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 .
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/09/2026 have been fully considered and they are persuasive in part and not persuasive in part.
While it is true that Hitachi does teach monitoring a current load, this is in combination with the mode of operation, and adjusting the mode of operation as needed. It is predicative, because it is predicted that in the zig-zag mode there will be less load on the motor. The claim does not explicitly recite that the predicted load is a first load, and so this iterative approach is plausible, since it is predicting the future load that will or should be applied when the path is changed or maintained given the conditions.
The state of the grass is acquired between the load that the mower has already endured, the difference in already cut grass in a straight path vs the grass that will be cut from the meandering path, this allows the state of the grass to be generally known. As further noted on Page 3, lines 82-84, the load is a direct reflection of the state of the grass (such as being dense or tall).
112B rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hitachi Koki KK (WO 2017/154524 A1), hereinafter Hitachi.
Regarding claims 1, Hitachi discloses a mowing machine (1, fig. 1, line 296 on page 8), comprising:
a memory (microcomputer, wherein a microcomputer has a memory, lines 285-289 on page 7);
a processor coupled to the memory (microcomputer, wherein a microcomputer has a processor, lines 285-289 on page 7); and
a mowing machine main body (main body cover 2, fig. 1, line 237 on page 6) including a drive motor configured (16a and 16b, fig. 2, lines 297-300 on page 8) to drive a movement mechanism (12a and 13b, fig. 2, lines 297-300 on page 8) and a cutting blade motor (30, fig. 3, lines 297-300 on page 8) configured to drive a cutting blade (35, fig. 3, lines 297-300 on page 8) configured to cut grass (lines 78-80),
wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire information related to a state of grass growth (379-412 and 468-483, wherein the load is detected and then the path planned to limit the load) in a mowing target region (mowing area 290, line 46),
predict a load that will be applied to the cutting blade motor at a time of cutting the grass based on the acquired information related to the state of grass growth (lines 345-366),
set a travel path based on the predicted load, and control driving of the drive motor such that the mowing machine main body travels along the set travel path (lines 345-366).
Regarding claims 2, Hitachi further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to set the travel path such that an accumulated value of the predicted load does not exceed a predetermined threshold value (lines 109-111 and 468-483, wherein the load is detected and then the path planned to limit the load).
Regarding claims 3, Hitachi further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to set the travel path such that a maximum value of the predicted load does not exceed a predetermined threshold value (lines 109-111 and 468-483, wherein the load is detected and then the path planned to limit the load).
Regarding claims 4, Hitachi further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to set an initial travel path relative to the mowing target region (lines 416-426), and to set the travel path by correcting the initial travel path based on the predicted load (lines 468-483, wherein the load is detected and then the path planned to limit the load).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uemoto et al. (US 2019/0179326 A1), hereinafter Uemoto.
Regarding claim 5, Uemoto discloses a mowing machine (1, fig. 1-2, [0026]), comprising:
a memory (storage section 25, fig. 3, [0029 and 0034], wherein information is stored);
a processor (24+28, fig. 3, [0029], see also CPU) coupled to the memory (fig. 3, [0029]); and
a mowing machine main body (3, fig. 1-2, [0026-0027]) including a drive motor (4, fig. 1-2, [0026-0027]) configured to drive a movement mechanism (2+10, fig. 1-2, [0026-0027]) and a cutting blade motor (6, fig. 1-2, [0027]) configured to drive a cutting blade (54, fig. 1-2, [0027]) configured to cut grass ([0027]),
wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire information related to a state of grass growth in a mowing target region ([0030]),
predict a load that will be applied to the cutting blade motor at a time of cutting the grass based on the acquired information related to the state of grass growth ([0031-0033]),
set a travel path based on the predicted load ([0034-0037]), and
control driving of the drive motor such that the mowing machine main body travels along the set travel path ([0037-0038]),
and wherein the information related to the state of grass growth includes information related to a height of the grass ([0030-0032]) in the mowing target region (work field, [0032]).
Regarding claim 6, Uemoto discloses wherein the processor is further configured to predict the load applied to the cutting blade motor (0027 and 0035) by:
referring to a table in which a relationship between a grass height and an output value of the drive motor is set in advance (fig. 4, [0033]); and
predicting an output of the drive motor corresponding to the information related to the height of the grass, as the predicted load that will be applied to the cutting blade motor at a time of cutting the grass ([0033-0035]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 8 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemoto et al. (US 2019/0179326 A1), hereinafter Uemoto in view of Doughty et al. (US 2017/0020064 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Uemoto discloses a mowing machine (1, fig. 1-2, [0026]), comprising:
a memory (storage section 25, fig. 3, [0029 and 0034], wherein information is stored);
a processor (24+28, fig. 3, [0029], see also CPU) coupled to the memory (fig. 3, [0029]); and
a mowing machine main body (3, fig. 1-2, [0026-0027]) including a drive motor (4, fig. 1-2, [0026-0027]) configured to drive a movement mechanism (2+10, fig. 1-2, [0026-0027]) and a cutting blade motor (6, fig. 1-2, [0027]) configured to drive a cutting blade (54, fig. 1-2, [0027]) configured to cut grass ([0027]),
wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire information related to a state of grass growth in a mowing target region ([0030]),
predict a load that will be applied to the cutting blade motor at a time of cutting the grass based on the acquired information related to the state of grass growth ([0031-0033]),
set a travel path based on the predicted load ([0034-0037]), and
control driving of the drive motor such that the mowing machine main body travels along the set travel path ([0037-0038]), and
wherein the processor is further configured to acquire the information related to the state of grass growth ([0030]) by:
However, Uemoto fails to explicitly disclose acquiring data based on actual measurement in advance of how much a height of the grass increases within a predetermined period, for each type of grass living in the mowing target region; segmenting the mowing target region into plural regions and setting a degree of exposure to sunlight for each segmented region; and deriving the height of the grass based on the data and the degree of exposure to sunlight.
Doughty teaches a similar device in the same field of lawn care devices wherein information related to the state of grass growth includes: acquiring data based on actual measurement ([0045 and 0061]) in advance of how much a height of the grass increases within a predetermined period ([0071-0077]), for each type of grass living in the mowing target region (0050 and 0056); segmenting the mowing target region into plural regions (120a-c, fig. 1, of Doughty) and setting a degree of exposure to sunlight for each segmented region ([0055-0057, 0075, and 0105] of Doughty); and deriving the height of the grass based on the data and the degree of exposure to sunlight (0057-0058 and 0071-0077).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Uemoto to incorporate the state of grass growth characteristics of Doughty in order to “advantageously promote grass health” ([0045] of Doughty).
Regarding claim 10, Uemoto discloses a mowing machine (1, fig. 1-2, [0026]), comprising:
a memory (storage section 25, fig. 3, [0029 and 0034], wherein information is stored);
a processor (24+28, fig. 3, [0029], see also CPU) coupled to the memory (fig. 3, [0029]); and
a mowing machine main body (3, fig. 1-2, [0026-0027]) including a drive motor (4, fig. 1-2, [0026-0027]) configured to drive a movement mechanism (2+10, fig. 1-2, [0026-0027]) and a cutting blade motor (6, fig. 1-2, [0027]) configured to drive a cutting blade (54, fig. 1-2, [0027]) configured to cut grass ([0027]),
wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire information related to a state of grass growth in a mowing target region ([0030]),
predict a load that will be applied to the cutting blade motor at a time of cutting the grass based on the acquired information related to the state of grass growth ([0031-0033]),
set a travel path based on the predicted load ([0034-0037]), and
control driving of the drive motor such that the mowing machine main body travels along the set travel path ([0037-0038]), and
wherein the processor is further configured to acquire the information related to the state of grass growth ([0030]) by:
However, Uemoto fails to explicitly disclose deriving a height of the grass using a learned model that was machine- learned using environmental information including image information of the mowing target region, sunshine time, and temperature, and learning information including the height of the grass in the mowing target region.
Doughty teaches a similar device in the same field of lawn care devices wherein deriving a height of the grass using a learned model that was machine- learned using environmental information including image information of the mowing target region, sunshine time, and temperature, and learning information including the height of the grass in the mowing target region ([0055-0059, 0105, and 0128]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Uemoto to incorporate the state of grass growth characteristics of Doughty in order to “advantageously promote grass health” ([0045] of Doughty).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemoto et al. (US 2019/0179326 A1), hereinafter Uemoto in view of Anderson et al. (US 2011/0166705 A1), hereinafter Anderson.
Regarding claim 11, Uemoto discloses a mowing machine (1, fig. 1-2, [0026]), comprising:
a memory (storage section 25, fig. 3, [0029 and 0034], wherein information is stored);
a processor (24+28, fig. 3, [0029], see also CPU) coupled to the memory (fig. 3, [0029]); and
a mowing machine main body (3, fig. 1-2, [0026-0027]) including a drive motor (4, fig. 1-2, [0026-0027]) configured to drive a movement mechanism (2+10, fig. 1-2, [0026-0027]) and a cutting blade motor (6, fig. 1-2, [0027]) configured to drive a cutting blade (54, fig. 1-2, [0027]) configured to cut grass ([0027]),
wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire information related to a state of grass growth in a mowing target region ([0030]),
predict a load that will be applied to the cutting blade motor at a time of cutting the grass based on the acquired information related to the state of grass growth ([0031-0033]),
set a travel path based on the predicted load ([0034-0037]), and
control driving of the drive motor such that the mowing machine main body travels along the set travel path ([0037-0038]), and
further comprising:
a GPS device that measures a current position of the mowing machine ([0027]); and
a camera that captures images of peripheral conditions including a travel direction of the mowing machine (0032),
wherein the processor is further configured to:
autonomously drive the mowing machine ([0025]) by controlling the drive motor ([0027]) based on the current position of the mowing machine acquired by the GPS device and the captured image ([0028]); and in a case in which an object approaching the mowing machine is detected in the captured image ([0025]).
However, Uemoto fails to explicitly disclose controlling the drive motor to temporarily stop the mowing machine, and control the cutting blade motor to temporarily stop rotation of the cutting blade.
Anderson teaches a similar device in the same field of lawn care devices wherein controlling the drive motor to temporarily stop the mowing machine ([0111], wherein if the obstacle is close it will require stopping), and control the cutting blade motor to temporarily stop rotation of the cutting blade ([0122]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Uemoto to incorporate the stopping of the mowing machine and the cutting blade of Anderson in order to avoid the obstacle ([0127]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemoto et al. (US 2019/0179326 A1), hereinafter Uemoto in view of Doughty et al. (US 2017/0020064 A1) further in view of Yamamura et al. (US 20210302980 A1), hereinafter Yama.
Regarding claim 9, Uemoto discloses a mowing machine (1, fig. 1-2, [0026]), comprising:
a memory (storage section 25, fig. 3, [0029 and 0034], wherein information is stored);
a processor (24+28, fig. 3, [0029], see also CPU) coupled to the memory (fig. 3, [0029]); and
a mowing machine main body (3, fig. 1-2, [0026-0027]) including a drive motor (4, fig. 1-2, [0026-0027]) configured to drive a movement mechanism (2+10, fig. 1-2, [0026-0027]) and a cutting blade motor (6, fig. 1-2, [0027]) configured to drive a cutting blade (54, fig. 1-2, [0027]) configured to cut grass ([0027]),
wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire information related to a state of grass growth in a mowing target region ([0030]),
predict a load that will be applied to the cutting blade motor at a time of cutting the grass based on the acquired information related to the state of grass growth ([0031-0033]),
set a travel path based on the predicted load ([0034-0037]), and
control driving of the drive motor such that the mowing machine main body travels along the set travel path ([0037-0038]), and
wherein the processor is further configured to acquire the information related to the state of grass growth ([0030]) by:
However, Uemoto fails to explicitly disclose acquiring RGB image data, which is data for a color image including color information; detecting a location where the grass is growing from the RGB image data; and detecting a height of the grass at the detected location in the image map.
Doughty teaches a similar device in the same field of lawn care devices wherein acquiring RGB image data ([0056, 0060-0061, and 0065]), which is data for a color image including color information ([0056, 0060-0061, and 0065]); detecting a location where the grass is growing from the RGB image data ([0056, 0060-0061, and 0065]); and detecting a height of the grass at the detected location in the image map ([0055-0059 and 0078]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the acquiring details and analysis of the image data of Uemoto with the RGB data and analysis of Doughty in order to “advantageously promote grass health” ([0045] of Doughty).
However, Uemoto in view of Doughty teaches the above but fails to explicitly disclose
acquiring, from an aerial image of the mowing target region, orthoimage data, which is data for a three-dimensional image that accurately displays a position and size of a subject ([0095-0097]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ground level sensors and camera of Uemoto with the aerial image acquirement to include the predictable result of acquiring an image in order to provide location and mapping ([0094-0095]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
/JENNIFER A RAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights