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 Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 02/10/2026. Claim(s) 1-11 are pending examination. This action is made final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following argument(s) regarding the previous office action:
Applicant asserts that the 35 USC 103 rejections of independent claims 1, 5, and 9 is improper. Applicant asserts that the cited prior art fails to teach all claim limitations. In particular the cited art does not teach, “each ultrasonic sensor receiving ultrasonic signals reflected back at both the first frequency and the second frequency;” or an analogous limitation. Accordingly the claims should be allowable as should their dependent claims.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument A, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument alleges that Smith (US PG Pub 2015/0166060) does not teach, “each ultrasonic sensor receiving ultrasonic signals reflected back at both the first frequency and the second frequency” as the examiner claims. The examiner disagrees with this assertion. Applicant alleges that smith teaches “pairs” of emitters and receivers, Page 7 of applicant’s remarks filed 02/10/2026, therefore each receiver does not need to receive the different frequencies. However, looking at the cited paragraphs of Smith this is not true. [0069] of Smith recites, “The sonar emitters 530e.sub.1-530e.sub.3 fired simultaneously each have a distinct and distinguishable frequency,” and [0070] teaches, “the sonar system 530 includes three emitters 530e.sub.1-530e.sub.3 and four receivers 530r.sub.1-530r.sub.4, as shown in FIGS. 9A and 9B.” (Emphasis added.) The system of Smith has a mismatch in the number of receivers and emitters, not pairs as alleged by the applicant. Therefore it is at least implicitly disclosed that the receivers would receiver more than one frequency produced by the
PNG
media_image1.png
327
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
emitters. Looking at Fig. 9A, it is more explicitly taught one receiver can receive multiple emitter frequencies. Receiver 530r3, underlined, is receiving sound cone 534, which receives the frequencies of both emitter e2 and e3. This clearly shows one receiver, receiving multiple emissions, which are taught to be emitted at different frequencies. Therefore the teachings of Smith would teach the claimed subject matter. The combination of Dalfra and Smith would render the independent claims as obvious, therefore they are not allowable. The dependent claims would be rejected at least due to their dependence on rejected subject matter. A more detailed explanation and mapping would be found below in the section titled, “Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalfra (US PG Pub 2020/0201347) in view of Smith (US PG Pub 2015/0166060).
Regarding claim 1, Dalfra teaches a mower obstacle avoidance system, comprising: a left ultrasonic sensor and a right ultrasonic sensor mounted on a mower; (Figs. 2-4 and [0362] teach the system lawn mower having a first and second ultrasonic sensor on the left and right sides of the mower, respectively) the left ultrasonic sensor sending ultrasonic signals at a first frequency ([0562] teaches the first ultrasonic sensor can be configured to produce the ultrasound at a given first frequency, this frequency can be configured to be an frequency within a given range of frequencies) and the right ultrasonic sensor sending ultrasonic signals at a second frequency, ([0562] teaches the second ultrasonic sensor can be configured to produce the ultrasound at a given second frequency, this frequency can be configured to be an frequency within a given range of frequencies) ([0364]-[0365], [0372], and [0392] teach the ultrasonic sensors being able to receive echoes, or signals, from both themselves and the other ultrasonic sensor) and
a vehicle controller commanding a traction drive system of the mower to avoid an obstacle based on a comparison of reflected ultrasonic signals received by the first ultrasonic sensor and the second ultrasonic sensor. (Fig. 26 and [0446]-[0450]; and Figs. 45-46 and [0513]-[0514] teach the mower system sending signals from both ultrasonic sensors and after receiving the return echo, comparing the two returns in order to determine the next course of action regarding the movement of the mower)
Dalfra does not teach wherein said first and second frequencies are different and each sensor receiving signals back at both the first frequency and the second frequency.
However, Smith teaches “wherein said first and second frequencies are different” (Fig. 9A, and [0069] teaches a series of ultrasonic emitters that transmit at multiple different frequencies, saying “The sonar emitters 530e.sub.1-530e.sub.3 fired simultaneously each have a distinct and distinguishable frequency”) and “receiving ultrasonic signals reflected back at both the first frequency and the second frequency;” (Fig. 9A, and [0069]-[0070] teach the system having receivers that can receive signals back at the plethora of frequencies emitted by the emitters. AS [0070] teaches, “the sonar system 530 includes three emitters 530e.sub.1-530e.sub.3 and four receivers 530r.sub.1-530r.sub.4, as shown in FIGS. 9A and 9B.” The mismatch in number of emitters and receivers shows that the receivers would have to receive the different frequencies. Fig. 9A shows the receivers collecting multiple emissions.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Dalfra and Smith; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to control systems for vehicles to detect obstacles in their environment. As Smith teaches in [0069] and [0070] the use of multiple emitters and receivers allows for the system to determine where an object is and how far away the object is by comparing the different received signals. The use of multiple signals prevents interference and allows for a more complete monitoring of the world around the robot.
Regarding claim 2, Dalfra teaches the mower obstacle avoidance system of claim 1wherein the vehicle controller commands the traction drive system to slow down the mower if at least one of the first and second ultrasonic sensors receives a reflected ultrasonic signal from an obstacle in a slow down zone between a first distance and a second distance from the mower. ([0359], [0456], Figs. 48-49 and [0470]-[0473] teach the lawn mower having a series of regions in front of the main body of the system. These regions are based on distance from the body and depending on where an object is detected, i.e. the region of detection, the mower may execute a series of maneuvers defined as stopping, slowing, turning, or continuing forward)
Regarding claim 3, Dalfra teaches the mower obstacle avoidance system of claim 2 wherein the first and second ultrasonic sensors emit ultrasonic signals each having a trajectory above a height of cut of the mower in the slow down zone. (Figs. 31-33 and [0459] teach the ultrasonic sensors having a detection range above a height “H2” where the H2 height is that of the grass to be cut)
Regarding claim 4, Dalfra teaches the obstacle avoidance system of claim 1 wherein the vehicle controller compares the reflected ultrasonic signals to each sensor to command the traction drive system to turn the mower clockwise or counter clockwise. ([0388] and [0471]-[0472] teach the system as able to determine the side of the mower an obstacle is on and in relation to that determination rotating the mower in the appropriate manner)
Regarding claim 5, Dalfra teaches a mower obstacle avoidance system, comprising: a pair of sensors mounted on a robotic mower, each sensor emitting ultrasonic signals in a trajectory in front of the robotic mower, (Figs. 2-4 and [0362] teach the system lawn mower having a first and second ultrasonic sensor on the left and right sides of the mower, respectively; these sensors are configured to detect obstacles in the trajectory of the mower)
a controller programmed to command a traction drive system to stop and turn the mower if either of the pair of sensors receives a reflected ultrasonic signal from an object at a stop distance in front of the robotic mower, ([0389] and [0469]-[0470] teach the mower as able to stop or turn if the mower detects an obstacle ahead of itself) and if the object also is within a window of passage based on a height of cut, a width and a height of the robotic mower. ([0358] and [0375] teach the system determining if the obstacle is in the immediate front of the mower and would fit within the width of the mower. Fig. 31 and [0459] teach the system determining an “H2” height for detecting obstacles, this H2 height is taught to be the height of the grass to be cut. [0451] teaches the system detecting an obstacle within the height of the mower and that the system cares about all axes of detection when determining what movement operation to take)
Dalfra does not teach said pair of sensors emitting ultrasonic signals having different frequencies and each receiving return ultrasonic signals of the different frequencies.
However, Smith teaches “said pair of sensors emitting ultrasonic signals having different frequencies” (Fig. 9A, and [0069] teaches a series of ultrasonic emitters that transmit at multiple different frequencies, saying “The sonar emitters 530e.sub.1-530e.sub.3 fired simultaneously each have a distinct and distinguishable frequency”) and “each receiving return ultrasonic signals of the different frequencies;” (Fig. 9A, and [0069]-[0070] teach the system having receivers that can receive signals back at the plethora of frequencies emitted by the emitters. AS [0070] teaches, “the sonar system 530 includes three emitters 530e.sub.1-530e.sub.3 and four receivers 530r.sub.1-530r.sub.4, as shown in FIGS. 9A and 9B.” The mismatch in number of emitters and receivers shows that the receivers would have to receive the different frequencies. Fig. 9A shows the receivers collecting multiple emissions.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Dalfra and Smith; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to control systems for vehicles to detect obstacles in their environment. As Smith teaches in [0069] and [0070] the use of multiple emitters and receivers allows for the system to determine where an object is and how far away the object is by comparing the different received signals. The use of multiple signals prevents interference and allows for a more complete monitoring of the world around the robot.
Regarding claim 6, Dalfra teaches the mower obstacle avoidance system of claim 5 wherein the controller is programmed to command the traction drive system to slow down the mower before stopping the mower if either of the pair of sensors receives an ultrasonic signal reflected from an object in front of the window of passage in a slow down zone located between a first distance and a second distance from the pair of sensors. ([0359], [0456], Figs. 48-49 and [0470]-[0473] teach the lawn mower having a series of regions in front of the main body of the system. These regions are based on distance from the body and depending on where an object is detected, i.e. the region of detection, the mower may execute a series of maneuvers defined as stopping, slowing, turning, or continuing forward)
Regarding claim 7, Dalfra teaches the mower obstacle avoidance system of claim 5 wherein the controller is programmed to command the traction drive system to turn the mower clockwise or counterclockwise depending on the proximity of the object relative to the mower. ([0388] and [0471]-[0472] teach the system as able to determine the side of the mower an obstacle is on and in relation to that determination rotating the mower in the appropriate manner)
Regarding claim 8, Dalfra teaches the mower obstacle avoidance system of claim 5, wherein each of the pair of sensors can receive reflected ultrasonic signals that were emitted by the other sensor. ([0364]-[0365], [0372], and [0392] teach the ultrasonic sensors being able to receive echoes, or signals, from both themselves and the other ultrasonic sensor)
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalfra and Smith in view of Hyunsup (EP-2939513-A1).
Regarding claim 9, Dalfra teaches a mower obstacle avoidance method, comprising the steps of: emitting a plurality of ultrasonic signals (Fig. 26 and [0446]-[0450]; and Figs. 45-46 and [0513]-[0514] teach the mower system sending signals from both ultrasonic sensors and after receiving the return echo, comparing the two returns in order to determine the next course of action regarding the movement of the mower)
slowing the mower from a normal speed to a reduced speed if at least one of the plurality of ultrasonic sensors receives a signal reflected from an object in a slow down zone ahead of the mower; ([0359], [0456], Figs. 48-49 and [0470]-[0473] teach the lawn mower having a series of regions in front of the main body of the system. These regions are based on distance from the body and depending on where an object is detected, i.e. the region of detection, the mower may execute a series of maneuvers defined as stopping, slowing, turning, or continuing forward)
stopping and turning the mower if at least one of the plurality of ultrasonic sensors receives a reflected signal at a stop distance closer than the slow down zone; ([0389] and [0469]-[0470] teach the mower as able to stop or turn if the mower detects an obstacle ahead of itself. [0471]-[0472] teaches the mower having a series of regions ahead of itself, the region the obstacle is detected in will influence the object avoidance maneuver the mower takes) and
Dalfra does not teach having different frequencies; each of the plurality of ultrasonic sensors receiving return signals of each of the different frequencies; and speeding up the mower from the reduced speed to the normal speed if none of the plurality of ultrasonic sensors continue receiving a reflected signal from the object in the slow down zone.
However, Smith teaches “having different frequencies” (Fig. 9A, and [0069] teaches a series of ultrasonic emitters that transmit at multiple different frequencies, saying “The sonar emitters 530e.sub.1-530e.sub.3 fired simultaneously each have a distinct and distinguishable frequency”) and “each of the plurality of ultrasonic sensors receiving return signals of each of the different frequencies” (Fig. 9A, and [0069]-[0070] teach the system having receivers that can receive signals back at the plethora of frequencies emitted by the emitters. AS [0070] teaches, “the sonar system 530 includes three emitters 530e.sub.1-530e.sub.3 and four receivers 530r.sub.1-530r.sub.4, as shown in FIGS. 9A and 9B.” The mismatch in number of emitters and receivers shows that the receivers would have to receive the different frequencies. Fig. 9A shows the receivers collecting multiple emissions.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Dalfra and Smith; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to control systems for vehicles to detect obstacles in their environment. As Smith teaches in [0069] and [0070] the use of multiple emitters and receivers allows for the system to determine where an object is and how far away the object is by comparing the different received signals. The use of multiple signals prevents interference and allows for a more complete monitoring of the world around the robot.
The combination of Dalfra and Smith fails to teach speeding up the mower from the reduced speed to the normal speed if none of the plurality of ultrasonic sensors continue receiving a reflected signal from the object in the slow down zone.
However, Hyunsup teaches “speeding up the mower from the reduced speed to the normal speed if none of the plurality of ultrasonic sensors continue receiving a reflected signal from the object in the slow down zone” ([0014], [0032] [0074], [0078], and [0098] teach accelerating a lawn mowing robot back to a preset “normal” velocity after determining that an obstacle is no longer present in a collision zone immediately in front of the robot)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Dalfra and Smith with Hyunsup; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of an autonomous vehicle device. Dalfra teaches the mower may slow down depending on where an object is detected relative to the mower. As Hyunsup teaches the mower system can continue to move back at its normal speed if a collision does not occur. This would reduce downtime of the mower and allow for an optimal cutting without being unnecessarily slow.
Regarding claim 10, Dalfra teaches the mower obstacle avoidance method of claim 9 wherein the step of stopping and turning the mower further comprises detecting a plurality of reflected signals, (Fig. 66 and [0577]-[0583] teaches the systems detecting a plurality of reflected signals) determining the magnitude of each of the plurality of reflected signals, ([0609]-[0611] teaches determining the “intensity” of the reflected echo, which would be analogous to the magnitude of the detected signal) and comparing the magnitudes of the plurality of reflected signals to determine which has the smallest magnitude. (Fig. 26 and [0446]-[0450]; and Figs. 45-46 and [0513]-[0514] teach the mower system sending signals from both ultrasonic sensors and after receiving the return echo, comparing the two returns in order to determine the next course of action regarding the movement of the mower. [0609]-[0611] further teaches the system comparing the intensity of the reflected signals to determine the smallest intensity, i.e. magnitude)
Regarding claim 11, Dalfra teach the mower obstacle avoidance method of claim 9 wherein the slow down zone has a first distance and second distance in front of the mower. ([0359], [0456], Figs. 48-49 and [0470]-[0473] teach the lawn mower having a series of regions in front of the main body of the system. These regions are based on distance from the body and depending on where an object is detected, i.e. the region of detection, the mower may execute a series of maneuvers defined as stopping, slowing, turning, or continuing forward)
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS STRYKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/N.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights