recovery period, Thompson transitions from the repeated boundary-detection routine to additional fault-handling processing. Functionally, Thompson therefore teaches performing further controller operations after the preset duration has been reached, although Thompson does not itself disclose the particular communication-based fault-isolation operations subsequently recited by Claim 4.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Thompson
After Thompson, the following Claim 4 limitations remain:
detecting a communication connection state between the autonomous operation device and the docking station;
in a case that the autonomous operation device is connected to the docking station,
controlling the autonomous operation device to issue a first alarm signal
configured to prompt a user to check whether the boundary signal generation apparatus is normal; and
in a case that the autonomous operation device is disconnected from the docking station,
controlling the autonomous operation device to issue a second alarm signal
configured to prompt a user to check whether a power supply of the docking station is normal.
Disclosure by Holgersson
Examiner Note: Holgersson supplies the variable-gain boundary-signal recovery functionality inherited through Claim 3, but does not materially disclose the newly added Claim 4 communication-state determination or the claimed two-branch diagnostic alarm logic.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Thompson and Holgersson
detecting a communication connection state between the autonomous operation device and the docking station;
in a case that the autonomous operation device is connected to the docking station,
controlling the autonomous operation device to issue a first alarm signal
configured to prompt a user to check whether the boundary signal generation apparatus is normal; and
in a case that the autonomous operation device is disconnected from the docking station,
controlling the autonomous operation device to issue a second alarm signal
configured to prompt a user to check whether a power supply of the docking station is normal.
Disclosure by Abramson
Considering Abramson:
See at least Abramson [0046]:
“When a docking station is present along the perimeter wire 28, the robot 22 notes the position of the docking station as part of its mapping”
Rationale:
Abramson remains necessary because Claim 4 depends through Claim 3 from Claim 1 and therefore inherits the docking-station-on-boundary limitation. However, Abramson does not materially disclose determining the wireless communication state between the mower and docking station or selecting different diagnostic alarms based upon that communication state. Those newly added Claim 4 limitations therefore remain for the subsequent references.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Thompson, Holgersson, and Abramson
detecting a communication connection state between the autonomous operation device and the docking station;
in a case that the autonomous operation device is connected to the docking station,
controlling the autonomous operation device to issue a first alarm signal
configured to prompt a user to check whether the boundary signal generation apparatus is normal; and
in a case that the autonomous operation device is disconnected from the docking station,
controlling the autonomous operation device to issue a second alarm signal
configured to prompt a user to check whether a power supply of the docking station is normal.
Disclosure by Askenmalm
Askenmalm teaches or renders obvious the communication-state determination and the first diagnostic branch.
detecting a communication connection state between the autonomous operation device and the docking station;
See at least Askenmalm [0024]:
“The robotic lawnmower 100 may further be arranged with a wireless communication interface 115 for communicating with other devices ... or the charging station.”
See also Askenmalm [0039]:
“the charging station 210 may also comprise a communication interface 215 enabling the charging station to establish communication with the robotic lawnmower 100”
Rationale:
Askenmalm expressly establishes complementary communication interfaces on the robotic mower and charging station and expressly states that the station interface is capable of “establish[ing] communication” with the mower. Functionally using such a communication link necessarily requires distinguishing at least two operational states: communication established and communication not established. A controller cannot reliably exchange or act upon station-status information without determining whether the communication link is presently established. Accordingly, detecting the connection state is implicit in, and at minimum an obvious control operation required to implement, Askenmalm's expressly disclosed mower-to-station communications.
in a case that the autonomous operation device is connected to the docking station,
See at least Askenmalm [0059]:
“Through the respective communication interfaces 115/215, the charging station 210 and the robotic lawnmower 100 may provide information to one another regarding the operating status of the boundary wire (i.e. working / not working)”
Rationale:
The actual exchange of operating-status information through interfaces 115 and 215 establishes the positive communication state recited by the claim. In this state, the mower is able to receive station-originated diagnostic information and therefore knows that at least the station communication path is operational.
controlling the autonomous operation device to issue a first alarm signal
See at least Askenmalm [0040]:
“The charging station 210 may thus provide information on the operating status of the boundary wire and instructing or causing the robotic lawnmower 100 to emit an alert through the alert means 185 of the robotic lawnmower 100.”
Rationale:
Askenmalm expressly teaches causing the robotic lawnmower itself to issue an alert based upon boundary-system operating-status information received from the charging station. Thus, the reference functionally supplies the claimed mower-issued alarm response rather than merely disclosing an alarm elsewhere in the system.
Using a distinguishable “first” alarm for this first diagnostic branch would have been a routine implementation because the purpose of the alert is to communicate the particular detected fault condition to the user. The ordinal designation does not require a different alarm technology.
configured to prompt a user to check whether the boundary signal generation apparatus is normal;
See at least Askenmalm [0034]:
“The charging station 210 comprises a charging unit ... and a signal generator 240.”
See Askenmalm [0035]:
“The signal generator 240 is connected (directly or indirectly) to the boundary wire 230 through connectors 231 for feeding a control signal 235 through the boundary wire 230.”
See also Askenmalm [0054]:
“The charging station 210 is ... configured to detect that the control signal 235 is not again received at the connectors 231”
Rationale:
Askenmalm does not expressly state the precise instruction “check whether the boundary signal generation apparatus is normal.” However, it expressly identifies signal generator 240 as the station-side source that feeds control signal 235 onto the boundary wire, and it teaches station-side detection of failure of that control-signal path.
In the claimed diagnostic context, the timeout has already established that the mower has failed to recover the expected boundary signal. If the mower nonetheless remains connected to the docking station through Askenmalm's independent wireless communication path, the station is sufficiently operational to maintain communications while the boundary-signal function remains unresolved. A PHOSITA performing ordinary fault isolation would therefore have had a specific technical reason to investigate the function responsible for generating the missing signal—signal generator 240 and its associated boundary-signal path.
Prompting the user to check whether that subsystem is operating normally therefore does not arise merely from matching the word “signal.” It follows functionally from isolating a boundary-signal failure while an independent station communication function remains available.
in a case that the autonomous operation device is disconnected from the docking station,
See at least Askenmalm [0039]:
“communication interface 215 enabling the charging station to establish communication with the robotic lawnmower 100”
Rationale:
The disclosed communication architecture necessarily has a complementary state in which communication cannot be established or is lost. A PHOSITA implementing Askenmalm's station/mower status link would necessarily detect that negative state because no valid status exchange can occur while the communication link is unavailable. Thus, Askenmalm renders obvious the claimed disconnected branch.
controlling the autonomous operation device to issue a second alarm signal
See at least Askenmalm [0059]:
“the charging station 210 and the robotic lawnmower 100 may provide information to one another regarding the operating status of the boundary wire ... thereby being able to cause or instruct the other device to emit an alert.”
Rationale:
Askenmalm expressly provides condition-responsive alert functionality in the robotic lawnmower system. Where the controller has detected a second diagnostic condition—loss of station communication rather than an established communication link—a PHOSITA would have had reason to issue a distinguishable alert so the user can differentiate the second fault condition from the first.
The claimed “second” alarm therefore performs the known alert function with a different diagnostic meaning; assigning a separate alarm indication to a separate detected fault branch would have been a predictable user-interface implementation.
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Taught by Thompson, Holgersson, Abramson, and Askenmalm
After Askenmalm, the following limitation remains insufficiently supported:
configured to prompt a user to check whether a power supply of the docking station is normal.
Examiner Note: Askenmalm provides the charging station, communication interface, controller, signal generator, and alert architecture, but does not expressly establish the particular technical relationship needed for this branch, namely, why loss of communication with the docking station would make the docking-station power supply an appropriate subsystem to check.
Disclosure by Halloran
Halloran provides the missing technical basis for the docking-station power diagnostic. Halloran discloses:
configured to prompt a user to check whether a power supply of the docking station is normal.
See at least Halloran [0005]:
“The peripheral device includes a power Supply, a wireless communication component, and a controller”
Halloran further states:
“The controller has an activating routine that communicates with the peripheral device via the wireless communication components”
Halloran [0008] expressly provides that:
“In one example, the peripheral device is a base station.”
See additionally Halloran [0045]:
“the peripheral device 102 includes a power Supply 1022, a wireless communication component 1024, and a controller 1026.”
and:
“The power supply 1022 provides power to the various functions of the peripheral device 102.”
Halloran further teaches that:
“The wireless communication component 1024 also receives wireless signals from the mobile robot 104.”
Halloran [0043]-[0044] additionally teaches that peripheral device 102 may be a base station and that the robot communicates wirelessly with that peripheral device.
Rationale:
Halloran provides the specific system-level relationship that makes the claimed diagnostic branch technically meaningful. Halloran's base/peripheral station contains a power supply, wireless communication component, and controller, and expressly teaches that the power supply powers the station's various functions. The wireless communication component is one of those station functions and is used to communicate with the mobile robot.
Accordingly, if communication between the robot and docking/base station is unavailable, station power is a technically relevant common dependency to investigate because abnormal or absent station power can disable the station-side controller and wireless communication functionality needed to establish that connection. In other words, Halloran supplies a concrete causal relationship between station power and the station functions necessary for communication; it is not merely a generic statement that electronic devices have power supplies.
In the combined Askenmalm/Halloran architecture, the communication-connected branch indicates that at least the communication subsystem remains operational, making the missing boundary-signal generator/path the more targeted subsystem to investigate. Conversely, when the mower cannot establish the station communication link at all, Halloran teaches that station power is upstream of the station's powered functions, including communication. Checking whether the docking-station power supply is normal therefore constitutes a technically rational first-level diagnostic for that branch.
Askenmalm already provides mower-issued alerts. Configuring the second alert to prompt the user to inspect this Halloran-identified common station dependency would have been the predictable way to make the detected disconnection condition actionable to the user.
Motivation to Combine Thompson, Holgersson, Abramson, Askenmalm, and Halloran
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Thompson, Holgersson, Abramson, Askenmalm, and Halloran before them, to further modify the Claim 3 boundary-signal recovery method so that, after Thompson's timer-bounded recovery interval expires without successful boundary-signal reacquisition, the mower determines whether its independent communication connection with the docking station remains established and uses that connection state to select between two targeted diagnostic alerts: when communication remains established, prompting inspection of the station-side boundary-signal-generation subsystem; and when communication is unavailable, prompting inspection of the docking-station power supply.
The combination is supported by a coherent fault-isolation problem arising from the references themselves. Thompson and Holgersson establish that the mower may fail to reacquire a reliable boundary signal despite repeated receiver-gain recovery. Once Thompson's maximum recovery interval has expired, the system has reason to transition from automatic signal recovery to diagnosis of why the boundary system remains unavailable. Abramson supplies the inherited perimeter-located docking station.
Askenmalm independently teaches a charging station having both a boundary signal generator and a wireless communication interface, establishes wireless communication with the robotic mower, communicates boundary-system operating information, and causes the mower to emit alerts. Thus, after boundary-signal recovery fails, Askenmalm's independent communication path provides additional subsystem information that can be used for fault isolation.
If that independent station communication remains established, station-level communication capability is demonstrably operational while the boundary signal itself remains unavailable. Under that condition, a PHOSITA would have had a technically grounded reason to focus the diagnostic on Askenmalm's signal generator 240 and its associated signal path—the subsystem specifically responsible for producing the missing boundary signal.
Halloran supplies the complementary technical basis for the disconnected branch. Halloran expressly teaches a base/peripheral station having a power supply, controller, and wireless communication component, with the power supply providing power to the station's various functions. Thus, when the independent communication link itself cannot be established, station power is a common upstream dependency whose failure can account for loss of station-side communications and other station functions. Prompting inspection of the station power supply before undertaking component-level diagnosis is therefore a conventional hierarchical fault-isolation response grounded in the disclosed architecture.
The claimed two-branch alarm logic consequently does more than arbitrarily associate different messages with different states. It uses the communication link as a diagnostic discriminator: an operational link narrows the unresolved fault toward the boundary-signal-generation path, while loss of the link points first toward the common station power dependency. Askenmalm's existing alert functionality then communicates the appropriate troubleshooting action to the user.
Each reference retains its established technical role: Thompson supplies the timeout trigger and safe recovery framework; Holgersson supplies adaptive weak-signal gain recovery; Abramson supplies the inherited docking-station placement; Askenmalm supplies the signal generator, mower/station communication path, operating-status information, and alerts; and Halloran supplies the explicit power-supply-to-station-function relationship supporting the power diagnostic. The combination therefore yields predictable hierarchical fault diagnosis, improves serviceability, and reduces unnecessary troubleshooting without changing the principle of operation of any reference.
Regarding Claim 6
The combination of Thompson, Holgersson, Abramson, and Askenmalm establishes the control method of Claim 2, which is the basis for Claim 6.
Disclosure by Thompson
Thompson teaches:
The control method for an autonomous operation device according to claim 2,
See at least Thompson [0015]:
“Vehicle control unit 101 may control all of the electronic functions of the robotic mower.”
Rationale:
As established for Claim 2, Thompson supplies the principal autonomous mower, boundary-signal sensing, controller, no-valid-signal determination, continued operation, safe-stop processing, and repeated boundary detection. Holgersson supplies the weak-boundary-signal gain increase; Abramson supplies the docking-station-on-boundary relationship; and Askenmalm supplies the station/mower wireless communication and working-status channel. Accordingly, the combination establishes the complete control method according to Claim 2.
further comprising:
See at least Thompson [0059]:
“the vehicle control unit memory may record and store the time when an obstacle or boundary wire has been last detected”
See also Thompson [0059]:
“the timer duration may be fixed, or a function of the size of the area to be mowed.”
Rationale:
Thompson expressly uses characteristics of the working region as inputs to further mower-control processing. Thus, after the Claim 2 control architecture is established, Thompson provides a controller capable of additionally processing dimensional information concerning the working region.
determining whether dimension information of the working region meets a preset condition;
See at least Thompson [0059]:
“the timer duration may be fixed, or a function of the size of the area to be mowed.”
See also Thompson [0060]:
“The maximum span between opposite boundaries may be calculated from the recorded locations of the boundary wire.”
Rationale:
Thompson expressly determines quantitative information describing the dimensions of the bounded mowing region. The “size of the area to be mowed” is working-region dimension information, and Thompson additionally calculates a maximum span between opposite boundaries from stored boundary locations.
Thompson does not expressly state that the calculated dimension is compared against a particular threshold designated a “preset condition.” Nevertheless, once Thompson has determined a quantitative work-area dimension, comparing that dimension to a predetermined value to classify the work area—for example, determining whether the area is sufficiently large to justify a particular operating configuration—is a conventional numerical decision operation requiring only a comparison of the already-known dimension against a stored criterion. The later Dalfra teaching provides the specific technical reason for performing that comparison, namely that a “large area” is a recognized working condition affecting the appropriate mower configuration.
Accordingly, Thompson establishes the underlying dimensional determination, while the particular condition-dependent use of that dimension remains for the subsequent reference.
Claim Limitations Not Fully Taught by Thompson
After Thompson is revieweded, the following remain:
determining whether dimension information of the working region meets a preset condition;
to the extent the limitation requires a predetermined dimensional threshold or condition rather than merely determining the dimension itself;
and in a case that the dimension information of the working region meets the preset condition,
issuing prompt information
for prompting to establish the wireless communication connection between the autonomous operation device and the docking station.
Disclosure by Holgersson
Examiner Note: Holgersson supplies the variable-gain boundary-signal recovery operation inherited through Claim 2 but does not materially teach evaluating working-region dimensions or prompting establishment of a wireless mower/station connection based on such dimensions.
Claim Limitations Not Fully Taught by Thompson and Holgersson
determining whether dimension information of the working region meets a preset condition;
to the extent described above
and in a case that the dimension information of the working region meets the preset condition,
issuing prompt information
for prompting to establish the wireless communication connection between the autonomous operation device and the docking station.
Disclosure by Abramson
Examiner Note: Abramson remains necessary because Claim 6 depends through Claim 2 from Claim 1 and therefore incorporates the docking-station-on-boundary relationship established by Abramson.
See at least Abramson [0046]:
“When a docking station is present along the perimeter wire 28, the robot 22 notes the position of the docking station as part of its mapping”
Rationale:
Abramson establishes the inherited spatial relationship between the docking station and boundary but does not materially teach using working-region dimensions to decide whether the user should establish a wireless mower/station connection. Those new Claim 6 functions therefore remain unresolved.
Claim Limitations Not Fully Taught by Thompson, Holgersson, and Abramson
determining whether dimension information of the working region meets a preset condition;
to the extent described above
and in a case that the dimension information of the working region meets the preset condition,
issuing prompt information
for prompting to establish the wireless communication connection between the autonomous operation device and the docking station.
Disclosure by Askenmalm
Askenmalm next teaches the particular wireless connection whose establishment is ultimately prompted.
for prompting to establish the wireless communication connection between the autonomous operation device and the docking station.
See at least Askenmalm [0024]:
“The robotic lawnmower 100 may further be arranged with a wireless communication interface 115 for communicating with other devices ... or the charging station.”
See also Askenmalm [0039]:
“the charging station 210 may also comprise a communication interface 215 enabling the charging station to establish communication with the robotic lawnmower 100”
Rationale:
Askenmalm expressly provides the precise endpoint of the claimed prompt: a communication connection established between a mower-side wireless communication interface and a charging-station communication interface. Thus, the reference does not merely disclose generic wireless networking; it expressly establishes mower-to-docking-station communication.
Askenmalm further uses that link to exchange operational information concerning the boundary system. Therefore, establishing the connection has a concrete technical function in the Claim 2 architecture rather than being an unrelated convenience.
Claim Limitations Not Fully Taught by Thompson, Holgersson, Abramson, and Askenmalm
After Askenmalm, the following relationship remains:
determining whether dimension information of the working region meets a preset condition;
Examiner Note: specifically using the dimensional condition as the trigger;
and in a case that the dimension information of the working region meets the preset condition,
issuing prompt information
Examiner Note: where the prompt is issued because that dimensional condition is satisfied.
Disclosure by Dalfra
Examiner Note: Dalfra supplies the remaining condition-dependent recommendation/prompt framework.
determining whether dimension information of the working region meets a preset condition;
See at least Dalfra [0103]:
“the user may select a demanded accessory based on a working condition of the garden of the user.”
Dalfra continues:
“For example, a high-precision positioning module and the like may be selected for a garden having a large area.”
See also Dalfra [0079]:
“This solution, e.g. use of GPS positioning, is suitable for a user whose garden has no fence or has a very large area”
Rationale:
Dalfra expressly treats the magnitude of the garden area as a working condition that determines whether additional mower functionality is appropriate. The distinction between an ordinary garden and a garden having a “large area” or “very large area” necessarily requires determining whether the garden's dimension satisfies a criterion defining that condition.
Dalfra does not prescribe a particular numeric square-meter threshold. The claim likewise does not recite the value of the preset condition. A PHOSITA implementing Dalfra's disclosed “large area” configuration rule in Thompson's controller would have predictably stored a threshold or other criterion defining when the measured work-area dimension qualifies as “large,” then compared Thompson's already-calculated dimension information to that criterion. This is the ordinary computational implementation of Dalfra's express condition-based selection rule.
The mapping is therefore not based merely on the word “large.” Thompson supplies the quantitative work-region dimension, while Dalfra supplies the reason to classify that dimension against a predetermined condition because mower configuration changes according to whether the garden has a sufficiently large area.
and in a case that the dimension information of the working region meets the preset condition,
See at least Dalfra [0103]:
“the user may select a demanded accessory based on a working condition of the garden of the user.”
and:
“a high-precision positioning module and the like may be selected for a garden having a large area.”
Rationale:
Dalfra expressly makes selection of additional mower functionality conditional on the working-area condition. Thus, once the garden satisfies the “large area” condition, that condition becomes the reason for recommending or selecting additional functionality. This supplies the conditional relationship missing from Thompson.
issuing prompt information
See at least Dalfra [0065]:
“According to some embodiments of the invention the control module may monitor the working of the device, for example the use of the functional modules, and a functional module may be automatically recommended to the user.”
See also Dalfra [0070]:
“The voice recognition module simplifies human-machine interaction and can prompt a user to perform an operation”
Rationale:
Dalfra expressly teaches automatically providing a user with a recommendation for additional mower functionality and separately teaches a mower user-interface mechanism capable of prompting the user to perform an operation. Accordingly, Dalfra functionally supplies issuance of information intended to cause the user to take a configuration action.
The claim does not require a particular visual, audible, or textual form for the prompt. An automatic recommendation communicated through Dalfra's user-interaction functionality therefore constitutes prompt information.
for prompting to establish the wireless communication connection between the autonomous operation device and the docking station.
See at least Dalfra [0074]:
“the functional modules include a communications module, and specifically include one or more of a cellular communications unit, a Wi-Fi module, a Bluetooth module, a Sub 1G radio frequency module, or the like.”
See Dalfra [0076]:
“a radio frequency module may be provided ... This may be useful for example where the user’s Wi-Fi coverage does not include the whole of the working area.”
See also Dalfra [0079]:
“The use of mobile communication, such as cellular, or radio communication as described elsewhere herein is suitable for interconnection and communication between the machine and a user at a place that is not within Wi-Fi coverage.”
Rationale:
Dalfra establishes the broader technical relationship between working-area conditions and the desirability of additional wireless communication functionality. In particular, it recognizes that communication coverage may not extend over the entire working area and teaches radio-based communication as a solution.
Askenmalm supplies the more specific wireless connection required by the claim—between the mower and docking station. A PHOSITA applying Dalfra's condition-dependent recommendation architecture to Askenmalm's mower/station communication system would have had reason to recommend establishing that independent station link when Thompson's dimensional information indicates a sufficiently large work area. A larger work region increases the likelihood that the mower will operate remotely from the station and encounter weak boundary reception, precisely the condition for which Claim 2 uses the independent wireless station-status path.
Accordingly, Dalfra supplies the reason and prompting architecture, while Askenmalm supplies the specific connection being established.
Motivation to Combine Thompson, Holgersson, Abramson, Askenmalm, and Dalfra
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Thompson, Holgersson, Abramson, Askenmalm, and Dalfra before them, to further modify the Claim 2 mower-control system so that Thompson's controller determines quantitative dimension information concerning the bounded working region, compares that information with a predetermined criterion identifying a sufficiently large working region, and, when that criterion is satisfied, provides a user prompt recommending establishment of Askenmalm's wireless communication connection between the robotic mower and the docking station.
The modification follows directly from complementary problems and solutions identified by the references. Thompson already calculates working-area size information and dimensions such as the maximum span between boundaries. Askenmalm teaches that a wireless mower/station connection provides an independent communication path capable of carrying boundary-system status information. Dalfra expressly teaches selecting mower functionality according to working conditions, identifies a “large area” or “very large area” garden as a condition warranting additional functionality, teaches that communication coverage can fail to encompass the entire working area, and teaches automatically recommending functional modules to the user.
A PHOSITA would therefore have had a concrete engineering reason to use Thompson's quantitative work-area information to determine whether the working region falls into Dalfra's recognized large-area condition. Implementing that classification through comparison with a stored dimension criterion would have been a routine digital-control technique.
Once the work area satisfies that condition, recommending establishment of Askenmalm's independent mower/station wireless link would predictably improve communication availability and boundary-system diagnostics over a large region. This is particularly relevant to the inherited Claim 2 functionality, in which the wireless channel provides an alternative system-health indication when the locally sensed boundary signal is unavailable.
The resulting sequence is therefore functionally coherent rather than hindsight-driven: determine work-area dimensions using Thompson; classify the area according to Dalfra's recognized large-area operating condition; recommend the additional communication capability in accordance with Dalfra's automatic recommendation framework; and establish Askenmalm's known mower/station wireless connection. Holgersson and Abramson remain in the combination solely because Claim 6 inherits their Claim 1 functionality.
Therefore, after combining Thompson, Holgersson, Abramson, Askenmalm, and Dalfra, all limitations of Claim 6 are taught or rendered obvious.
Regarding Claim 7
The combination of Thompson, Holgersson, Abramson, Askenmalm, and Dalfra establishes the control method of Claim 6, which is the basis for Claim 7.
Disclosure by Thompson
Thompson teaches:
The control method for an autonomous operation device according to claim 6,
See at least Thompson [0059]:
“the timer duration may be fixed, or a function of the size of the area to be mowed.”
Rationale:
As established for Claim 6, the Thompson/Holgersson/Abramson/Askenmalm/Dalfra combination provides the parent method, including determining work-region dimensions, identifying a large-area condition, and prompting establishment of the mower/station wireless communication connection.
wherein the dimension information of the working region comprises at least one or any combination of:
See at least Thompson [0059]-[0060]:
“the timer duration may be fixed, or a function of the size of the area to be mowed.”
and:
“The maximum span between opposite boundaries may be calculated from the recorded locations of the boundary wire.”
Rationale:
Thompson expressly recognizes multiple quantitative descriptions of the bounded operating region, including its area/size and a distance dimension calculated from opposite boundary locations. Thus, Thompson establishes that the working region may be represented using one or more spatial dimensions.
a length of an outer boundary of the working region,
See at least Thompson [0021]:
“robotic mower 100 may operate in a specified area 102 that is surrounded by main or outer boundary wire 103 which may form a loop”
See also Thompson [0060]:
“The maximum span between opposite boundaries may be calculated from the recorded locations of the boundary wire.”
Rationale:
Thompson expressly records locations of the outer boundary wire and uses those locations to calculate geometric dimensions of the working region. Although Thompson does not expressly state “length of the outer boundary,” once the positions defining the closed boundary loop have been recorded, determining the length of that loop is a straightforward geometric calculation from the same boundary-location dataset.
Such a calculation would have been an obvious alternative work-region dimension because the amount or length of perimeter wire required to enclose a mowing region is a conventional geometric characteristic of that region. No new sensor, data source, or operating principle is required; the controller applies a known distance calculation to successive recorded positions defining the loop.
an area of a region enclosed by the outer boundary of the working region,
See at least Thompson [0059]:
“the timer duration may be fixed, or a function of the size of the area to be mowed.”
See also Thompson [0021]:
“robotic mower 100 may operate in a specified area 102 that is surrounded by main or outer boundary wire 103”
Rationale:
This is the strongest and most direct Claim 7 mapping. Thompson expressly treats the “size of the area to be mowed” as quantitative control information, and expressly establishes that the area is surrounded by outer boundary wire 103. Functionally, the disclosed area size therefore corresponds to the area of the region enclosed by the outer boundary.
Because Claim 7 requires only “at least one” of the listed alternatives, this disclosure by itself is sufficient to satisfy the dimensional-information limitation.
and a maximum value of a shortest distance from any point within the working region to a boundary line.
See at least Thompson [0060]:
“The maximum span between opposite boundaries may be calculated from the recorded locations of the boundary wire.”
Rationale:
Thompson's “maximum span between opposite boundaries” is related to, but is not mathematically identical to, the claimed “maximum value of a shortest distance from any point within the working region to a boundary line.” The former generally describes a maximum boundary-to-boundary width, whereas the claimed quantity is the maximum, over interior points, of each point's minimum distance to the boundary.
Accordingly, Thompson should not be characterized as expressly disclosing this alternative.
Nevertheless, once Thompson records the boundary geometry and expressly performs spatial calculations from those locations, calculating the claimed maximum-shortest-distance metric would have been a conventional geometric alternative for representing how far an interior point can be from the boundary. For a bounded mowing region, that value identifies the interior location most remote from the perimeter and is directly relevant to boundary-signal reception because magnetic boundary-signal strength generally decreases as the mower moves farther from the boundary.
Holgersson's weak-boundary-signal teaching further supplies a technical reason why such a metric would matter: it quantifies a worst-case boundary separation relevant to receiver signal strength. Thus, although not expressly disclosed by Thompson, the metric is technically motivated by the combined teachings.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Thompson
After Thompson has been fully reviewed:
an area of a region enclosed by the outer boundary of the working region is expressly/strongly taught;
a length of an outer boundary of the working region is rendered obvious from Thompson's stored boundary geometry;
and a maximum value of a shortest distance from any point within the working region to a boundary line is not expressly taught, although it is rendered obvious as a geometric worst-case separation metric for the reasons stated above.
Because Claim 7 expressly requires “at least one or any combination of” the alternatives, Thompson's disclosure of the area alternative is sufficient to establish the added subject matter of Claim 7.
Disclosure by Holgersson
Examiner Note: Holgersson does not need to supply another Claim 7 dimension because Thompson already establishes at least one claimed alternative.
Holgersson nevertheless provides corroborating technical motivation for a boundary-distance dimension by teaching in [0003]:
“as the signal becomes weaker, the gain of the amplifier is increased”
Rationale:
The significance of distance from the outer boundary in the combined system is not arbitrary. Holgersson's receiver responds to weakening boundary-signal strength, while the outer boundary is the source of the detected field. Accordingly, a geometric measure characterizing maximum separation from the boundary would have been useful for predicting the worst-case boundary-signal reception environment within the working region.
No separate Claim 7 limitation needs to be remapped to Holgersson because Thompson has already accounted for the disjunctive dimensional-information requirement.
Disclosure by Abramson
Abramson remains part of the rejection because Claim 7 depends from Claim 6 and ultimately Claim 1.
Abramson [0028] teaches that:
“The work area 24 is defined by a boundary 26, formed, for example, of a wire 27 ... arranged around the perimeter of the work area to define a perimeter wire 28 or a perimeter wire loop”
Rationale:
Abramson confirms the conventional geometry of the relevant autonomous-mower environment: a closed perimeter wire defines the outer boundary of a work region. This teaching is technically consistent with treating perimeter length, enclosed area, or interior-to-boundary separation as dimensions of the bounded work region.
However, no Claim 7 limitation is remapped to Abramson because Thompson has already established the required “at least one” dimensional alternative.
Disclosure by Askenmalm
Examiner Note: Askenmalm remains part of Claim 7 solely because the claim inherits Claim 6 and Claim 2's wireless mower/station communication functionality. Askenmalm does not need to disclose another work-area dimension and no previously mapped Claim 7 limitation is repeated under Askenmalm.
Disclosure by Dalfra
Examiner Note: Dalfra reinforces the functional significance of the area alternative.
See Dalfra [0103]:
“the user may select a demanded accessory based on a working condition of the garden of the user.”
and:
“a high-precision positioning module and the like may be selected for a garden having a large area.”
See also Dalfra [0079]:
“This solution, e.g. use of GPS positioning, is suitable for a user whose garden has no fence or has a very large area”
Rationale:
Dalfra expressly confirms that the area of the garden is a technically meaningful working-region dimension used to determine the appropriate mower configuration. Thus, Thompson's “size of the area to be mowed” is not merely incidental data; Dalfra expressly teaches using the large-area characteristic as a condition affecting functional configuration.
Motivation to Combine Thompson, Holgersson, Abramson, Askenmalm, and Dalfra for Claim 7
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Thompson, Holgersson, Abramson, Askenmalm, and Dalfra before them, to use at least the area of the region enclosed by Thompson's outer boundary wire as the dimension information evaluated in the Claim 6 large-working-region determination, and alternatively or additionally to derive other conventional geometric dimensions from Thompson's stored boundary-location data.
Thompson expressly uses the “size of the area to be mowed” in controller operation and records outer-boundary locations from which geometric dimensions are calculated. Dalfra independently teaches that a garden having a “large area” constitutes a specific working condition that justifies a different mower configuration. Using Thompson's enclosed-area measurement to determine whether Dalfra's large-area condition exists therefore represents the direct use of known quantitative information for the precise operating condition identified by the secondary reference.
This combination requires no speculative sensor or data source. Thompson already knows the outer boundary and already processes work-area size. The PHOSITA need only compare that known area value against the predetermined criterion used to classify the garden as sufficiently large under Dalfra's condition-dependent configuration framework.
To the extent additional dimensions are desired, perimeter length is predictably calculated from the stored boundary path, and a maximum-shortest-distance-to-boundary metric is a conventional geometric characterization of worst-case interior separation from the boundary. Holgersson provides an independent technical reason for the latter because signal reception deteriorates as the boundary signal becomes weaker, making maximum separation from the boundary relevant to receiver design and communication/recovery requirements.
Most importantly, Claim 7 is expressly disjunctive. Thompson's enclosed-area teaching alone satisfies the requirement that the dimension information comprise “at least one” of the listed quantities. The other alternatives therefore need not all be independently disclosed to establish obviousness of the claim.
Regarding Claim 8
The combination of Thompson, Holgersson, Abramson, and Askenmalm establishes the control method of Claim 2, which is the basis for Claim 8.
Disclosure by Thompson
Thompson teaches:
The control method for an autonomous operation device according to claim 2,
See at least Thompson [0015]:
“Vehicle control unit 101 may control all of the electronic functions of the robotic mower.”
Rationale:
As established for Claim 2, Thompson supplies the primary autonomous-mower control architecture, local boundary-signal detection, validity determination, continued-operation and stop functionality, and repeated boundary detection. Holgersson supplies the weak-signal receiver-gain increase; Abramson supplies the docking-station-on-boundary relationship; and Askenmalm supplies the first and second communication units, their wireless connection, and the independent working-state indication used in the Claim 2 control logic. Accordingly, the combination establishes the complete control method according to Claim 2.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Thompson
After Thompson, the following added Claim 8 limitations remain:
wherein the first communication unit and/or the second communication module is a radio transmission apparatus,
and a working frequency of the radio transmission apparatus is any one of 433 MHZ, 868 MHz, and 915 MHZ.
Disclosure by Holgersson
Examiner Note: Holgersson supplies the variable-gain boundary-signal receiver functionality inherited through Claim 2 but does not materially disclose that Claim 2's first or second communication unit is a separate radio transmission apparatus operating at 433 MHz, 868 MHz, or 915 MHz.
Accordingly, both Claim 8 limitations remain unresolved after Thompson and Holgersson are combined.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Thompson and Holgersson
wherein the first communication unit and/or the second communication module is a radio transmission apparatus,
and a working frequency of the radio transmission apparatus is any one of 433 MHZ, 868 MHz, and 915 MHZ.
Disclosure by Abramson
Examiner Note: Abramson remains part of the rejection because Claim 8 depends from Claim 2 and therefore ultimately incorporates Claim 1's docking-station-on-boundary relationship.
See at least Abramson [0046]:
“When a docking station is present along the perimeter wire 28, the robot 22 notes the position of the docking station as part of its mapping”
Rationale:
Abramson supplies the inherited station-on-boundary configuration but does not materially teach the specific radio-transmission apparatus or any of the claimed operating frequencies. Accordingly, both newly added Claim 8 limitations remain unresolved after Abramson.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Thompson, Holgersson, and Abramson
wherein the first communication unit and/or the second communication module is a radio transmission apparatus,
and a working frequency of the radio transmission apparatus is any one of 433 MHZ, 868 MHz, and 915 MHZ.
Disclosure by Askenmalm
Askenmalm teaches:
wherein the first communication unit and/or the second communication module is a radio transmission apparatus,
See at least Askenmalm [0024]:
“The robotic lawnmower 100 may further be arranged with a wireless communication interface 115 for communicating with other devices, such as a server, a personal computer or smartphone (or a tablet computer), or the charging station.”
See also Askenmalm [0039]:
“the charging station 210 may also comprise a communication interface 215 enabling the charging station to establish communication with the robotic lawnmower 100”
Askenmalm further states in [0039]:
“Examples of wireless communication standards are Bluetooth, Global System Mobile (GSM) and LTE (Long Term Evolution), to name a few.”
Rationale:
Askenmalm expressly teaches both a mower-side wireless communication interface 115 and a charging-station communication interface 215, which correspond respectively to Claim 2's second and first communication units. The reference expressly identifies Bluetooth, GSM, and LTE as examples of wireless communication standards used by those interfaces.
Those disclosed technologies communicate information by transmitting and receiving radio-frequency electromagnetic signals. Accordingly, Askenmalm's communication interface 115 and/or communication interface 215 functionally constitutes a radio transmission apparatus: each interface performs wireless transmission and reception of information over a radio-frequency communication link rather than through a wired connection.
This mapping therefore addresses what the claimed apparatus actually does. The first and/or second communication unit is not merely “wireless” in an abstract sense; Askenmalm implements the station/mower information exchange using known radio-based wireless standards and thus supplies the claimed radio-transmission functionality.
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Taught by Thompson, Holgersson, Abramson, and Askenmalm
After reviewing Askenmalm , the following limitation remains:
and a working frequency of the radio transmission apparatus is any one of 433 MHZ, 868 MHz, and 915 MHZ.
Askenmalm discloses radio-based communication but does not expressly specify that its station/mower communication interface operates at any one of the three frequencies recited by Claim 8.
Disclosure by Tan
Tan teaches:
and a working frequency of the radio transmission apparatus is any one of 433 MHZ, 868 MHz, and 915 MHZ.
See at least Tan [0099]:
“the signal detecting device 20 is further connected to a wireless communication device T1, and the another radio communication device T2 disposed on the self-moving robot 10 is connected to the control unit 80.”
Tan further states:
“the radio communication device T1 connected to the signal detecting device 20 sends a detected signal intensity G to the radio communication device T2 on the self-moving robot 10”
and:
“The radio communication device can adopt an infrared communication device, a WiFi device, a cellular mobile communication device, a Bluetooth device, a GPS device, a ZigBee device, a 2.4 GHZ radio communication device, a 433 MHZ radio communication device or Z-Wave radio communication device.”
Rationale:
Tan expressly discloses a pair of communication devices in a self-moving robot system, one of which is located on the self-moving robot and communicates detected signal information to the robot's control unit. More importantly, Tan expressly identifies a “433 MHZ radio communication device” as one implementation of the disclosed radio communication device.
Claim 8 is written in the alternative: the working frequency need only be any one of 433 MHz, 868 MHz, or 915 MHz. Tan's express 433 MHz disclosure therefore directly satisfies the claimed frequency selection. There is no requirement to additionally establish 868 MHz or 915 MHz once the 433 MHz alternative is taught.
Functionally, Tan's 433 MHz radio does the same type of work required of the Claim 8 communication apparatus: it transmits information wirelessly between cooperating components of a self-moving robot system. Tan therefore does not merely disclose the number “433 MHz” in an unrelated context; it expressly uses that frequency as the operating radio technology for transmitting robot-system information.
Motivation to Combine Thompson, Holgersson, Abramson, Askenmalm, and Tan
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Thompson, Holgersson, Abramson, Askenmalm, and Tan before them, to implement the wireless communication interface between the autonomous mower and docking station in the Thompson/Holgersson/Abramson/Askenmalm system using Tan's expressly disclosed 433 MHz radio communication apparatus.
The modification addresses an implementation choice left open by Askenmalm. Askenmalm expressly requires a wireless communication connection between communication interface 115 on the robotic mower and communication interface 215 on the charging station and expressly identifies radio-based wireless technologies such as Bluetooth, GSM, and LTE. Thus, Askenmalm establishes the communication function and system relationship but does not restrict that function to a single radio-frequency implementation.
Tan is closely analogous self-moving-robot art and expressly teaches transmitting robot-system signal information between a wireless communication device and a radio communication device on the self-moving robot. Tan further identifies 433 MHz as a known radio implementation for carrying that information.
A PHOSITA implementing Askenmalm's station/mower wireless status channel therefore would have recognized Tan's 433 MHz radio apparatus as a known alternative radio implementation for the already-required wireless information exchange. The proposed modification does not change the information being communicated, the purpose of Askenmalm's status link, Thompson's boundary-sensing operation, Holgersson's gain-control function, or Abramson's docking-station arrangement. It merely selects a known radio operating technology for performing Askenmalm's existing wireless transmission function.
The result would have been predictable: Askenmalm's operating-status information would continue to be transmitted wirelessly between the mower and docking-station communication units, but the radio link would operate using the known 433 MHz implementation taught by Tan. This is a predictable use of a known radio communication technology to perform the same wireless data-transfer function in an analogous self-moving robot environment.
The motivation is therefore based on technical compatibility and predictable substitution rather than hindsight. Askenmalm expressly invites wireless implementations, while Tan expressly provides a 433 MHz radio implementation in a self-moving robot system for transmitting signal information to the robot. A PHOSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the selected frequency affects the radio transport mechanism, not the logical content or function of the status information being communicated.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4311. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8:30AM - 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights