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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 depends from canceled claim 8. The examiner has interpreted claim 10 as dependent from claim 1 for purposes of examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111756280 A) in view of Hauser et al. (US 20180338415 A1) and Bejcek (US 20160106031 A1).
It is noted that all citations to Yang et al. (CN 111756280 A) are in reference to the corresponding English-translated document attached by the Examiner under NPL documents.
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses a riding lawn mower (10), comprising:
a seat (12) for a user to sit on;
a chassis (11) configured to support the seat;
a cutting assembly (13) for mowing;
a walking assembly (14) configured to drive the riding lawn mower to walk, the walking assembly comprising a walking wheel (141) and a walking motor (143) for driving the walking wheel;
a walking motor detection module comprising a current detection module (54) configured to obtain sampled currents of the walking motor (para. [0077] “current detection module 54…used to obtain the current of…motor 143”) and a speed detection module (52) configured to obtain an actual rotational speed of the walking motor (para. [0081] “actual speed detection module 52…are used to generate the actual speeds of…motor 143”);
an operating member (15) operable by the user to generate an operational amount to control the walking assembly (para. [0064] “operating device 15 is at least used to set the target speed of the first motor 143, and thus can set the target state of the riding lawnmower 10”);
wherein a control device (50) comprises:
a current transformation unit (507) configured to generate a first feedback current (id) and a second feedback current (iq) based on the sampled currents (para. [0142]);
a conversion unit (54) configured to convert the operational amount into a target rotational speed (n0) of the walking motor (para. [0127]):
a velocity controller (501) configured to compare the actual rotational speed (n) with the target rotational speed (n0) of the walking motor and obtain a first target current (id0) and a second target current (iq0) (para. [0128-0129]):
a first current controller (503) configured to compare the first feedback current (id) with the first target current (id0) and obtain a first target voltage (Ud) (para. [0143]);
a second current controller (504) configured to compare the second feedback current (iq) with the second target current (iq0) and obtain a second target voltage (Uq) (para. [0144]);
a voltage transformation unit (505) configured to generate target voltages (Ua,Ub) applied to the walking motor based on the first target voltage (Ud) and the second target voltage (Uq) (para. [0146]);
a drive signal generating unit (506) configured to generate drive signals (“PWM signals”) for driving the walking motor based on the target voltages (Ua,Ub) (bottom of para. [0148] – top of para. [0149]).
Yang fails to disclose a cruise control module configured to control the riding lawn mower to walk at a cruising speed in a cruise control mode and a turning detection unit configured to detect whether the riding lawn mower is making a turn; wherein the control device is configured to reduce a walking speed of the riding lawn mower when the riding lawn mower is in the cruise control mode and the turning detection unit determines that the riding lawn mower is making a turn.
In the same area, Hauser discloses a similar riding lawn mower (30) comprising a cruise control module (“cruise mode” initiated by cruise switch 62) configured to control the riding lawn mower to walk at a cruising speed in a cruise control mode and a turning detection unit (14) configured to detect whether the riding lawn mower is making a turn (para. [0029] system feedback unit 14 comprises feedback sensors 22 including a steering position sensor 391 to detect operator inputs to steering wheel 50, and “Based on operator inputs…processor(s) can recognize…a slow forward zero-turn, a fast forward non-zero turn, a slow reverse turn”, para. [0063]), wherein a control device (12) is configured to reduce a walking speed of the riding lawn mower when the riding lawn mower is in the cruise control mode and the turning detection unit determines that the riding lawn mower is making a turn (para. [0063] “after the cruise function is initiated…in a fast, tight turn, the processor can…slow the vehicle travel speed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a similar cruise control module and turning detection unit in the riding mower of Yang, as taught by Hauser, in order to allow an operator to selectively set and maintain a consistent speed as desired, and further to permit for safe turning during operation in cruise mode.
Hauser fails to discloses a coefficient adjustment unit that reduces a coefficient of proportionality of the first current controller when the riding lawn mower is in the cruise control mode and the riding lawn mower is making a turn.
However, such a method for reducing turning speed is known in the art. In the same field of endeavor, Bejcek discloses an automatic system for reducing a ground speed of a mower during turns, wherein when a control unit (80) determines that the mower is making a turn, a drive control multiplier of less than 1 is applied to the ground speed input so that ground speed of the mower is scaled down and limited (para. [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the control device of Yang/Hauser to utilize a similar process of reducing a coefficient of proportionality to reduce the ground speed, as taught by Bejcek, since this is a mere simple substitution of one known control process for automatically reducing a ground speed during turning for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Yang discloses the riding lawn mower of claim 1. Hauser further teaches wherein the control device has a safe turning speed and the control device reduces the walking speed of the riding lawn mower to the safe turning speed (implicit from para. [0063], vehicle speed is lowered to be within certain speed parameters, i.e. to a safe turning speed, for the specific travel mode).
Regarding claim 10, The combination of Yang discloses the riding lawn mower of claim 1. Yang further teaches wherein the control device (50) reduces the target rotational speed (n0) of the walking motor to reduce the walking speed of the riding lawn mower (para. [0149] target speed n0 of walking motor is set (e.g. increased or decreased) by the user through the operating device 15).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Posselius et al. (US 20140336818 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Yang discloses the riding lawn mower of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the control device is configured to restore the walking speed of the riding lawn mower to the cruising speed when the riding lawn mower finishes the turn.
Posselius discloses an agricultural work machine comprising a similar cruise control module wherein the vehicle operates at a cruising speed (Vc) when moving along a straight path, and upon beginning to make a turn, is transitioned to a slow speed (Vs) to avoid slipping and ensure safe turning, wherein the speed is switched back to the cruising speed upon completion of the turn (para. [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design Hauser’s cruise control module to automatically restore the lawn mower to the cruising speed upon completion of a turn, as taught by Posselius, to improve efficiency and reduce operator work/time of having to reinstate the cruising speed after every turn.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yang as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Legault et al. (US 20200245560 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yang discloses the riding lawn mower of claim 1. Hauser further teaches a steering wheel (50) having an initial position, wherein the turning detection unit (14) determines that the riding lawn mower (30) is making a turn when the steering wheel is rotated from the initial position (input from steering sensors 391 determines extent of vehicle turn for speed reduction), but does not explicitly detail a threshold degree of 15 degrees.
In the same field of endeavor, Legault teaches a similar riding mower wherein a steering angle threshold for representing a turn and initiating a ground speed reduction is 10° and/or 20° (as seen in Figs. 9A-8B, para. [0066,0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable threshold values for the steering angle threshold for determining a turn, such as any angle between 10 and 20 degrees, as taught by Legault, and since it has been held that it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yang discloses the riding lawn mower of claim 5. Hauser further teaches wherein the riding lawn mower has a plurality of driving modes (103,104,111) (cruise modes allowed in several vehicle states shown on FIG. 10, i.e. transport state 103, reduced speed forward mowing state 104, forward mowing state 111), but does not explicitly detail wherein the safe turning speed varies across different driving modes.
In the same field of endeavor, Legault teaches a similar riding mower wherein automatic ground speed reductions during turns varies across different mowing modes (92,94) (Fig. 9B, para. [0067-0068] safe turning speed is slower in mowing mode 94 than mowing mode 92) and/or a transport mode (9A, para. [0065-0066] different turning speed reduction rate in transport mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify different driving states of Hauser to comprise different safe turning speeds, as taught by Legault, since maximum ground speed during transport is typically higher than maximum ground speed while mowing, as well as to allow the operator to pick a mode given the mowing conditions that exist at the time or the type of mowing to be performed (Legault para. [0069]).
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujimoto et al. (US 20130030667 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Yang discloses riding lawn mower of claim 1, but fails to disclose a speed regulator configured to adjust the cruising speed of the riding lawn mower from a first speed to a second speed when the riding lawn mower is in the cruise control mode.
Fujimoto discloses a similar cruise control system for a utility work vehicle such as a grass mower (para. [0133]) comprising a speed regulator (90, Fig. 4) configured to adjust the cruising speed of the mower from a first speed to a second speed when in cruise control mode (Figs. 10-13, para. [0121-0122] “UP” button 91 and “DOWN” button 92 respectively increase and decrease current cruising speed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a similar speed control switch in the lawn mower of the combination, as taught by Fujimoto, in order to allow the user to selectively adjust to the desired cruising speed during travel in cruise control mode (Fujimoto para. [0014]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Yang discloses the riding lawn mower of claim 11.
Fujimoto further discloses wherein the speed regulator (90) is provided on a control panel (para. [0101] speed control switch 90 may be provided on the steering wheel or a front panel of the steering wheel assembly) and the control panel comprises a plurality of buttons (91,92) operable by the user to change the cruising speed (Figs. 10-13, para. [0121-0122] “UP” button 91 and “DOWN” button 92 respectively increase and decrease current cruising speed).
Regarding claims 13-14, the combination of Yang discloses the riding lawn mower of claim 12.
Fujimoto further discloses wherein the control panel comprises:
a first button (91) for increasing the cruising speed (para. [0121-0122] short period shallow press on UP button 91 increases current cruising travel speed, i.e. third operational command) as per claim 13, and
a second button (92) for decreasing the cruising speed (para. [0121] short period shallow press on down button 92 decreases current cruising travel speed, i.e. fifth operational command) as per claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Yang discloses the riding lawn mower of claim 13.
Fujimoto further discloses wherein the first button (91) is operable by the user to change the cruising speed directly to a stored walking speed provided for the cruise control mode (Figs. 10-13, para. [0121-0122] a long period deep press on the UP button 91 retrieves a stored speed value from the memory and sets this as the cruising speed, i.e. the second operational command).
Fujimoto does not explicitly detail wherein the stored cruising speed is a maximum walking speed allowed in cruise control mode. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the stored speed to be a maximum cruise control speed, since there are a limited number of choices as to what stored speed to directly set the cruise control to, and it would have been obvious as a design choice to consider and try, for the purpose of efficiency and design configuration, a maximum cruise control speed as the stored memory speed (KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)). Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al. (US 20130030667 A1) in view of Wynn-Grayson (US 11297766 B1).
Regarding independent claim 16, Fujimoto discloses a riding lawn mower (Fig. 3, para. [0134] utility work vehicle is a “grass mower”), comprising:
a seat for a user to sit on (“driver’s seat”) and a chassis configured to support the seat (vehicle frame, Fig. 3);
a cutting assembly for mowing (implicit from “grass mower”);
a walking assembly (drive wheels 3) configured to drive the riding lawn mower to walk;
a cruise control module (“cruise travel control”) configured to control the riding lawn mower to walk at a cruising speed in a cruise control mode (“constant speed mode” also called “cruising mode”) (para. [0004,0122]);
a speed regulator (90, Fig. 4) configured to adjust a cruising speed of the riding lawn mower from a first speed to a second speed when the riding lawn mower is in the cruise control mode (Figs. 10-13, para. [0121-0122] “UP” button 91 and “DOWN” button 92 respectively increase and decrease current cruising speed);
a steering wheel assembly (Fig. 4) comprising a steering wheel (“steering wheel”, para. [0101]);
a control panel (80), having an integrated display interface (81,82,83), mounted to the steering wheel assembly (Fig. 8);
wherein the speed regulator is provided on the control panel (para. [0101] constant speed switch 90 may be provided on the steering wheel or a front control panel of the steering assembly), and
a combination of the speed regulator, the control panel, and the display interface is at least partially surrounded by the steering wheel (Fig. 4).
Fujimoto further teaches wherein the display interface informs the user of a change of the cruising speed (para. [0110] speed change value set by constant speed switch 90 is displayed in the form a numeric value and a graphic), but fails to disclose wherein the display interface prompts the user with a change of the cruising speed (i.e. receives the user input for changing the cruising speed).
In the same area, Wynn-Grayson discloses a similar display interface 234 mounted on the steering column 230 of a riding lawn mower (Fig. 3 and 5), wherein the display interface prompts the user with a change of the traveling speed (col. 4 lines 43-45 user provides selective input to graphical display interface 234 to increase or decrease mower speed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the speed regulator of Fujimoto into a graphical display interface mounted on the steering wheel, as taught by Wynn-Grayson, as this is a mere simple substitution of one means for receiving a user speed-change input for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 18, Fujimoto in view of Wynn-Grayson discloses the riding lawn mower of claim 16, wherein the display interface comprises a plurality of buttons operable by the user to change the cruising speed (inherent from combination, buttons 91,92 of Fujimoto integrated into a display interface of the steering wheel).
Regarding claims 19-20, Fujimoto in view of Wynn-Grayson discloses the riding lawn mower of claim 18, wherein the display panel comprises:
a first button (91) for increasing the cruising speed (para. [0121-0122] short period shallow press on UP button 91 increases current cruising travel speed, i.e. third operational command), as per claim 19, and
a second button (92) for decreasing the cruising speed (para. [0121] short period shallow press on down button 92 decreases current cruising travel speed, i.e. fifth operational command), as per claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-2, 4-6, 10-16, 18-20, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, these arguments are moot given the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Joesph Rocca, can be reached on (571) 272-8971. 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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671