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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 05/19/2026 in response to the Final office action mailed on 02/24/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the Claim Objections: The objections are withdrawn, as the amendments to claims have properly addressed the informalities recited in the Final office action.
Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 112(d): The rejections of claim 16 for being improper dependent form are withdrawn, as the amended claim 16 has properly addressed the rejections recited in the Final office action.
Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 103: With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 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 NON-FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0024] of the specification states “The height of the lawn does not mean the length of the grass, but means the height of the surface of the lawn, in other words, the height of the grand on which the lawn mower 10 travels.” Based on the context and the nature of the disclosure, Examiner considers that the term “grand” should be “ground.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 17-19 and 29-36 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 17-19 and 29-36 recites “the travel speed” but claim 15 recites “a speed.” Examiner interprets “travel speed” in claims 17-19 and 29-36 the same as “speed” of claim 15.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2111.01; In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 116 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP 2111.01 (II).
An exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). To act as their own lexicographer, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366, 62 USPQ2d 1658, 1662 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has provided lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has acted as his/her own lexicographer.
The term “lawn height” is defined by applicant as “the height of the surface of the lawn, in other words, the height of the [ground] on which the lawn mower 10 travels” (Specification, para. [0024]).
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.
Claims 31 and 32 are 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 31 recites “the controller increases the travel speed before the lawn mower reaches the starting point” which directly contradicts the independent claim. Specifically, claim 15 states “reduce a speed of the lawn mower from a first speed to a second speed when it is determined that the lawn mower is within a predetermined distance to the starting point” which is the opposite of claim 31.
Claim 31 further recites “decreases the travel speed after the lawn mower passes the starting point to return the travel speed” which directly contradicts the independent claim. Specifically, claim 15 states “when the controller determines that the lawn mower has passed the starting point, the controller controls the drive source to return the speed of the lawn mower to the first speed.” Since the first speed is faster than the second speed, returning the speed means increasing the speed to the first speed.
Therefore, claim 31 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 15 upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of claim 15 upon which it depends.
Claim 32 recites “changes the travel speed to a speed higher than a travel speed in a horizontal area before the lawn mower reaches the starting point” which directly contradicts the independent claim. Specifically, claim 15 states “reduce a speed of the lawn mower from a first speed to a second speed when it is determined that the lawn mower is within a predetermined distance to the starting point.”
Claim 32 further recites “returns the travel speed to the travel speed in the horizontal area after the lawn mower passes the starting point” which means that the travel speed is reduced since the travel speed was previously changed to a higher speed. The limitation of claim 32 directly contradicts the independent claim. Specifically, claim 15 states “when the controller determines that the lawn mower has passed the starting point, the controller controls the drive source to return the speed of the lawn mower to the first speed.” Since the first speed is faster than the second speed, returning the speed means increasing the speed to the first speed.
Therefore, claim 32 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 15 upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of claim 15 upon which it depends.
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, 17, 29, 31, and 34-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraki et al. (US 2024/0341220 A1, hereinafter “Hiraki”) in view of Fukao et al. (JP 2017111771 A, hereinafter “Fukao”). The rejections below are based on the machine translation of Fukao, a copy of which is attached to this Office Action as also indicated in the 892 form.
Regarding claim 15, Hiraki discloses a lawn mower that travels on a lawn and cuts grass (Hiraki at para. [0032]: “An autonomous lawn mower 1 illustrated in FIG. 1 according to one embodiment of this disclosure is also referred to as a robotic lawn mower”), comprising:
a drive source generating power for the lawn mower to travel (Hikari at para. [0033]: “The drive motor 6 serves as a drive source for the driving wheels 4r, 4r”); and
a controller receiving a lawn height at each position of the lawn from a sensor that detects the lawn height at each position of the lawn or from a memory that stores the lawn height at each position of the lawn (Hiraki at para. [0033]: “The drive motor 6 and the steering adjustment section 8 are automatically controlled by a controller 9 including a microcomputer”; para. [0065]: “a detection device 36 for detecting unevenness of the ground surface G may be disposed on the movable machine body 2” “the controller 9 of FIG. 2 is configured to reduce a speed of the movable machine body 2 after acquiring information regarding the unevenness of the ground surface G, which has been detected by the detection device 36”), the controller determining a distance from the lawn mower to a starting point of a change in the lawn height in front of the lawn mower and wherein the controller controls the drive source to reduce a speed of the lawn mower from a first speed to a second speed when it is determined that the lawn mower is within a predetermined distance to the starting point (Hiraki at para. [0065]: “the detection device 36 can detect unevenness of the ground surface G before the lawn mowing work units 3 reach the unevenness, and the controller 9 can reduce the moving speed of the movable machine body 2 to a moving speed that allows the ground contact members 23 to be always reliably brought into contact with the ground surface G” “the detection device 36 is able to acquire ground-surface information over a distance of at least 5 meters from a front end portion of the movable machine body 2. This specific distance is determined in consideration of application of a brake”),
However, Hiraki does not explicitly state:
wherein, when the controller determines that the lawn mower has passed the starting point, the controller controls the drive source to return the speed of the lawn mower to the first speed.
In the same field of endeavor, Fukao teaches:
wherein, when the controller determines that the lawn mower has passed the starting point, the controller controls the drive source to return the speed of the lawn mower to the first speed (Fukao at para. [0066]: “the vehicle's output, which increases when the vehicle's front wheels reach the convex shape, returns to normal output after passing through the convex shape”; para. [0067]: “similar control may be applied when it is detected that the terrain is concave” “the control modification unit 64 may, when it detects that the terrain in front of the vehicle is concave, reduce the vehicle's output (or steering angle gain) before the front wheels reach the concave shape, and increase the vehicle's output (or steering angle gain) after the front wheels reach the concave shape”; After it is determined that the front wheels reach the concave shape (i.e., “when the controller determines that the lawn mower has passed the starting point”), the speed is increased to return to normal output (i.e., “the controller controls the drive source to return the speed of the lawn mower to the first speed”)).
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 Hiraki by adding the speed of Fukao with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Hiraki in view of Fukao is to provide control stability.
Regarding claim 17, Hiraki in view of Fukao teaches the lawn mower according to claim 15.
Fukao further teaches wherein the controller reduces the travel speed before the lawn mower reaches the starting point of the height change in the lawn and increases the travel speed after the lawn mower passes the starting point (Fukao at para. [0066]: “the vehicle's output, which increases when the vehicle's front wheels reach the convex shape, returns to normal output after passing through the convex shape”; para. [0067]: “similar control may be applied when it is detected that the terrain is concave” “the control modification unit 64 may, when it detects that the terrain in front of the vehicle is concave, reduce the vehicle's output (or steering angle gain) before the front wheels reach the concave shape, and increase the vehicle's output (or steering angle gain) after the front wheels reach the concave shape”; The speed is increased to return to normal output (i.e., “increases the travel speed”) after the front wheels reach the concave shape (i.e., “after the lawn mower passes the starting point”)).
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 Hiraki in view of Fukao by adding the speed of Fukao with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Hiraki in view of Fukao is to provide control stability.
Regarding claim 29, Hiraki in view of Fukao teaches the lawn mower according to claim 15.
Fukao further teaches wherein the controller reduces the travel speed before the lawn mower reaches the 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 (Fukao at para. [0066]: “the vehicle's output, which increases when the vehicle's front wheels reach the convex shape, returns to normal output after passing through the convex shape”; para. [0067]: “similar control may be applied when it is detected that the terrain is concave” “the control modification unit 64 may, when it detects that the terrain in front of the vehicle is concave, reduce the vehicle's output (or steering angle gain) before the front wheels reach the concave shape, and increase the vehicle's output (or steering angle gain) after the front wheels reach the concave shape”; The speed is increased (i.e., “increases the travel speed”) after the front wheels reach the concave shape (i.e., “after the lawn mower passes the starting point”) to return to normal output (i.e., “to return the travel speed to a value before the speed reduction”)).
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 Hiraki in view of Fukao by adding the speed of Fukao with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Hiraki in view of Fukao is to provide control stability.
Regarding claim 31, Hiraki in view of Fukao teaches the lawn mower according to claim 15.
Fukao further teaches wherein the controller increases the travel speed before the lawn mower reaches the 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 (Fukao at para. [0066]: “the vehicle's output, which increases when the vehicle's front wheels reach the convex shape, returns to normal output after passing through the convex shape”).
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 Hiraki in view of Fukao by adding the speed of Fukao with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Hiraki in view of Fukao is to provide control stability.
Regarding claim 34, Hiraki in view of Fukao teaches the lawn mower according to claim 15.
Fukao further 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 (Fukao at para. [0050]: “This is because, in order to maintain a stable vehicle posture, the vehicle speed must be reduced before the front wheels reach the concave shape”; para. [0066]: “the vehicle's output, which increases when the vehicle's front wheels reach the convex shape, returns to normal output after passing through the convex shape”; para. [0067]: “similar control may be applied when it is detected that the terrain is concave” “the control modification unit 64 may, when it detects that the terrain in front of the vehicle is concave, reduce the vehicle's output (or steering angle gain) before the front wheels reach the concave shape, and increase the vehicle's output (or steering angle gain) after the front wheels reach the concave shape”).
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 Hiraki in view of Fukao by adding the travel speed of Fukao with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Hiraki in view of Fukao is to improve vehicle stability.
Office Note: The limitation “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” is an intended result which is functional and does not provide a clear cut indication of at least the boundaries of how much travel speed should be reduced “so that a change in a relative posture of the lawn mower with respect to the lawn is smaller than a predetermined value.” Therefore, no patentable weight is given to the limitation (MPEP § 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claim 35, Hiraki in view of Fukao teaches the lawn mower according to claim 15.
Fukao 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 (Fukao at para. [0066]: “the vehicle's output, which increases when the vehicle's front wheels reach the convex shape, returns to normal output after passing through the convex shape”; para. [0067]: “similar control may be applied when it is detected that the terrain is concave” “the control modification unit 64 may, when it detects that the terrain in front of the vehicle is concave, reduce the vehicle's output (or steering angle gain) before the front wheels reach the concave shape, and increase the vehicle's output (or steering angle gain) after the front wheels reach the concave shape”).
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 Hiraki in view of Fukao by adding the speed of Fukao with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Hiraki in view of Fukao is to provide control stability.
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, Hiraki in view of Fukao teaches the lawn mower according to claim 15.
Fukao further teaches, wherein the controller reduces the travel speed before the lawn mower travels on an uneven area (Fukao at para. [0066]: “the vehicle's output, which increases when the vehicle's front wheels reach the convex shape, returns to normal output after passing through the convex shape”; para. [0067]: “similar control may be applied when it is detected that the terrain is concave” “the control modification unit 64 may, when it detects that the terrain in front of the vehicle is concave, reduce the vehicle's output (or steering angle gain) before the front wheels reach the concave shape, and increase the vehicle's output (or steering angle gain) after the front wheels reach the concave shape”).
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 Hiraki in view of Fukao by adding the speed of Fukao with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Hiraki in view of Fukao is to provide control stability.
Regarding claim 37, Hiraki discloses a lawn mower that travels on a lawn and cuts grass at a cutting height (Hiraki at para. [0032]: “An autonomous lawn mower 1 illustrated in FIG. 1 according to one embodiment of this disclosure is also referred to as a robotic lawn mower”), comprising:
a drive source generating power for the lawn mower to travel (Hikari at para. [0033]: “The drive motor 6 serves as a drive source for the driving wheels 4r, 4r”); and
a controller receiving a lawn height at each position of the lawn from a sensor that detects the lawn height at each position of the lawn or from a memory that stores the lawn height at each position of the lawn (Hiraki at para. [0033]: “The drive motor 6 and the steering adjustment section 8 are automatically controlled by a controller 9 including a microcomputer”; para. [0065]: “a detection device 36 for detecting unevenness of the ground surface G may be disposed on the movable machine body 2” “the controller 9 of FIG. 2 is configured to reduce a speed of the movable machine body 2 after acquiring information regarding the unevenness of the ground surface G, which has been detected by the detection device 36”), the controller determining a distance from the lawn mower to a starting point of a change in the lawn height in front of the lawn mower and wherein the controller controls the drive source to reduce a speed of the lawn mower from a first speed to a second speed when it is determined that the lawn mower is within a predetermined distance to the starting point (Hiraki at para. [0065]: “the detection device 36 can detect unevenness of the ground surface G before the lawn mowing work units 3 reach the unevenness, and the controller 9 can reduce the moving speed of the movable machine body 2 to a moving speed that allows the ground contact members 23 to be always reliably brought into contact with the ground surface G” “the detection device 36 is able to acquire ground-surface information over a distance of at least 5 meters from a front end portion of the movable machine body 2. This specific distance is determined in consideration of application of a brake”),
However, Hiraki does not explicitly state:
wherein, when the controller determines that the lawn mower has passed the starting point, the controller controls the drive source to return the speed of the lawn mower to the first speed.
In the same field of endeavor, Fukao teaches:
wherein, when the controller determines that the lawn mower has passed the starting point, the controller controls the drive source to return the speed of the lawn mower to the first speed (Fukao at para. [0066]: “the vehicle's output, which increases when the vehicle's front wheels reach the convex shape, returns to normal output after passing through the convex shape”; para. [0067]: “similar control may be applied when it is detected that the terrain is concave” “the control modification unit 64 may, when it detects that the terrain in front of the vehicle is concave, reduce the vehicle's output (or steering angle gain) before the front wheels reach the concave shape, and increase the vehicle's output (or steering angle gain) after the front wheels reach the concave shape”; After the front wheels reach the concave shape (i.e., “when the lawn mower has passed the starting point”), the speed is increased to return to normal output (i.e., “the controller controls the drive source to return the speed of the lawn mower to the first speed”)).
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 Hiraki by adding the speed of Fukao with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Hiraki in view of Fukao is to provide control stability.
Claims 18 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraki in view of Fukao further in view of Johansson et al. (US 2015/0191170 A1, hereinafter “Johansson”).
Regarding claim 18, Hiraki in view of Fukao teaches the lawn mower according to claim 15.
However, Hiraki in view of Fukao does not explicitly state:
wherein the controller reduces the travel speed before the lawn mower reaches the starting point where a slope angle of the lawn begins to decrease and increases the travel speed after the lawn mower passes the point.
In the same field of endeavor, Johansson teaches:
wherein the controller reduces the travel speed before the lawn mower reaches the starting 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 Hiraki in view of Fukao by adding the travel speed of Johansson with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Hiraki in view of Fukao further in view of Johansson is to improve speed reduction control and fuel efficiency.
Regarding claim 30, Hiraki in view of Fukao teaches the lawn mower according to claim 15.
However, Hiraki in view of Fukao does not explicitly state:
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.
In the same field of endeavor, Johansson 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 Hiraki in view of Fukao by adding the travel speed of Johansson with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Hiraki in view of Fukao further 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 Hiraki in view of Fukao further in view of Matsuda et al. (US 2018/0338417 A1, hereinafter “Matsuda”).
Regarding claim 19, Hiraki in view of Fukao teaches the lawn mower according to claim 15.
However, Hiraki in view of Fukao 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 Hiraki in view of Fukao by adding the first and second modes of Matsuda with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Hiraki in view of Fukao 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 Hiraki in view of Fukao further in view of Matsuda and Fujiwara et al. (US 2014/0059990 A1, hereinafter “Fujiwara”).
Regarding claim 20, Hiraki in view of Fukao further in view of Matsuda teaches the lawn mower according to claim 19.
However, Hiraki in view of Fukao 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 Hiraki in view of Fukao further in view of Matsuda by adding the display of Fujiwara with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Hiraki in view of Fukao 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 Hiraki in view of Fukao further in view of Yao et al. (US 2023/0409043 A1, hereinafter “Yao”).
Regarding claim 21, Hiraki in view of Fukao teaches the lawn mower according to claim 15.
However, Hiraki in view of Fukao 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 Hiraki in view of Fukao by adding the first and second speed ranges of Yao with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Hiraki in view of Fukao further in view of Yao is to improve mower safety.
Regarding claim 22, Hiraki in view of Fukao teaches the lawn mower according to claim 15.
However, Hiraki in view of Fukao 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 Hiraki in view of Fukao by adding the first and second speed ranges of Yao with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Hiraki in view of Fukao further in view of Yao is to improve mower safety.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraki in view of Fukao 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, Hiraki in view of Fukao teaches the lawn mower according to claim 15.
However, Hiraki in view of Fukao 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 Hiraki in view of Fukao by adding the travel route of Luo with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Hiraki in view of Fukao further in view of Luo is to improve mowing efficiency.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraki in view of Yao further in view of Johansson.
Regarding claim 26, Hiraki discloses a lawn mower that travels on a lawn and cuts grass (Hiraki at para. [0032]: “An autonomous lawn mower 1 illustrated in FIG. 1 according to one embodiment of this disclosure is also referred to as a robotic lawn mower”), comprising:
a drive source generating power for the lawn mower to travel (Hikari at para. [0033]: “The drive motor 6 serves as a drive source for the driving wheels 4r, 4r”); and
a controller controlling the drive source (Hiraki at para. [0033]: “The drive motor 6 and the steering adjustment section 8 are automatically controlled by a controller 9 including a microcomputer”) and
However, Hiraki 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 after the lawn mower has passed the starting point.
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 Hiraki by adding the first and second speed ranges of Yao with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Hiraki in view of Yao is to improve mower safety.
However, Hiraki 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 after the lawn mower has passed 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”) prior to the downhill gradient and while passing Point P1 (i.e., “an area including a starting point”)), and
wherein the travel control based on the second speed range is executed after the lawn mower has passed 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 T12 of the downhill gradient”; As shown in FIG. 7, the speed is set between Vset_cc and Vset_dhsc (i.e., “second speed range”) after the vehicle has passed point P1 and point P2 (“after the lawn mower has passed the starting point”)).
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 Hiraki 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 Hiraki in view of Yao further in view of Johansson is to improve speed reduction control and fuel efficiency.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraki in view of Fukao further in view of Kwak (KR 20190140526 A). The rejections below are based on the machine translation of Kwak.
Regarding claim 32, Hiraki in view of Fukao teaches the lawn mower according to claim 15.
However, Hiraki in view of Fukao 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 Hiraki in view of Fukao by adding the travel speed of Kwak with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Hiraki in view of Fukao 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 Hiraki in view of Fukao further in view of Yoon (US 2018/0222483 A1).
Regarding claim 33, Hiraki in view of Fukao teaches the lawn mower according to claim 15.
However, Hiraki in view of Fukao 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 teaches 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 Hiraki in view of Fukao by adding the travel speed of Yoon with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the lawn mower of Hiraki in view of Fukao further in view of Yoon is to provide efficient downhill control.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights