Autonomous Robot Scanning for Narrow Passage Lawn Coverage

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing autonomous robots, such as robotic lawnmowers, face challenges in efficiently navigating and scheduling lawn mowing tasks, particularly in areas with narrow passages and varying grass conditions, requiring complex user input for scheduling and lacking effective navigation methods to ensure complete coverage and avoid obstacles.

Innovation Solution

The implementation of a bi-directional communication system between the robot and charging station using power lines for control and data exchange, along with autonomous scanning methods that switch between random and parallel scanning patterns, and self-rescue behaviors to navigate through problem areas, allows the robot to determine optimal mowing schedules and navigate complex lawn geometries.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If autonomous robots use traditional navigation methods, then they can operate independently, but they cannot efficiently navigate complex lawn geometries with narrow passages

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvenavigation capabilityVSAvoidmowing efficiency
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The robot dynamically switches between random scanning mode and parallel scanning mode based on the geometry of the lawn area. In open areas, random scanning provides good coverage, while in narrow passages, the robot transitions to parallel scanning for efficient navigation, optimizing both adaptability and productivity

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The robot changes its navigation parameters by adjusting scanning patterns and movement strategies according to the detected environment. When narrow passages are detected, the robot modifies its scanning parameters from random to parallel patterns, enabling efficient navigation through complex geometries

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Adaptability or versatility

If the robot requires complex user input for scheduling, then it can accommodate various mowing requirements, but it increases user burden and reduces ease of operation

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvescheduling flexibilityVSAvoiduser input requirement
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The robot performs self-scheduling by autonomously determining optimal mowing schedules based on lawn area size, grass growth conditions, and operational constraints. The robot calculates and adjusts its own work schedule without requiring complex user input, maintaining scheduling flexibility while significantly reducing user burden

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The robot uses feedback from sensors that monitor grass conditions, battery status, and operational progress to automatically adjust and optimize mowing schedules. This closed-loop system enables the robot to adapt schedules based on real-time conditions without user intervention

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

3Device complexity

If the robot uses random scanning only, then navigation is simple, but complete coverage of the lawn area cannot be ensured

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvenavigation complexityVSAvoidcoverage completeness
Core Design Contradiction:
Device complexityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The robot dynamically adapts its scanning strategy by switching between random scanning in open areas and parallel scanning in narrow passages. This dynamic approach ensures complete coverage while maintaining relatively simple navigation logic, as the robot only changes modes when specific geometric conditions are detected

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

4Device complexity

If the robot operates without self-rescue behaviors, then control logic is simpler, but it cannot navigate through problem areas effectively

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecontrol logic complexityVSAvoidproblem area navigation
Core Design Contradiction:
Device complexityVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The robot prepares for problem areas by continuously monitoring its environment and detecting potential trapping situations before they occur. When a problem area is anticipated, the robot preemptively activates self-rescue behaviors such as wall-following or back-tracking, enabling effective navigation through complex geometries without significantly increasing control logic complexity

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Applied Scientific Principles

This section explains which scientific principles are used to turn an abstract innovation direction into a practical engineering solution.

Function Achieved in This Case

This solution enables the robot to autonomously determine optimal mowing schedules and efficiently navigate lawns, ensuring complete coverage while adapting to varying conditions and avoiding obstacles, reducing user input and operational time.

Implementation Method 1

a first line of the two power lines being used for communication between the robot and the charging station, and a second line of the two power lines being used for power supply to the robot

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectElectrical conduction: Conduction (electrical)

Data Source

PatentUS9079303B2Autonomous robot
Publication Date: 2015.07.14 MTD PRODUCTS INC
  • US9079303B2 patent drawing
  • US9079303B2 patent drawing
  • US9079303B2 patent drawing

AI summary

A robot designed for scanning within a work area, wherein the robot travels inside the work area in successive paths. The robot operates to scan the work area using a first scanning mode and monitors the length of each of the paths traveled by the robot. The robot than switches from the first scanning mode to a second scanning mode when an obstacle is encountered on a minimum number of consecutive said paths each having a length between a first threshold distance and a longer, second threshold distance. The robot switches back to the first scanning mode when the length of one of the paths has increased to more than the second threshold distance.