DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07-16-2026 has been entered.
The official correspondence below is a first action non-final on an RCE.
Response to Amendment
The amendments received 03-23-2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Claims 1, 9, and 15 have been amended.
No claims have been cancelled.
There are no new claims.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim(s) 1, 9, and 15 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
“mowing along the mow pattern when a static object is in proximity to the autonomous lawn mower and the static object is mowable such that one or more blades of the autonomous lawn mower are configured to contact the mowable static object”
The remaining/intervening claims are rejected based upon their dependency to a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balutis (US 20160174459 A1) in view of Trepagnier (JP 2020040659 A), and in further view of Ran (US 20200272165 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 1, as amended, Balutis discloses, a sensor (Balutis: [0035]); one or more processors (Balutis: [0085]); which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: receiving boundary information associated with a boundary of a region to be mowed (Balutis: [0038]; [0047]); receiving sensor data from the sensor while traversing at least a portion of the region within the boundary (Balutis: [0035]; [0039-0041]; [0094]); when one or more objects exist within the region, determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, one or more objects in the region (Balutis: [0039-0041]; [0094]); receiving a mow pattern (Balutis: [FIG. 3]; [0058]); and responsive to determining that the static object does not satisfy the one or more mowability criteria (Balutis: [0079]), receiving the modified mow pattern based at least in part on the boundary information and the static object (Balutis: [0079]), wherein the modified mow pattern causes the autonomous lawn mower to navigate around the static object (Balutis: [0079]).
In the implicit disclosure doctrine, in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (examiner: element “receiving a modified mow pattern when a static object is in proximity to the autonomous lawn mower and the object is not mowable”).
Balutis does not explicitly disclose classifying the one or more objects in the region as static objects that are currently not moving or dynamic objects that are currently moving; stopping the autonomous lawn mower when a dynamic object is in proximity to the autonomous lawn mower.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Trepagnier discloses, classifying the one or more objects in the region (Trepagnier: [0030] identify stationary and moving obstacles, and waypoints along the path of travel, and correct the path of travel to avoid both stationary and moving obstacles; [0062] if the identified object is a moving object traveling along the same road as the autonomous vehicle, the VSO will assume that the identified object will remain on this road ... if the identified object is moving along the same road as the autonomous vehicle and is moving at a substantially constant speed; [0048] The purpose is to adjust the speed of the autonomous vehicle (including stopping) to avoid moving obstacles trying to cross the planned path of the autonomous vehicle; [0113] Other fields of application for the navigation and control system of the present invention include: 1) Agricultural equipment that performs repetitive tasks such as harvesting crops from a field, plowing, mowing, etc.) as static objects that are currently not moving (Trepagnier: [0030] identify stationary and moving obstacles, and waypoints along the path of travel, and correct the path of travel to avoid both stationary and moving obstacles; [0062] if the identified object is a moving object traveling along the same road as the autonomous vehicle, the VSO will assume that the identified object will remain on this road ... if the identified object is moving along the same road as the autonomous vehicle and is moving at a substantially constant speed; [0048] The purpose is to adjust the speed of the autonomous vehicle (including stopping) to avoid moving obstacles trying to cross the planned path of the autonomous vehicle; [0113] Other fields of application for the navigation and control system of the present invention include: 1) Agricultural equipment that performs repetitive tasks such as harvesting crops from a field, plowing, mowing, etc.) or dynamic objects that are currently moving (Trepagnier: [0030] identify stationary and moving obstacles, and waypoints along the path of travel, and correct the path of travel to avoid both stationary and moving obstacles; [0062] if the identified object is a moving object traveling along the same road as the autonomous vehicle, the VSO will assume that the identified object will remain on this road ... if the identified object is moving along the same road as the autonomous vehicle and is moving at a substantially constant speed; [0048] The purpose is to adjust the speed of the autonomous vehicle (including stopping) to avoid moving obstacles trying to cross the planned path of the autonomous vehicle; [0113] Other fields of application for the navigation and control system of the present invention include: 1) Agricultural equipment that performs repetitive tasks such as harvesting crops from a field, plowing, mowing, etc.); stopping the autonomous lawn mower when a dynamic object is in proximity to the autonomous lawn mower (Trepagnier: [0030] identify stationary and moving obstacles, and waypoints along the path of travel, and correct the path of travel to avoid both stationary and moving obstacles; [0062] if the identified object is a moving object traveling along the same road as the autonomous vehicle, the VSO will assume that the identified object will remain on this road ... if the identified object is moving along the same road as the autonomous vehicle and is moving at a substantially constant speed; [0048] The purpose is to adjust the speed of the autonomous vehicle (including stopping) to avoid moving obstacles trying to cross the planned path of the autonomous vehicle; [0113] Other fields of application for the navigation and control system of the present invention include: 1) Agricultural equipment that performs repetitive tasks such as harvesting crops from a field, plowing, mowing, etc.), for the benefit of preventing collision not damaging stuff.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of mowing disclosed by Balutis to include object classification disclosed by Trepagnier. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to not break stuff.
Balutis, as modified, does not explicitly disclose determining that the static object satisfies one or more mowability criteria indicating that the static object is configured to be contacted by the one or more blades; responsive to determining that the static object satisfies the one or more mowability criteria, continuing to mow along the mow pattern without generating or receiving a modified mow pattern for the static object.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ran discloses, determining that the static object satisfies one or more mowability criteria indicating that the static object is configured to be contacted by the one or more blades; responsive to determining that the static object satisfies the one or more mowability criteria, continuing to mow along the mow pattern without generating or receiving a modified mow pattern for the static object (Ran: [0221] when there are some tall weeds or weeds with relatively large branch diameters in a lawn, such as dandelions, the autonomous lawn mower may also determine the weeds as obstacles, and performs an avoidance operation when the distance is less than the preset distance. However, in this case, there is no need to perform the avoidance operation. Therefore, in order to reduce unnecessary avoidance and improve obstacle avoidance efficiency, after it is determined that the distance between the obstacle and the autonomous lawn mower is less than the preset distance, strength of the received echo signal is further determined. The avoidance operation is performed to avoid the obstacle only when the strength of the echo signal is greater than preset strength. An echo signal formed through reflection by weeds is generally relatively weak, and an echo signal formed through reflection by obstacles such as a large stump and a stone sculpture that really need to be avoided are relatively strong. Therefore, increased determinations as to strength of the echo signal can improve obstacle avoidance efficiency of the autonomous lawn mower; [FIG. 13, 14 (see "NO" branches)]), for the benefit of improve obstacle avoidance efficiency of the autonomous lawn mower.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process disclosed by a modified Balutis to include not breaking a lawnmower taught by Ran. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve obstacle avoidance efficiency of the autonomous lawn mower.
REGARDING CLAIM 2, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Balutis also discloses, the boundary information comprises one or more of: an initial position for the autonomous lawn mower within the region, or boundary locations defining a perimeter of the region (Balutis: [FIG. 2, 7]; [0046]; [0048]).
REGARDING CLAIM 3, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Balutis also discloses, traversing at least the portion of the region comprises controlling the autonomous lawn mower to move in accordance with a random walk algorithm or a striping algorithm (Balutis: [0006]; [0093] (examiner: in this case, algorithm is interpreted as a process or set of rules to be followed; see corn rowing)).
REGARDING CLAIM 4, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Balutis also discloses, the operations further comprise determining one or more mow parameters associated with the mow pattern, and wherein the one or more mow parameters comprise at least one or more of a mower speed, a blade deck height, deck type or a blade speed (Balutis: [0041]; [0059]).
REGARDING CLAIM 5, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Balutis also discloses, the mow pattern comprises a series of waypoints and mowing occurs by traveling along a path from one waypoint to a next waypoint (Balutis: [0067]; [FIG. 7A, 7B]).
REGARDING CLAIM 6, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 5, and further, Balutis also discloses, the controlling comprises using incremental motion vectors compared to the path and reducing an error between each incremental motion vector and the path (Balutis: [0051]; [0058]; [0067]; [FIG. 7A, 7B]).
REGARDING CLAIM 7, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 5, and further, Balutis also discloses, transmitting a signal in response to determining that one or more objects exist in the region, the signal configured to provide notification of the one or more objects (Balutis: [0041]; [0094]; [0115]).
REGARDING CLAIM 8, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Balutis also discloses, controlling the autonomous lawn mower to mow the region comprises receiving additional sensor data from the sensor while mowing the region (Balutis: [0041]; also see at least [0115] and [0117]) and using the additional sensor data to update a mow pattern or a mow parameter (Balutis: [0094]; also see at least [0115] and [0117]).
REGARDING CLAIM 9, as amended, Balutis discloses, receiving boundary information defining a boundary of a region to be mowed (Balutis: [0038]; [0047]); controlling a lawn mower to traverse at least a portion of the region (Balutis: [0094]); receiving sensor data from a sensor associated with the autonomous lawn mower (Balutis: [0035]; [0039-0041]; [0094]); when one or more objects exist within the region, determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, one or more objects in the region (Balutis: [0039-0041]); receiving a mow pattern (Balutis: [FIG. 3]; [0058]); controlling the lawn mower to mow the region based on the mow pattern (Balutis: [FIG. 3]; [0058]); and responsive to determining that the static object does not satisfy the one or more mowability criteria (Balutis: [0079]), receiving the modified mow pattern based at least in part on the boundary information and the static object (Balutis: [0079]), wherein the modified mow pattern causes the autonomous lawn mower to navigate around the static object (Balutis: [0079]).
In the implicit disclosure doctrine, in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (examiner: element “receiving a modified mow pattern when a static object is in proximity to the autonomous lawn mower and the object is not mowable”).
Balutis does not explicitly disclose classifying the one or more objects in the region as static objects that are currently not moving or dynamic objects that are currently moving; stopping the autonomous lawn mower when a dynamic object is in proximity to the autonomous lawn mower.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Trepagnier discloses, classifying the one or more objects in the region (Trepagnier: [0030]; [0062]; [0048]; [0113]) as static objects that are currently not moving (Trepagnier: [0030]; [0062]; [0048]; [0113]) or dynamic objects that are currently moving (Trepagnier: [0030]; [0062]; [0048]; [0113]); stopping the autonomous lawn mower when a dynamic object is in proximity to the autonomous lawn mower (Trepagnier: [0030]; [0062]; [0048]; [0113]), for the benefit of preventing collision not damaging stuff.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of mowing disclosed by Balutis to include object classification disclosed by Trepagnier. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to not break stuff.
Balutis, as modified, does not explicitly disclose determining that the static object satisfies one or more mowability criteria indicating that the static object is configured to be contacted by the one or more blades; responsive to determining that the static object satisfies the one or more mowability criteria, continuing to mow along the mow pattern without generating or receiving a modified mow pattern for the static object.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ran discloses, determining that the static object satisfies one or more mowability criteria indicating that the static object is configured to be contacted by the one or more blades; responsive to determining that the static object satisfies the one or more mowability criteria, continuing to mow along the mow pattern without generating or receiving a modified mow pattern for the static object (Ran: [0221]; [FIG. 13, 14 (see "NO" branches)]), for the benefit of improve obstacle avoidance efficiency of the autonomous lawn mower.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process disclosed by a modified Balutis to include not breaking a lawnmower taught by Ran. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve obstacle avoidance efficiency of the autonomous lawn mower.
REGARDING CLAIM 10, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 9, and further, Balutis also discloses, determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, one or more objects in the region (Balutis: [0041]; [0094]; also see at least [0115] and [0117]), wherein determining one or more objects in the region comprises controlling the autonomous lawn mower in accordance with a random walk algorithm or a striping algorithm (Balutis: [0006]; [0093]).
Balutis does explicitly recite the terminology "determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, one or more objects in the region, wherein determining one or more objects in the region comprises controlling the lawn mower in accordance with a random walk algorithm or a striping algorithm". However, Balutis discloses detecting and determining object/obstacle data while traveling in its environment, and a striping (corn row pattern) algorithm (algorithm is interpreted as a process or set of rules to be followed; see corn rowing), which, the examiner submits, implies or is capable of said detecting while corn rowing.
REGARDING CLAIM 11, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 9, and further, Balutis also discloses, determining a mow parameter associated with the mow pattern, wherein the mow parameter comprises at least one or more of a mower speed, a blade deck height, deck type or a blade speed (Balutis: [0041]; [0059]).
REGARDING CLAIM 12, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 9, and further, Balutis also discloses, controlling the autonomous lawn mower to minimize a difference between a state of the autonomous lawn mower and a state defined by one or more waypoints of the series of waypoints (Balutis: [0051]; [0058]).
REGARDING CLAIM 13, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 9, and further, Balutis also discloses, transmitting a signal in response to determining that one or more objects exist in the region, the signal configured to provide notification of the one or more objects (Balutis: [0041]; [0094]; [0115]).
REGARDING CLAIM 14, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 9, and further, Balutis also discloses, receiving additional sensor data from the sensor while mowing the region (Balutis: [0041]; also see at least [0115] and [0117]) and using the additional sensor data to update a mow pattern or a mow parameter (Balutis: [0094]; also see at least [0115] and [0117]).
REGARDING CLAIM 15, as amended, Balutis discloses, receiving boundary information defining a boundary of a region to be mowed (Balutis: [0038]; [0047]); controlling an autonomous lawn mower to traverse at least a portion of the region (Balutis: [0079]); receiving sensor data from a sensor associated with the autonomous lawn mower (Balutis: [0035]; [0039-0041]; [0094]); determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, that one or more objects exist in the region (Balutis: [0039-0041]; [0094]); receiving a mow pattern (Balutis: [FIG. 3]; [0058]); and responsive to determining that the static object does not satisfy the one or more mowability criteria (Balutis: [0079]), receiving the modified mow pattern based at least in part on the boundary information and the static object (Balutis: [0079]), wherein the modified mow pattern causes the autonomous lawn mower to navigate around the static object (Balutis: [0079]).
In the implicit disclosure doctrine, in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (examiner: element “receiving a modified mow pattern when a static object is in proximity to the autonomous lawn mower and the object is not mowable”).
Balutis does not explicitly disclose classifying the one or more objects in the region as static objects that are currently not moving or dynamic objects that are currently moving; stopping the autonomous lawn mower when a dynamic object is in proximity to the autonomous lawn mower.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Trepagnier discloses, classifying the one or more objects in the region (Trepagnier: [0030]; [0062]; [0048]; [0113]) as static objects that are currently not moving (Trepagnier: [0030]; [0062]; [0048]; [0113]) or dynamic objects that are currently moving (Trepagnier: [0030]; [0062]; [0048]; [0113]); stopping the autonomous lawn mower when a dynamic object is in proximity to the autonomous lawn mower (Trepagnier: [0030]; [0062]; [0048]; [0113]), for the benefit of preventing collision not damaging stuff.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of mowing disclosed by Balutis to include object classification disclosed by Trepagnier. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to not break stuff.
Balutis, as modified, does not explicitly disclose determining that the static object satisfies one or more mowability criteria indicating that the static object is configured to be contacted by the one or more blades; responsive to determining that the static object satisfies the one or more mowability criteria, continuing to mow along the mow pattern without generating or receiving a modified mow pattern for the static object.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ran discloses, determining that the static object satisfies one or more mowability criteria indicating that the static object is configured to be contacted by the one or more blades; responsive to determining that the static object satisfies the one or more mowability criteria, continuing to mow along the mow pattern without generating or receiving a modified mow pattern for the static object (Ran: [0221]; [FIG. 13, 14 (see "NO" branches)]), for the benefit of improve obstacle avoidance efficiency of the autonomous lawn mower.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process disclosed by a modified Balutis to include not breaking a lawnmower taught by Ran. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve obstacle avoidance efficiency of the autonomous lawn mower.
REGARDING CLAIM 16, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 15, and further, Balutis also discloses, detecting, based at least in part on the sensor data, one or more objects in the region (Balutis: [0041]), wherein the mow pattern is further based at least in part on the one or more objects (Balutis: [FIG. 7A(1900a)] patter based on avoidance can be observed), and wherein controlling the autonomous lawn mower to traverse the at least the portion of the region comprises controlling the autonomous lawn mower in accordance with a random walk algorithm or a striping algorithm (Balutis: [0006]; [0093]).
REGARDING CLAIM 17, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 15, and further, Balutis also discloses, the operations further comprise determining a mow parameter associated with the mow pattern, and wherein the mow parameter comprises at least one or more of a mower speed, a blade deck height, deck type or a blade speed (Balutis: [0041]; [0059]).
REGARDING CLAIM 18, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 15, and further, Balutis also discloses, the mow pattern comprises a series of waypoints (Balutis: [0067]; [FIG. 7A, 7B]), controlling the autonomous lawn mower to minimize a difference between a state of the autonomous lawn mower and a state defined by one or more waypoints of the series of waypoints (Balutis: [0051]; [0058]).
REGARDING CLAIM 19, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 15, and further, Balutis also discloses, transmitting a signal in response to determining that one or more objects exist in the region, the signal configured to provide notification of the one or more objects (Balutis: [0041]; [0094]; [0115]).
REGARDING CLAIM 20, Balutis, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 15, and further, Balutis also discloses, receiving additional sensor data from the sensor while mowing the region (Balutis: [0041]; also see at least [0115] and [0117]) and using the additional sensor data to update a mow pattern or a mow parameter (Balutis: [0094]; also see at least [0115] and [0117]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 9, and 15 rejection under 35 USC §112(a) have been considered but are moot because the amendments received 07-16-2026 contain revised language regarding the contentious limitations. Thus, the matter specifically challenged in the argument is moot.
Applicant's arguments beginning on page 4, received 07-16-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. To the examiner’s best understanding, the applicant has contended that the prior art as combined fails to disclose all of the limitations of the independent claim. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, the applicant has contended that the prior art of record, Ran (US 20200272165 A1), fails to disclose, to the examiner’s best understanding, determining that the static object satisfies one or more mowability criteria indicating that the static object is configured to be contacted by the one or more blades (Trepagnier: [0221] when there are some tall weeds or weeds with relatively large branch diameters in a lawn, such as dandelions, the autonomous lawn mower may also determine the weeds as obstacles … However, in this case, there is no need to perform the avoidance operation … strength of the received echo signal is further determined … avoid the obstacle only when the strength of the echo signal is greater than preset strength … ); responsive to determining that the static object satisfies the one or more mowability criteria, continuing to mow along the mow pattern without generating or receiving a modified mow pattern for the static object (Trepagnier: paragraph [0221] implies or suggests that when an obstacle is detected, a second verification is performed, and if the signal is low enough, the machine simply carries-on). In considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (mpep 2144.01). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation … a change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent” … It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions (mpep 2144.05.II.A). The examiner respectfully submits, while the terminology of “continue mowing along a pattern” is omitted, it is implied and obvious to one of ordinary skill. Because the prior art of record discloses that which is claimed, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejection of record under 35 USC §103, obviousness.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pjevach (US 20210116911 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARRON SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, ANGELA ORTIZ can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights