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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 12/26/2025 for application number 18/339,562 filed on 06/22/2023, in which claims 15-28 were previously presented for examination.
Claims 15 and 26-27 are amended.
Claims 23 and 25 are canceled.
Claims 29-36 are new.
Claims 15-22, 24, and 26-36 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 12/26/2025 in response to the Non-Final office action mailed on 10/01/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 USC §§ 102 and 103: With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, Applicant has amended the independent claims and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application. Therefore, the Office has supplied new grounds of rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
FINAL OFFICE ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 16-18, 29, 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 16, 17, 29, 31 recite “a starting point” which is first introduced in claim 15, and thus the article is improper.
Claim 18 recites “point” which appears to be identical to “starting point” in claim 15. The term “point” is treated as the same as “starting point” for examining purposes.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the controller changes the travel speed before the lawn mower reaches a starting point of the height change in the lawn” which does not further limit the subject matter of claim 15. Claim 15 recites “a height change in the lawn” and “the controller changes the travel speed before the lawn mower reaches a starting point of the height change.”
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 15-18, 29-30, 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalwani (US 2024/0130274 A1) in view of Johansson et al. (US 2015/0191170 A1, hereinafter “Johansson”).
Regarding claim 15, Lalwani discloses a lawn mower that travels on a lawn and cuts grass (Lalwani at para. [0011]: “mower slope sensing system 100 may be on a grass mowing machine such as fairway mower having three or more blade or reel cutting units, or on any other grass mowing machine having a multiple cutting units”), comprising:
a drive source generating power for the lawn mower to travel (Lalwani at para. [0011]: “The grass mowing machine may be powered by an internal combustion engine, batteries, or other energy source”); and
a controller receiving a height at each position of the lawn from a sensor that detects the height at each position of the lawn or from a memory that stores the height at each position of the lawn (Lalwani at para. [0011]: “The controller may include data storage for one more more [sic] elevation maps 102 of golf courses or playing fields. Each map may include the elevation of a plurality of different locations on the golf course or playing field”; para. [0012]: “mower slope sensing system 100 also may include terrain elevation sensor 103”), the controller controlling the drive source based on a height change in the lawn in front in a travel direction to change a travel speed (Lalwani at para. [0014]: “The controller also may command the traction drive system to increase or decrease vehicle ground speed based on elevation data”),
wherein, when the lawn mower is traveling while cutting the grass, the controller changes the travel speed (Lalwani at para. [0014]: “The controller also may command the traction drive system to increase or decrease vehicle ground speed based on elevation data”).
However, Lalwani does not explicitly state:
wherein, when the lawn mower is traveling while cutting the grass, the controller changes the travel speed before the lawn mower reaches a starting point of the height change and returns the travel speed to a value before the speed change after the lawn mower passes the starting point.
In the same field of endeavor, Johansson teaches:
wherein, when the lawn mower is traveling while cutting the grass, the controller changes the travel speed before the lawn mower reaches a starting point of the height change and returns the travel speed to a value before the speed change after the lawn mower passes the starting point (Johansson at FIG. 7 and para. [0115]: “the reference speed governing cruise control system can reduce the reference speed vref-cc compared with its set speed v set cc prior to the downhill gradient, which means that the actual speed v act drops prior to the downhill gradient, as shown in FIG. 7 (where the reference speed v ref-cc is a dotted line)” “here the reference speed vref_dhsc for the downhill speed control system can be set to the same as the set speed vset cc for the reference speed governing cruise control system, V ref_dhsc =v set_cc, during the initial period T of the downhill gradient 12”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani by adding the travel speed of Johansson with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani in view of Johansson is to improve speed reduction control and fuel efficiency.
Regarding claim 16, Lalwani in view of Johansson teaches the lawn mower according to claim 15.
Johansson further teaches wherein the controller changes the travel speed before the lawn mower reaches a starting point of the height change in the lawn (Johansson at FIG. 7 and para. [0115]: “the reference speed governing cruise control system can reduce the reference speed vref-cc compared with its set speed v set cc prior to the downhill gradient, which means that the actual speed v act drops prior to the downhill gradient, as shown in FIG. 7 (where the reference speed v ref-cc is a dotted line)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani by adding the travel speed of Johansson with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani in view of Johansson is to improve speed reduction control and fuel efficiency.
Regarding claim 17, Lalwani in view of Johansson teaches the lawn mower according to claim 15.
Johansson further teaches wherein the controller reduces the travel speed before the lawn mower reaches a starting point of the height change in the lawn and increases the travel speed after the lawn mower passes the starting point (Johansson at FIG. 7 and para. [0115]: “the reference speed governing cruise control system can reduce the reference speed vref-cc compared with its set speed v set cc prior to the downhill gradient, which means that the actual speed v act drops prior to the downhill gradient, as shown in FIG. 7 (where the reference speed v ref-cc is a dotted line)” “here the reference speed vref_dhsc for the downhill speed control system can be set to the same as the set speed vset cc for the reference speed governing cruise control system, V ref_dhsc =v set_cc, during the initial period T of the downhill gradient 12”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani by adding the travel speed of Johansson with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani in view of Johansson is to improve speed reduction control and fuel efficiency.
Regarding claim 18, Lalwani in view of Johansson teaches the lawn mower according to claim 15.
Johansson further teaches wherein the controller reduces the travel speed before the lawn mower reaches a point where a slope angle of the lawn begins to decrease and increases the travel speed after the lawn mower passes the point (Johansson at FIG. 7 and para. [0115]: “the reference speed governing cruise control system can reduce the reference speed vref-cc compared with its set speed v set cc prior to the downhill gradient, which means that the actual speed v act drops prior to the downhill gradient, as shown in FIG. 7 (where the reference speed v ref-cc is a dotted line)” “here the reference speed vref_dhsc for the downhill speed control system can be set to the same as the set speed vset cc for the reference speed governing cruise control system, V ref_dhsc =v set_cc, during the initial period T of the downhill gradient 12”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani by adding the travel speed of Johansson with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani in view of Johansson is to improve speed reduction control and fuel efficiency.
Regarding claim 29, Lalwani in view of Johansson teaches the lawn mower according to claim 15.
Johansson further teaches wherein the controller reduces the travel speed before the lawn mower reaches a starting point of the height change and increases the travel speed after the lawn mower passes the starting point to return the travel speed to a value before the speed reduction (Johansson at FIG. 7 and para. [0115]: “the reference speed governing cruise control system can reduce the reference speed vref-cc compared with its set speed v set cc prior to the downhill gradient, which means that the actual speed v act drops prior to the downhill gradient, as shown in FIG. 7 (where the reference speed v ref-cc is a dotted line)” “here the reference speed vref_dhsc for the downhill speed control system can be set to the same as the set speed vset cc for the reference speed governing cruise control system, V ref_dhsc =v set_cc, during the initial period T of the downhill gradient 12”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani by adding the travel speed of Johansson with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani in view of Johansson is to improve speed reduction control and fuel efficiency.
Regarding claim 30, Lalwani in view of Johansson teaches the lawn mower according to claim 15.
Johansson further teaches wherein the controller changes the travel speed to a speed lower than a travel speed in a horizontal area before the lawn mower reaches the starting point of the height change which is a transition from the horizontal area to a downward sloping area, and returns the travel speed to the travel speed in the horizontal area after the lawn mower passes the starting point (Johansson at FIG. 7 and para. [0115]: “the reference speed governing cruise control system can reduce the reference speed vref-cc compared with its set speed v set cc prior to the downhill gradient, which means that the actual speed v act drops prior to the downhill gradient, as shown in FIG. 7 (where the reference speed v ref-cc is a dotted line)” “here the reference speed vref_dhsc for the downhill speed control system can be set to the same as the set speed vset cc for the reference speed governing cruise control system, V ref_dhsc =v set_cc, during the initial period T of the downhill gradient 12”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani by adding the travel speed of Johansson with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani in view of Johansson is to improve speed reduction control and fuel efficiency.
Regarding claim 35, Lalwani in view of Johansson teaches the lawn mower according to claim 15.
Johansson further teaches wherein the controller reduces the travel speed to a speed at which no uncut area occurs when passing the starting point of the height change (Johansson at FIG. 7 and para. [0115]: “the reference speed governing cruise control system can reduce the reference speed vref-cc compared with its set speed v set cc prior to the downhill gradient, which means that the actual speed v act drops prior to the downhill gradient, as shown in FIG. 7 (where the reference speed v ref-cc is a dotted line)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani by adding the travel speed of Johansson with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani in view of Johansson is to improve speed reduction control and fuel efficiency.
Office Note: The limitation “a speed at which no uncut area occurs when passing the starting point of the height change” is an intended result which is functional and does not provide a clear cut indication of at least the boundaries of “a speed at which no uncut area occurs.” Therefore, no patentable weight is given to the limitation (MPEP § 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claim 36, Lalwani in view of Johansson teaches the lawn mower according to claim 15.
Johansson further teaches, wherein the controller reduces the travel speed before the lawn mower travels on an uneven area (Johansson at FIG. 7 and para. [0115]: “the reference speed governing cruise control system can reduce the reference speed vref-cc compared with its set speed v set cc prior to the downhill gradient, which means that the actual speed v act drops prior to the downhill gradient, as shown in FIG. 7 (where the reference speed v ref-cc is a dotted line)”; FIG. 7: The vehicle travels on a road having gradient changes at T1 and T2 which indicates that the road includes an “uneven area”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani by adding the travel speed of Johansson with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani in view of Johansson is to improve speed reduction control and fuel efficiency.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalwani in view of Johansson further in view of Matsuda et al. (US 2018/0338417 A1, hereinafter “Matsuda”).
Regarding claim 19, Lalwani in view of Johansson teaches the lawn mower according to claim 15.
However, Lalwani in view of Johansson does not explicitly state wherein the controller switches a first mode and a second mode and wherein the travel speed is set higher in the second mode compared to the first mode .
In the same field of endeavor, Matsuda teaches wherein the controller switches a first mode and a second mode and wherein the travel speed is set higher in the second mode compared to the first mode (Matsuda at FIG. 5 and para. [0046]: “When the mode setting section 70 is operated to select a particular control mode, a signal indicative of the selected control mode is given to the mode setting section 51”; para. [0048]: “A constant value, at which the maximal vehicle speed remains unchanged even when the cutter blade rotation speed becomes higher, is greatest in the full power mode, which mode is followed by such constant value in the standard mode and then by such constant value in the eco mode”; The maximal vehicle speed is set higher in the standard or full power mode than the eco 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 the lawn mower of Lalwani in view of Johansson by adding the first and second modes of Matsuda et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani in view of Johansson further in view of Matsuda is to provide increased fuel efficiency and enhanced performance.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalwani in view of Johansson further in view of Matsuda and Fujiwara et al. (US 2014/0059990 A1, hereinafter “Fujiwara”).
Regarding claim 20, Lalwani in view of Johansson further in view of Matsuda teaches the lawn mower according to claim 19.
However, Lalwani in view of Johansson further in view of Matsuda does not explicitly state wherein the controller transmits information about which of the first mode and the second mode is currently selected to a display apparatus and displays the mode currently selected on the display apparatus.
In the same field of endeavor, Fujiwara teaches wherein the controller transmits information about which of the first mode and the second mode is currently selected to a display apparatus and displays the mode currently selected on the display apparatus (Fujiwara at para. [0067]: “The engine mode displaying area is provided on the right-upper side of the engine rotational speed display area in the case of the example illustrated in FIG. 6 and there is formed a bottle-like engine mode icon EM. Lighting of this engine mode icon EM indicates selection of the isochronous control mode. Non-lighting of this engine mode icon EM indicates selection of the droop control 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 the lawn mower of Lalwani in view of Johansson further in view of Matsuda by adding the display of Fujiwara et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani in view of Johansson further in view of Matsuda and Fujiwara is to provide vehicle control information to users.
Claim 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalwani in view of Johansson further in view of Yao et al. (US 2023/0409043 A1, hereinafter “Yao”).
Regarding claim 21, Lalwani in view of Johansson teaches the lawn mower according to claim 15.
However, Lalwani in view of Johansson does not explicitly state wherein the controller switches a first speed range and a second speed range that includes a speed higher than a maximum speed in the first speed range and does not include a speed lower than a minimum speed in the first speed range, and wherein the controller sets the second speed range when the lawn in front in the travel direction is on level ground.
In the same field of endeavor, Yao teaches wherein the controller switches a first speed range and a second speed range that includes a speed higher than a maximum speed in the first speed range and does not include a speed lower than a minimum speed in the first speed range (Yao at para. [0120]: “determining, for each polygonal plane in the second polygonal grid map, an upper speed limit value of the autonomous mobile mowing apparatus on the subregion represented by the polygonal plane”; The lowest possible speed is zero), and wherein the controller sets the second speed range when the lawn in front in the travel direction is on level ground (Yao at para. [0121]: “where a magnitude of the gradient is inversely proportional to a magnitude of the upper speed limit value of the autonomous mobile mowing apparatus moving on the subregion represented by the polygonal plane”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani in view of Johansson by adding the first and second speed ranges of Yao with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani in view of Johansson further in view of Yao is to improve mower safety.
Regarding claim 22, Lalwani in view of Johansson teaches the lawn mower according to claim 15.
However, Lalwani in view of Johansson does not explicitly state wherein the controller switches a first speed range and a second speed range that includes a speed higher than a maximum speed in the first speed range and does not include a speed lower than a minimum speed in the first speed range, and wherein the controller sets the first speed range when the lawn mower is located at a boundary between an operation area and another area.
In the same field of endeavor, Yao teaches wherein the controller switches a first speed range and a second speed range that includes a speed higher than a maximum speed in the first speed range and does not include a speed lower than a minimum speed in the first speed range (Yao at para. [0120]: “determining, for each polygonal plane in the second polygonal grid map, an upper speed limit value of the autonomous mobile mowing apparatus on the subregion represented by the polygonal plane”; The lowest possible speed is zero), and wherein the controller sets the first speed range when the lawn mower is located at a boundary between an operation area and another area (Yao at para. [0121]: “where a magnitude of the gradient is inversely proportional to a magnitude of the upper speed limit value of the autonomous mobile mowing apparatus moving on the subregion represented by the polygonal plane”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani in view of Johansson by adding the first and second speed ranges of Yao with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani in view of Johansson further in view of Yao is to improve mower safety.
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalwani in view of Yao further in view of Johansson.
Regarding claim 26, Lalwani discloses a lawn mower that travels on a lawn and cuts grass (Lalwani at para. [0011]: “mower slope sensing system 100 may be on a grass mowing machine such as fairway mower having three or more blade or reel cutting units, or on any other grass mowing machine having a multiple cutting units”), comprising:
a drive source generating power for the lawn mower to travel (Lalwani at para. [0011]: “The grass mowing machine may be powered by an internal combustion engine, batteries, or other energy source”); and
a controller controlling the drive source (Lalwani at para. [0014]: “The controller also may command the traction drive system to increase or decrease vehicle ground speed based on elevation data”) and
However, Lalwani does not explicitly state:
sets a first speed range or a second speed range that includes a speed higher than a maximum speed in the first speed range and does not include a speed lower than a minimum speed in the first speed range based on information about surroundings of the lawn mower received from a sensor or a memory,
wherein the travel control based on the first speed range is executed in an area including a starting point of the height change where a slope angle of the lawn decreases, and
wherein the travel control based on the second speed range is executed in an area other than the area including the starting point.
Nevertheless, Lalwani at least suggests the idea of increasing or decreasing ground speed based on sensor data (see Lalwani at para. [0011]-[0014]).
In the same field of endeavor, Yao teaches:
sets a first speed range or a second speed range that includes a speed higher than a maximum speed in the first speed range and does not include a speed lower than a minimum speed in the first speed range based on information about surroundings of the lawn mower received from a sensor or a memory (Yao at para. [0033]: “The sensor can detect data of the automatic mower, thereby positioning the automatic mower. For example, the sensor on the automatic mower may include, but is not limited to, a built-in IMU (inertial navigation unit), a GPS (global positioning system), a magnetometer, a barometer, etc.”; para. [0038]: “acquiring a first polygonal grid map corresponding to a target work region”; para. [0039]: “The first polygonal grid map includes a three dimensional continuous surface formed by splicing a plurality of polygonal planes, and different polygonal planes represent different subregions in the target work region”; para. [0121]: “where a magnitude of the gradient is inversely proportional to a magnitude of the upper speed limit value of the autonomous mobile mowing apparatus moving on the subregion represented by the polygonal plane”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani by adding the first and second speed ranges of Yao with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani in view of Yao is to improve mower safety.
However, Lalwani in view of Yao does not explicitly state:
wherein the travel control based on the first speed range is executed in an area including a starting point of the height change where a slope angle of the lawn decreases, and
wherein the travel control based on the second speed range is executed in an area other than the area including the starting point.
In the same field of endeavor, Johansson teaches:
wherein the travel control based on the first speed range is executed in an area including a starting point of the height change where a slope angle of the lawn decreases (Johansson at FIG. 7 and para. [0115]: “the reference speed governing cruise control system can reduce the reference speed vref-cc compared with its set speed v set cc prior to the downhill gradient, which means that the actual speed v act drops prior to the downhill gradient, as shown in FIG. 7 (where the reference speed v ref-cc is a dotted line)”; The speed is set between Vmin and Vset_cc (i.e., “first speed range”)), and
wherein the travel control based on the second speed range is executed in an area other than the area including the starting point (Johansson at FIG. 7 and para. [0115]: “here the reference speed vref_dhsc for the downhill speed control system can be set to the same as the set speed vset cc for the reference speed governing cruise control system, V ref_dhsc =v set_cc, during the initial period T of the downhill gradient 12”; The speed is set between Vset_cc and Vset_dhsc (i.e., “second speed range”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani in view of Yao by adding the travel control of Johansson with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani in view of Yao further in view of Johansson is to improve speed reduction control and fuel efficiency.
Regarding claim 27, Lalwani discloses a travel control method, comprising:
receiving information about surroundings of a lawn mower from a sensor or a memory (Lalwani at para. [0011]: “mower slope sensing system 100 may be on a grass mowing machine such as fairway mower having three or more blade or reel cutting units, or on any other grass mowing machine having a multiple cutting units”).
However, Lalwani does not explicitly state setting a first speed range or a second speed range that includes a speed higher than a maximum speed in the first speed range and does not include a speed lower than a minimum speed in the first speed range based on the information about the surroundings of the lawn mower received; and
controlling a drive source based on the first speed range or the second speed range set to make the lawn mower to travel,
wherein the travel control based on the first speed range is executed in an area including a starting point of the height change where a slope angle of the lawn decreases, and
wherein the travel control based on the second speed range is executed in an area other than the area including the starting point.
Nevertheless, Lalwani at least suggests the idea of increasing or decreasing ground speed based on sensor data (see Lalwani at para. [0011]-[0014]).
In the same field of endeavor, Yao teaches setting a first speed range or a second speed range that includes a speed higher than a maximum speed in the first speed range and does not include a speed lower than a minimum speed in the first speed range based on the information about the surroundings of the lawn mower received (Yao at para. [0120]: “determining, for each polygonal plane in the second polygonal grid map, an upper speed limit value of the autonomous mobile mowing apparatus on the subregion represented by the polygonal plane”; The lowest possible speed is zero; para. [0121]: “where a magnitude of the gradient is inversely proportional to a magnitude of the upper speed limit value of the autonomous mobile mowing apparatus moving on the subregion represented by the polygonal plane”); and
controlling a drive source based on the first speed range or the second speed range set to make the lawn mower to travel (Yao at para. [0122]: “controlling the autonomous mobile mowing apparatus to move in the subregion represented by the polygonal plane such that a moving speed of the autonomous mobile mowing apparatus is less than the upper speed limit value”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lalwani by adding the first and second speed ranges of Yao with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Lalwani in view of Yao is to improve mower safety.
However, Lalwani in view of Yao does not explicitly state:
wherein the travel control based on the first speed range is executed in an area including a starting point of the height change where a slope angle of the lawn decreases, and
wherein the travel control based on the second speed range is executed in an area other than the area including the starting point.
In the same field of endeavor, Johansson teaches:
wherein the travel control based on the first speed range is executed in an area including a starting point of the height change where a slope angle of the lawn decreases (Johansson at FIG. 7 and para. [0115]: “the reference speed governing cruise control system can reduce the reference speed vref-cc compared with its set speed v set cc prior to the downhill gradient, which means that the actual speed v act drops prior to the downhill gradient, as shown in FIG. 7 (where the reference speed v ref-cc is a dotted line)”; The speed is set between Vmin and Vset_cc (i.e., “first speed range”)), and
wherein the travel control based on the second speed range is executed in an area other than the area including the starting point (Johansson at FIG. 7 and para. [0115]: “here the reference speed vref_dhsc for the downhill speed control system can be set to the same as the set speed vset cc for the reference speed governing cruise control system, V ref_dhsc =v set_cc, during the initial period T of the downhill gradient 12”; The speed is set between Vset_cc and Vset_dhsc (i.e., “second speed range”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lalwani in view of Yao by adding the travel control of Johansson with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Lalwani in view of Yao further in view of Johansson is to improve speed reduction control and fuel efficiency.
Regarding claim 28, Lalwani in view of Yao further in view of Johansson teaches the travel control method according to claim 27.
Lalwani further discloses wherein the information about the surroundings of the lawn mower is a height at each position of the lawn (Lalwani at para. [0012]: “mower slope sensing system 100 also may include terrain elevation sensor 103. The elevation sensor may be installed on the grass mowing machine, or another vehicle for preparing the maps used by the electronic controller. The terrain elevation sensor may detect and provide elevation data to the controller. The terrain elevation sensor may be a high precision altimeter having a resolution or accuracy within about plus or minus 0.1 meters”).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalwani in view of Johansson further in view of Luo et al. (CN 116430850 A, hereinafter “Luo”). The rejections below are based on the machine translation of Luo.
Regarding claim 24, Lalwani in view of Johansson teaches the lawn mower according to claim 15.
However, Lalwani in view of Johansson does not explicitly state wherein the controller creates or revises a travel route based on the received height at each position of the lawn.
In the same field of endeavor, Luo teaches wherein the controller creates or revises a travel route based on the received height at each position of the lawn (Luo at pg. 2, ln. 17-19: “determining the area boundary line between the slope area and the flat area; then dividing the area boundary line into a flat area or a slope area; Slope areas are mowed perpendicular to the boundary line of said area”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani in view of Johansson by adding the travel route of Luo with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani in view of Johansson further in view of Luo is to improve mowing efficiency.
Claims 31, 32, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalwani in view of Johansson further in view of Kwak (KR 20190140526 A). The rejections below are based on the machine translation of Kwak.
Regarding claim 31, Lalwani in view of Johansson teaches the lawn mower according to claim 15.
However, Lalwani in view of Johansson does not explicitly state wherein the controller increases the travel speed before the lawn mower reaches a starting point of the height change, and decreases the travel speed after the lawn mower passes the starting point to return the travel speed to a value before the speed increases.
In the same field of endeavor, Kwak teaches wherein the controller increases the travel speed before the lawn mower reaches a starting point of the height change, and decreases the travel speed after the lawn mower passes the starting point to return the travel speed to a value before the speed increases (Kwak at para. [0001]: “The present invention relates to a vehicle, and more particularly to a cruise control method for a constant speed driving of the vehicle”; para. [0005]: “A cruise control system that maintains a constant speed may at first glance be thought of as keeping the output of the engine constant”; para. [0052]: “when there is an uphill ahead, the controller 110 controls the accelerator 40 to increase the speed of the vehicle in advance. If the speed of the car is preliminarily raised, the driving speed may be maintained even if the vehicle meets the uphill road by driving”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani in view of Johansson by adding the travel speed of Kwak with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani in view of Johansson further in view of Kwak is to prevent noise or shock from inclination changes.
Regarding claim 32, Lalwani in view of Johansson teaches the lawn mower according to claim 15.
However, Lalwani in view of Johansson does not explicitly state wherein the controller changes the travel speed to a speed higher than a travel speed in a horizontal area before the lawn mower reaches the starting point of the height change which is a transition from the horizontal area to an upward sloping area, and returns the travel speed to the travel speed in the horizontal area after the lawn mower passes the starting point.
In the same field of endeavor, Kwak teaches wherein the controller changes the travel speed to a speed higher than a travel speed in a horizontal area before the lawn mower reaches the starting point of the height change which is a transition from the horizontal area to an upward sloping area, and returns the travel speed to the travel speed in the horizontal area after the lawn mower passes the starting point (Kwak at para. [0001]: “The present invention relates to a vehicle, and more particularly to a cruise control method for a constant speed driving of the vehicle”; para. [0005]: “A cruise control system that maintains a constant speed may at first glance be thought of as keeping the output of the engine constant”; para. [0052]: “when there is an uphill ahead, the controller 110 controls the accelerator 40 to increase the speed of the vehicle in advance. If the speed of the car is preliminarily raised, the driving speed may be maintained even if the vehicle meets the uphill road by driving”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani in view of Johansson by adding the travel speed of Kwak with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani in view of Johansson further in view of Kwak is to prevent noise or shock from inclination changes.
Regarding claim 34, Lalwani in view of Johansson teaches the lawn mower according to claim 15.
Johansson further teaches wherein the controller reduces the travel speed (Johansson at FIG. 7 and para. [0115]: “the reference speed governing cruise control system can reduce the reference speed vref-cc compared with its set speed v set cc prior to the downhill gradient, which means that the actual speed v act drops prior to the downhill gradient, as shown in FIG. 7 (where the reference speed v ref-cc is a dotted line)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani by adding the travel speed of Johansson with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani in view of Johansson is to improve speed reduction control and fuel efficiency.
However, Lalwani in view of Johansson does not explicitly state:
wherein the controller reduces the travel speed so that a change in a relative posture of the lawn mower with respect to the lawn is smaller than a predetermined value.
In the same field of endeavor, Kwak teaches:
wherein the controller reduces the travel speed so that a change in a relative posture of the lawn mower with respect to the lawn is smaller than a predetermined value (Kwak at para. [0051]: “When the downhill is determined in advance using an image using the navigation device 14 or the camera 12 in advance, the controller 110 controls the transmission 20 and the accelerator 40 or the brake 30 in advance to prevent shift shock or noise”; The shock is prevented from happening (i.e., “a change … smaller than a predetermined value”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani in view of Johansson by adding the travel speed of Kwak with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani in view of Johansson further in view of Kwak is to prevent noise or shock from inclination changes.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalwani in view of Johansson further in view of Yoon (US 2018/0222483 A1).
Regarding claim 33, Lalwani in view of Johansson teaches the lawn mower according to claim 15.
However, Lalwani in view of Johansson does not explicitly state wherein the controller determines the travel speed when passing the starting point of the height change to be lower as a degree of the height change increases.
In the same field of endeavor, Yoon states wherein the controller determines the travel speed when passing the starting point of the height change to be lower as a degree of the height change increases (Yoon at para. [0139]: “estimate an increase amount of speed of the next section (that is, the second section) of a section (that is, the first section) on which the vehicle 1 is currently located, based on the received road gradient information (operation 1130)”; FIG. 9 and para. [0148]: “Since the vehicle decelerates at constant speed in the coasting section Sl2a, S12b, Sl2c of the first section S1 (that is, the gradient of the graph in the coasting section S12a, S12b, S12c of the first section S1) when the first section S1 has a constant gradient, the main processor 155 may decide a point (P1c<P1a<P1b) farther away from the current position of the vehicle 1 as a start point of coasting control as a greater minimum target speed value is decided (Vt-c<Vt-a<Vt-b)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani in view of Johansson by adding the travel speed of Yoon with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Lalwani in view of Johansson further in view of Yoon is to provide efficient downhill control.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found in the attached PTO-892 form.
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 JISUN CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-0710. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571)270-0151. 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.
/JISUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666