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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on 08/21/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings that were filed on 11/20/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "at least one cutting unit attached to the at least one cutting unit" in line 3 of the claim. This recitation referes to a cutting unit attached to itself which is a logical and antecedent basis error. The second occurrence of “cutting unit” should read “lift arm” so that the limitation reads “at least one cutting unit attached to the at least one lift arm via a yoke rotatbly attached to the cutting unit.” That reading is consistent with the application’s specification ([0020] [0026]), where the cutting units are connected via yokes to lift arms of the lift system and with claims 1 and 10, where both claims recite the cutting unit connected to a lift arm via a yoke. Claim 17 assumes that the claim recites “at least one cutting unit attached to the at least one lift arm” as the intended limitation.
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) 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgoulias et al. (US 20190045712 A1), and herein after will be referred to as Georgoulias, in view of Johanek et al. (US 20160316619 A1), herein after will be referred to as Johanek.
Regarding Claim 1, Georgoulias teaches the vehicle cutting system comprising a cutting unit connected to a lift arm of a lift system via a yoke, the lift system comprising a lift actuator for lifting and lowering the lift arm, the cutting unit and the yoke (A triplex greensmower with reel cutting units connected to upper/lower lift arms via yoke mount and a lift cylinder raising/lowering the cutting unit; [0020] [0024] [0025]), the control system comprising:
…a displacement of the yoke from a nominal position relative to the cutting unit… (The cutting unit pivots relative to the yoke arms at a pitch axis to follow ground contours; [0022-0023]);
Georgoulias does not explicitly teach a control system for a vehicle cutting system, a sensor for sensing a displacement of the yoke from a nominal position relative to the cutting unit and for generating a displacement signal indicative of the sensed displacement; and a controller for processing the displacement signal and adjusting a position of the lift actuator based on the processing.
However, Johanek discloses a height of cut control system on a mower deck with a controller that commands the actuator to lower or raise the mower deck. Johanek teaches a potentiometer sensor that generates an electronic signal that indicates the deck height to the electronic controller relative to the desired position ([0018-0019]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitations “a control system for a vehicle cutting system” and “a sensor for sensing a displacement of the yoke from a nominal position relative to the cutting unit and for generating a displacement signal indicative of the sensed displacement” because the potentiometer sensor generates a signal indicating how far the sensed cutting member is displaced from a desired (nominal) position. Johanek further teaches a controller that processes the displacement signal and adjust the lift actuator ([0019]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation “a controller for processing the displacement signal and adjusting a position of the lift actuator based on the processing” because the controller receives the potentiometer signal and commands the linear actuator to raise or lower the cutting member until it returns to the desired (nominal) position.
Georgoulias and Johanek are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of mowing systems and address the problem of maintaining a cutting system as a desired position relative to the ground. Therefore, 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 mechanical pivot lift system of Georgoulias to incorporate the teachings of the potentiometer sensor and electronic controller as taught by Johanek based on the motivation to improve the accuracy and precision of the cutting system. Johanek identifies that the mower cutting members “have a tendency to shift away from desired cutting heights due to wear over time or impacts with objects” so that a control system “is needed that can adjust or return a mower deck to the desired cutting height while mowing” ([0005]). This modification would predictably result in a control system that senses the yoke displacement in Georgoulias, where the cutting unit follows ground contours and commands the lift actuator to restore the cutting unit in the nominal position. See MPEP § 2143 - Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, Georgoulias teaches the structural yoke, lift arm, lift actuator of a reel mower with a pitch axis where the cutting unit follows the ground contours and Johanek teaches the potentiometer sensor and the electronic controller that processes the displacement signal and adjusts the lift actuator to restore the nominal position.
Regarding Claim 2, Georgoulias and Johanek remains as applied above in claim 1. Georgoulias further teaches the cutting unit is rotatably connected to the yoke and the displacement of the yoke comprises a rotational displacement of the yoke relative to a central support of the yoke (The reel cutting unit is rotatably connected to the yoke arms at a pitch axis and the yoke mount rotates about a central rod or vertical bolt; [0022]).
Regarding Claim 4, Georgoulias and Johanek remains as applied above in claim 1. Georgoulias does not explicitly teach the sensor comprises a potentiometer.
However, Johanek teaches a potentiometer sensor that generates an electronic signal that indicates the deck height to the electronic controller relative to the desired position ([0018-0019]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to implement the displacement sensor of the base system as a potentiometer based on the motivation that a potentiometer is a simple low-cost analog transducer that can sense the angular position of the cutting system.
Regarding Claim 6, Georgoulias and Johanek remains as applied above in claim 1. Georgoulias does not explicitly teach when the sensed displacement is in an upward direction, the controller causes the lift actuator to retract a designated amount.
However, Johanek teaches that the controller determines if the actual height of the mower deck is off by a specified amount from the desired cutting height, the controller automatically commands the lift actuator in a direction dependent on the sensed deviation, raising or lowering until the position returns to the desired position ([0019]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation “when the sensed displacement is in an upward direction and wherein the adjusting comprises reducing the amount of extension of the lift actuator a designated amount” because the controller determines when the mower deck is displaced in an upward direction and automatically adjust by raising (reducing the amount of extension) until the mower deck returns to the desired position. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for the controller to command the lift actuator to retract the yoke in the nominal position when the sensed displacement of the yoke is in an upward direction. This modification would predictably result in a correction based on the displaced direction and restore the yoke to the nominal position.
Regarding Claim 8, Georgoulias and Johanek remains as applied above in claim 1. Georgoulias does not explicitly teach when the sensed displacement is in a downward direction, the controller causes the lift actuator to extend a designated amount.
However, Johanek teaches that the controller determines if the actual height of the mower deck is off by a specified amount from the desired cutting height, the controller automatically commands the lift actuator in a direction dependent on the sensed deviation, raising or lowering until the position returns to the desired position ([0019]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation “when the sensed displacement is in a downward direction, the controller causes the lift actuator to extend a designated amount” because the controller determines when the mower deck is displaced in a downward direction and automatically adjust by lowering (increasing the amount of extension) until the mower deck returns to the desired position. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for the controller to command the lift actuator to extend the yoke in the nominal position when the sensed displacement of the yoke is in a downward direction. This modification would predictably result in a correction based on the displaced direction and restore the yoke to the nominal position.
Regarding Claim 10, Georgoulias teaches a method of controlling a cutting system of a mower, the cutting system comprising a cutting unit connected to a lift arm of a lift system via a yoke, the lift system comprising a lift actuator for lifting and lowering the lift arm, the cutting unit and the yoke (A triplex greensmower with reel cutting units connected to upper/lower lift arms via yoke mount and a lift cylinder raising/lowering the cutting unit; [0020] [0024] [0025]), the method comprising:
…a displacement of the yoke from a nominal position relative to a central support of the yoke (The yoke mount pivots relative to the vertical bolt or rod as the central support of the yoke where a stop is provided to define a desired position; [0022]); and
the cutting unit is rotatably connected to the yoke and the displacement of the yoke comprises a rotational displacement of the yoke relative to a central support of the yoke (The reel cutting unit is rotatably connected to the yoke arms at a pitch axis and the yoke mount rotates about a central rod or vertical bolt; [0022]).
Georgoulias does not explicitly teach sensing a displacement of the yoke from a nominal position relative to a central support of the yoke; and adjusting an amount of extension of the lift actuator based on the sensed displacement.
However, Johanek discloses a height of cut control system on a mower deck with a controller that commands the actuator to lower or raise the mower deck. Johanek teaches a potentiometer sensor that generates an electronic signal that indicates the deck height to the electronic controller relative to the desired position ([0018-0019]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation “sensing a displacement of the yoke from a nominal position relative to a central support of the yoke” because the potentiometer sensor generates a signal indicating how far the sensed displacement from a nominal position. Johanek teaches that the controller processes the displacement signal and automatically commands the lift actuator in a direction dependent on the sensed deviation, raising or lowering until the position returns to the desired position ([0019]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation “adjusting an amount of extension of the lift actuator based on the sensed displacement” because the controller receives the potentiometer signal and commands the linear actuator to extend or retract based on the sensed displacement. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the mechanical pivot lift system of Georgoulias to incorporate the teachings of the potentiometer sensor and electronic controller automatically commanding the lift actuator as taught by Johanek based on the motivation to adjust the mower cutting member to the desired heigh while mowing. This modification would predictably result in a method that senses yoke displacement and adjust the lift actuator to restore the cutting unit to the nominal position.
Regarding Claim 17, Georgoulias teaches a mower comprising: a lift system comprising at least one lift arm; at least one cutting unit attached to the at least one lift arm via a yoke rotatably attached to the cutting unit; at least one lift actuator associated with the at least one lift arm (A triplex greensmower with reel cutting units attached via a yoke mount rotatably connected to the cutting units with lift arms and a lift cylinder; [0020] [0024] [0025]);
…a rotational displacement of the yoke relative to a central support of the yoke…(A vertical bolt or rod as the central support about which the yoke rotationally displaces; [0022]);
Georgoulias does not explicitly teach at least one sensor associated with the at least one cutting unit for detecting a rotational displacement of the yoke relative to a central support of the yoke and generating a signal indicative of the detected rotational displacement; and
at least one controller for processing the signal indicative of the detected rotational displacement and generating a command signal to the at least one lift actuator to cause the at least one lift actuator to adjust an extension thereof based on the signal.
However, Johanek teaches a potentiometer sensor that generates an electronic signal that indicates the deck height to the electronic controller relative to the desired position ([0018-0019]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation “at least one sensor associated with the at least one cutting unit for detecting a rotational displacement of the yoke relative to a central support of the yoke and generating a signal indicative of the detected rotational displacement” because the potentiometer generates an electronic signal indicating how far the sensed cutting member is from the desired (nominal) position. Applying the sensed displacement to the central support, vertical bolt or rod, to Georgoulias’s structure, generates the claimed signal indicative of the detected rotational displacement. Johanek’s potentiometer senses the actual position of the cutting member relative to a desired height; placed at Georgoulias’s yoke pivot, it senses the angular position of the yoke that directly carries the cutting unit for the claimed “associated with the cutting unit”. Johanek further teaches a controller that processes the displacement signal and automatically adjust the lift actuator to the desired cutting height ([0019]). This is equivalent to the claimed “at least one controller for processing the signal indicative of the detected rotational displacement and generating a command signal to the at least one lift actuator to cause the at least one lift actuator to adjust an extension thereof based on the signal” because the controller receives the displacement signal and commands the actuator to raise or lower based on that signal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the mechanical pivot lift system of Georgoulias to incorporate the teachings of the potentiometer sensor and electronic controller as taught by Johanek based on the motivation to improve the accuracy and precision of the cutting system to automatically adjust the mower deck to the desired cutting height while mowing. Johanek states that the “the controller may automatically adjust the mower deck by commanding linear actuator to raise or lower the mower deck until the potentiometer shows the actual height of the mower deck is at the desired cutting height.“ ([0019]). This modification would predictably result in a mower whose controller processes the detected yoke displacement and commands the lift actuator to adjust to restore the nominal position.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgoulias in view of Johanek, as applied in claim 2, and in further view of Thompson et al. (US 6912832 B1), herein after will be referred to as Thompson.
Regarding Claim 3, Georgoulias and Johanek remains as applied above in claim 2. Georgoulias and Johanek does not explicitly teach a maximum amount of the rotational displacement of the yoke relative to the central support of the yoke is limited by an isolator.
However, Thompson discloses a suspension system for a tractor-drawn mower in which the mowing unit is supported on the frame by a mower pivot that incorporates a rubber torsion axle assembly (Col 4 lines 4-10). Thompson teaches that the rubber torsion axle assembly limits the maximum amount of rotation at the pivot when a torque arm contacts a stop pin (Col 4 lines 32-46) and the limiting position being adjustable (Col 4 lines 1-3). Thompson’s rubber torsion axle assembly with a stop pin is an isolator that limits a maximum amount of rotational displacement, the same isolator material disclosed in the applicant’s specification (Spec [0035]).
Georgoulias, Johanek, and Thompson are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of mower suspension systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the rod and sleeve pivot at the yoke mount coupling of Georgoulias and Johanek to incorporate the teachings of the rubber torsion axle assembly with a stop pin as taught by Thompson based on the motivation that the rubber torsion axle reduces the ground contact force on the cutting unit (Col 5 lines 24-62) and the stop pins protects the over-travel while permitting the operator to adjust the limit (Col 4 lines 48-67). This is a simple substitution of Georgoulias’s rod and sleeve pivot for Thompson’s rubber torsion axle assembly with a stop pin, yielding the predictable result of a maximum amount of rotational displacement of the yoke relative to the central support that is limited by the isolator.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgoulias in view of Johanek, as applied in claim 2, and in further view of Dücker et al. (EP 1048198 A1), herein after will be referred to as Dücker.
Regarding Claim 5, Georgoulias and Johanek remains as applied above in claim 2. Georgoulias and Johanek does not explicitly teach the sensor comprises a strain gauge.
However, Dücker discloses a mowing device with a sensor arrangement that comprises strain gauges mounted on the support member that connects the mowing head to the vehicle boom and the strain gauges deliver measurement signal to the control device that adjusts the mowing head (Pages 2 and 3). The strain gauge uses the same measurement of deformation/positioning of the cutting head as Johanek’s potentiometer to drive the lift of the cutter, establishing that the strain gauge is a well-known equivalent sensor for the sensing and lifting function.
Georgoulias, Johanek, and Dücker are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of mower systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the potentiometer sensor of Georgoulias and Johanek to incorporate the teachings of a strain gauge as taught by Dücker based on the motivation that the strain gauge provides the same feed signal as the potentiometer to the controller to adjust the lift. This is a simple substitution of one known electrical transducer (a potentiometer) for another (a strain gauge) to obtain the predictable result of the same function. See MPEP § 2143 - Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 7, 9, 11-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgoulias in view of Johanek, as applied in claim 1, and in further view of Rotole et al. (US 20200260638 A1), herein after will be referred to as Rotole.
Regarding Claim 7, Georgoulias and Johanek remains as applied above in claim 6. Georgoulias and Johanek does not explicitly teach the designated amount is dependent upon an amount of the sensed displacement.
However, Rotole discloses a ground contour sensing system for a vehicle with a mowing head that generates contour measurement signals to the controller to determine whether to move the mowing head. Rotole teaches that the system senses the ground contour with an angle sensor that monitors the angle of the pivot arm and the readings deviate (increase or decrease) indicating a magnitude of the ground contour change ([0036]). The magnitude of that deviation is the amount of the sensed displacement. Rotole further teaches that the lift actuator is activated by an amount set by that is a function of the difference between the sensed angle and a threshold ([0037]).
Georgoulias, Johanek, and Rotole are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of mower systems. Therefore, 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 controller to retract the lift actuator of Georgoulias and Johanek to incorporate the teachings of the designated amount upon the amount of sensed displacement as taught by Rotole based on the motivation to provide the controller with a function that can quantify the amount of difference to activate the lift cylinders and prevent damage or dulling to keep the cutting mechanism within a desired height region above the ground, as explicitly stated by Rotole ([0036]). This modification would predictably result in the lift actuator restoring the cutting unit to its nominal position by an amount from the sensed displacement.
Regarding Claim 9, Georgoulias and Johanek remains as applied above in claim 8. Georgoulias and Johanek does not explicitly teach the designated amount is dependent upon an amount of the sensed displacement.
However, Rotole discloses a ground contour sensing system for a vehicle with a mowing head that generates contour measurement signals to the controller to determine whether to move the mowing head. Rotole teaches that the system senses the ground contour with an angle sensor that monitors the angle of the pivot arm and the readings deviate (increase or decrease) indicating a magnitude of the ground contour change ([0036]). The magnitude of that deviation is the amount of the sensed displacement. Rotole further teaches that the lift actuator is activated by an amount set by that is a function of the difference between the sensed angle and a threshold ([0037]). 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 controller to retract the lift actuator of Georgoulias and Johanek to incorporate the teachings of the designated amount upon the amount of sensed displacement as taught by Rotole based on the motivation to provide the controller with a function that can quantify the amount of difference to activate the lift cylinders and prevent damage or dulling to keep the cutting mechanism within a desired height region above the ground, as explicitly stated by Rotole ([0036]). This modification would predictably result in the lift actuator restoring the cutting unit to its nominal position by an amount from the sensed displacement.
Regarding Claim 11, Georgoulias and Johanek remains as applied above in claim 10. Georgoulias does not explicitly teach when the sensed displacement is in an upward direction and wherein the adjusting comprises reducing the amount of extension of the lift actuator a designated amount. However, Johanek teaches that the controller determines if the actual height of the mower deck is off by a specified amount from the desired cutting height, the controller automatically commands the lift actuator in a direction dependent on the sensed deviation, raising or lowering until the position returns to the desired position ([0019]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation “when the sensed displacement is in an upward direction and wherein the adjusting comprises reducing the amount of extension of the lift actuator a designated amount” because the controller determines when the mower deck is displaced in an upward direction and automatically adjust by raising (reducing the amount of extension) until the mower deck returns to the desired position. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for the controller to command the lift actuator to retract the yoke in the nominal position when the sensed displacement of the yoke is in an upward direction. This modification would predictably result in a correction based on the displaced direction and restore the yoke to the nominal position.
Georgoulias and Johanek does not explicitly teach the designated amount is dependent upon an amount of the sensed displacement.
However, Rotole discloses a ground contour sensing system for a vehicle with a mowing head that generates contour measurement signals to the controller to determine whether to move the mowing head. Rotole teaches that the system senses the ground contour with an angle sensor that monitors the angle of the pivot arm and the readings deviate (increase or decrease) indicating a magnitude of the ground contour change ([0036]). The magnitude of that deviation is the amount of the sensed displacement. Rotole further teaches that the lift actuator is activated by an amount set by that is a function of the difference between the sensed angle and a threshold ([0037]). 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 controller to retract the lift actuator of Georgoulias and Johanek to incorporate the teachings of the designated amount upon the amount of sensed displacement as taught by Rotole based on the motivation to provide the controller with a function that can quantify the amount of difference to activate the lift cylinders and prevent damage or dulling to keep the cutting mechanism within a desired height region above the ground, as explicitly stated by Rotole ([0036]). This modification would predictably result in the lift actuator restoring the cutting unit to its nominal position by an amount from the sensed displacement.
Regarding Claim 12, Georgoulias and Johanek remains as applied above in claim 10. Georgoulias does not explicitly teach when the sensed displacement is in a downward direction and wherein the adjusting comprises increasing the amount of extension of the lift actuator a designated amount.
However, Johanek teaches that the controller determines if the actual height of the mower deck is off by a specified amount from the desired cutting height, the controller automatically commands the lift actuator in a direction dependent on the sensed deviation, raising or lowering until the position returns to the desired position ([0019]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation “when the sensed displacement is in a downward direction and wherein the adjusting comprises increasing the amount of extension of the lift actuator a designated amount” because the controller determines when the mower deck is displaced in a downward direction and automatically adjust by lowering (increasing the amount of extension) until the mower deck returns to the desired position. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for the controller to command the lift actuator to extend the yoke in the nominal position when the sensed displacement of the yoke is in a downward direction. This modification would predictably result in a correction based on the displaced direction and restore the yoke to the nominal position.
Georgoulias and Johanek does not explicitly teach the designated amount is dependent upon an amount of the sensed displacement.
However, Rotole discloses a ground contour sensing system for a vehicle with a mowing head that generates contour measurement signals to the controller to determine whether to move the mowing head. Rotole teaches that the system senses the ground contour with an angle sensor that monitors the angle of the pivot arm and the readings deviate (increase or decrease) indicating a magnitude of the ground contour change ([0036]). The magnitude of that deviation is the amount of the sensed displacement. Rotole further teaches that the lift actuator is activated by an amount set by that is a function of the difference between the sensed angle and a threshold ([0037]). 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 controller to retract the lift actuator of Georgoulias and Johanek to incorporate the teachings of the designated amount upon the amount of sensed displacement as taught by Rotole based on the motivation to provide the controller with a function that can quantify the amount of difference to activate the lift cylinders and prevent damage or dulling to keep the cutting mechanism within a desired height region above the ground, as explicitly stated by Rotole ([0036]). This modification would predictably result in the lift actuator restoring the cutting unit to its nominal position by an amount from the sensed displacement.
Regarding Claim 13, Georgoulias and Johanek remains as applied above in claim 10. Georgoulias and Johanek does not explicitly teach processing the sensed displacement to determine a terrain being traversed by the mower.
However, Rotole teaches that the ground contour sensing system senses the displacement as the angle of a pivot arm and sends the readings to a controller that processes and determines the terrain being traversed ([0030] [0033]). When the readings increase or decrease, this indicates an upward or downward change in the ground contour ([0032]) with the controller anticipating the contour of the ground ahead from the readings ([0031]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation because the angle readings are the “sensed displacement” and the controller processes the readings to anticipate and determine whether the ground is flat, rising, or falling is the claimed “processing the sensed displacement to determine a terrain being traversed by the mower”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Georgoulias and Johanek to incorporate the teachings of the controller processing and determining the terrain being traversed as taught by Rotole based on the motivation that using the ground angle readings, the controller can anticipate the upcoming ground contour and command the actuator to move the cutting head according to help prevent damage or dulling of the blades (Rotole [0031]). Determining the terrain from the sensed displacement requires no additional sensors and predictably improves the accuracy of the cutting unit following the ground contour. The combination yields the predictable result of a controller that processes the sensed yoked displacement to determine the terrain being traversed and prepositions the lift actuator accordingly.
Regarding Claim 19, Georgoulias and Johanek remains as applied above in claim 17. Georgoulias does not explicitly teach when the detected rotational displacement is in an upward direction and wherein the adjusting comprises reducing the amount of extension of the at least one lift actuator a designated amount.
However, Johanek teaches that the controller determines if the actual height of the mower deck is off by a specified amount from the desired cutting height, the controller automatically commands the lift actuator in a direction dependent on the sensed deviation, raising or lowering until the position returns to the desired position ([0019]). Applying the sensed displacement to the central support, vertical bolt or rod, to Georgoulias’s structure, generates the claimed signal indicative of the detected rotational displacement. This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation “when the sensed displacement is in an upward direction and wherein the adjusting comprises reducing the amount of extension of the lift actuator a designated amount” because the controller determines when the mower deck is displaced in an upward direction and automatically adjust by raising (reducing the amount of extension) until the mower deck returns to the desired position. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for the controller to command the lift actuator to retract the yoke in the nominal position when the sensed displacement of the yoke is in an upward direction. This modification would predictably result in a correction based on the displaced direction and restore the yoke to the nominal position.
Georgoulias and Johanek does not explicitly teach the designated amount is dependent upon an amount of the detected rotational displacement.
However, Rotole discloses a ground contour sensing system for a vehicle with a mowing head that generates contour measurement signals to the controller to determine whether to move the mowing head. Rotole teaches that the system senses the ground contour with an angle sensor that monitors the angle of the pivot arm and the readings deviate (increase or decrease) indicating a magnitude of the ground contour change ([0036]). The magnitude of that deviation is the amount of the sensed displacement. Rotole further teaches that the lift actuator is activated by an amount set by that is a function of the difference between the sensed angle and a threshold ([0037]). 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 controller to retract the lift actuator of Georgoulias and Johanek to incorporate the teachings of the designated amount upon the amount of sensed displacement as taught by Rotole based on the motivation to provide the controller with a function that can quantify the amount of difference to activate the lift cylinders and prevent damage or dulling to keep the cutting mechanism within a desired height region above the ground, as explicitly stated by Rotole ([0036]). This modification would predictably result in the lift actuator restoring the cutting unit to its nominal position by an amount from the sensed displacement.
Regarding Claim 20, Georgoulias and Johanek remains as applied above in claim 17. Georgoulias does not explicitly teach when the detected rotational displacement is in a downward direction and wherein the adjusting comprises increasing the amount of extension of the lift actuator a designated amount.
However, Johanek teaches that the controller determines if the actual height of the mower deck is off by a specified amount from the desired cutting height, the controller automatically commands the lift actuator in a direction dependent on the sensed deviation, raising or lowering until the position returns to the desired position ([0019]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation “when the detected rotational displacement is in a downward direction and wherein the adjusting comprises increasing the amount of extension of the lift actuator a designated amount” because the controller determines when the mower deck is displaced in a downward direction and automatically adjust by lowering (increasing the amount of extension) until the mower deck returns to the desired position. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for the controller to command the lift actuator to extend the yoke in the nominal position when the sensed displacement of the yoke is in a downward direction. This modification would predictably result in a correction based on the displaced direction and restore the yoke to the nominal position.
Georgoulias and Johanek does not explicitly teach wherein the designated amount is dependent upon an amount of the detected rotational displacement.
However, Rotole discloses a ground contour sensing system for a vehicle with a mowing head that generates contour measurement signals to the controller to determine whether to move the mowing head. Rotole teaches that the system senses the ground contour with an angle sensor that monitors the angle of the pivot arm and the readings deviate (increase or decrease) indicating a magnitude of the ground contour change ([0036]). The magnitude of that deviation is the amount of the sensed displacement. Rotole further teaches that the lift actuator is activated by an amount set by that is a function of the difference between the sensed angle and a threshold ([0037]). 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 controller to retract the lift actuator of Georgoulias and Johanek to incorporate the teachings of the designated amount upon the amount of sensed displacement as taught by Rotole based on the motivation to provide the controller with a function that can quantify the amount of difference to activate the lift cylinders and prevent damage or dulling to keep the cutting mechanism within a desired height region above the ground, as explicitly stated by Rotole ([0036]). This modification would predictably result in the lift actuator restoring the cutting unit to its nominal position by an amount from the sensed displacement.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgoulias in view of Johanek, and in view of Rotole, as applied in claim 13, and in further view of Degnan et al. (US 20230042867 A1), herein after will be referred to as Degnan.
Regarding Claim 14, Georgoulias, Johanek, and Rotole remains as applied above in claim 13. The prior art combination does not explicitly teach the processing the sensed displacement further comprises processing data from an image sensor installed on the mower along with the sensed displacement to determine the terrain being traversed by the mower.
However, Degnan discloses an autonomous electric mower system comprising a computer, a lidar sensor, and a color and depth sensing cameras ([0007]). Degnan further teaches a perception stack that processes and weights the sensor data to characterize the environment ([0009]) where the data from the lidar camera is used for perception ([0008]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation “processing data from an image sensor installed on the mower along with the sensed displacement to determine the terrain being traversed by the mower” because the mower carries an image sensor, a lidar sensor and cameras, and the perception stack processes the image data to detect and classify the surroundings the mower traverses. The sensed yoke displacement is supplied by the prior combination in claim 13.
Georgoulias, Johanek, Rotole, and Degnan are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of mowing systems. Therefore, 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 base system to incorporate the teachings of the image sensors mounted on the mower and process the data to perceive the terrain being traversed as taught by Degnan based on the motivation that multi-model sensing provides a redundant data that increases the precision and improves the operational safety of the mowing system. Degnan states “redundant sensing of areas surrounding the mower in the event one or more of the sensors are obstructed” ([0018]) and “two different cameras may be arranged to have overlapping fields of view and the system is operable to exclude camera data that is obstructed or otherwise of poor quality. The system weights the unobstructed data more heavily. More accurate predictions can be made with this refined data.” ([0009]). Combining image data with the already sensed displacement predictably improves the accuracy and completeness of the terrain beyond a single displacement signal.
Regarding Claim 15, Georgoulias, Johanek, Rotole, and Degnan remains as applied above in claim 14. The prior art combination does not explicitly teach the data comprises ranging (LIDAR) sensor data.
However, Degnan discloses an autonomous electric mower system comprising a computer, a lidar sensor, and a color and depth sensing cameras ([0007] [0019]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the base system to incorporate the teachings of a lidar sensor and data as taught by Degnan based on the motivation that the lidar sensor increases the precision and improves the operational safety of the mowing system.
Regarding Claim 16, Georgoulias, Johanek, Rotole, and Degnan remains as applied above in claim 14. The prior art combination does not explicitly teach generating a terrain map based on the processing.
However, Degnan teaches populating a two-dimensional map with the detected obstacles from the multiple sensor modalities ([0164]). Degnan further teaches that the system records the sensor data for each location the mower covers ([0143]) and the robot identifies the edges of the mowable area ([0086]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation because the mower generates a spatial map of the surface that it traverses, a two-dimensional map grid populated from the sensor data, recorded data for each location the mower covers, and identified edges of the mowable area ([0086]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the base system to incorporate the teachings of generating a terrain map from the sensor data as taught by Degnan based on the motivation that recording sensor data for each location the mower covers provides higher granularity of data than fixed sensors (Degnan [0143]) and supports safe and efficient route planning on the map grid (Degnan [0164]). This combination predictably yields a controller that generates a terrain map based on the processed sensor data.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgoulias in view of Johanek, as applied in claim 17, and in further view of Degnan.
Regarding Claim 18, Georgoulias, Johanek, and Degnan remains as applied above in claim 17. Georgoulias and Johanek does not explicitly teach at least one image sensor for generating image data of an environment of the mower, wherein the at least one controller receives the image data and processes the image data and the received signal to determine a terrain being traversed by the mower.
However, Degnan discloses an autonomous electric mower system comprising a controller, a lidar sensor, and a color and depth sensing cameras ([0007-0008]). Degnan further teaches a perception stack that processes and weights the sensor data to characterize the environment ([0009]) where the data from the lidar camera is used for perception ([0008]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation “at least one image sensor for generating image data of an environment of the mower, wherein the at least one controller receives the image data and processes the image data and the received signal to determine a terrain being traversed by the mower” because the mower carries an image sensor, a lidar sensor and cameras, and the controller processes the image data to detect and classify the surroundings the mower traverses. The base system of claim 17 supplies the sensor that generates the received displacement signal and the controller that processes it where Degnan supplies the mower mounted image sensor and multi-input perception processing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add the mower mounted image sensor to the base system and have the controller process the image data with the displacement signal to determine the terrain being traversed based on the motivation that redundant multi-modal sensing increases precision and improves the operational safety of the mower even when a sensor is obstructed (Degnan [0018]). Adding an image sensor to the base system of claim 17 and processing the data with the displacement signal predictably yields a controller that receives the image data and processes the image data with the received signal to determine the terrain.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent, most relevant, to applicant's disclosure.
Reichen (US 5343680 A)
Bomleny (US 20060254232 A1)
Henson (US 20070256400 A1)
Sauerwein (US 20100037582 A1)
Fox (US 5339906 A)
Gust (US 6351929 B1)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON whose telephone number is (571)272-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights