DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-15 of US application 18/527,130 were filed on 12/1/23.
On the same day, applicant filed a preliminary amendment. Claims 1, 6, and 8-11 were amended. Claim 15 was cancelled. claims 1-14 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4, 6, and 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, “in response to the output torque reaches a second” should be “in response to the output torque reaching a second”
In claim 3, “wherein the controlling the wheel rotation speed of the intelligent lawn mower to increase to a set wheel rotation speed” should be “wherein [[the]] controlling the wheel rotation speed of the intelligent lawn mower to increase to [[a]] the set wheel rotation speed”
In claim 4, “in response to the output torque is not less than the first set threshold.” should be “in response to the output torque [[is]] not being less than the first set threshold.”
In claim 6, “wherein the replanning the moving path of the intelligent lawn mower comprises:” should be “wherein [[the]] replanning the moving path of the intelligent lawn mower comprises:”
In claim 8, “wherein the determining the deceleration coefficient of the wheel rotation speed based on a set deceleration percentage” should be “wherein [[the]] determining the deceleration coefficient of the wheel rotation speed based on [[a]] the set deceleration percentage”
In claim 9, “wherein the determining, according to the wheel rotation speed” should be “wherein [[the]] determining, according to the wheel rotation speed”
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a detector, configured to detect output torque of a mowing motor during working of the intelligent lawn mower” in claim 10
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification reveals “a current detector, such as an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) or a current sensor, to obtain the output torque” (See at least paragraph [0036] in the specification). This is adequate structure to perform the claimed functions, so no 112 rejections are given and no further action is required by applicant with respect to this 112(f) interpretation.
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.
Claims 1 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jansen et al. (US 7594377 B1), hereinafter referred to as Jansen. Where appropriate, claims containing similar limitations are grouped together for applicant’s reading convenience, with the prior art being mapped to the narrowest of the claims in the group. But it will be appreciated that all claims in the group are rejected.
Regarding claims 1 and 10-11, Jansen discloses An intelligent lawn mower (See at least Fig. 3 in Jansen: Jansen discloses a mower that controls various components according to various detected inputs [See at least Jansen, Col 2, lines 55-67]), wherein the intelligent lawn mower comprises a data acquisition sensor and a controller that are interconnected (Jansen discloses that the controller 20 may be configured to sense the cutting load on the blade 26 through measurement of torque [See at least Jansen, Col 2, lines 34-36]. Therefore, the controller is coupled to some kind of sensor which measures torque); wherein the data acquisition sensor is configured to acquire output torque of a mowing motor during working of the intelligent lawn mower (Jansen discloses that the controller 20 may be configured to sense the cutting load on the blade 26 through measurement of torque [See at least Jansen, Col 2, lines 34-36]); and the controller is configured to:
determine a deceleration coefficient of a wheel rotation speed based on a set deceleration percentage of the wheel rotation speed (Jansen discloses that When the controller 20 determines that the speed of the blade is less than the pre-determined normal speed or that the cutting load is higher than a predetermined value a signal is sent to the transmission control system 42 which in turn adjusts the variable ratio ground drive transmission 40 such that the ground speed of the mower 10 is reduced [See at least Jansen, Col 2, lines 62-67]. The adjusted ratio may be regarded as a “deceleration coefficient” which effectuates a “set deceleration percentage”), the output torque (Jansen discloses that When the controller 20 determines that the speed of the blade is less than the pre-determined normal speed or that the cutting load is higher than a predetermined value a signal is sent to the transmission control system 42 which in turn adjusts the variable ratio ground drive transmission 40 such that the ground speed of the mower 10 is reduced [See at least Jansen, Col 2, lines 62-67]. Jansen’s detected “cutting load” may be regarded as corresponding to an output torque, as discussed in at least [Jansen, Col 2, lines 34-36]), and a first set threshold in a case that the output torque reaches the first set threshold (Jansen discloses that When the controller 20 determines that the speed of the blade is less than the pre-determined normal speed or that the cutting load is higher than a predetermined value a signal is sent to the transmission control system 42 which in turn adjusts the variable ratio ground drive transmission 40 such that the ground speed of the mower 10 is reduced [See at least Jansen, Col 2, lines 62-67]. The predetermined value of the load corresponds to a torque threshold which may be regarded as applicant’s “first set threshold”, since the load values correspond to torque values as discussed in at least [Jansen, Col 2, lines 34-36]);
determine, according to the wheel rotation speed of the intelligent lawn mower and the deceleration coefficient, a target wheel rotation speed to which the wheel rotation speed of the intelligent lawn mower is to be reduced (Jansen discloses that When the controller 20 determines that the speed of the blade is less than the pre-determined normal speed or that the cutting load is higher than a predetermined value a signal is sent to the transmission control system 42 which in turn adjusts the variable ratio ground drive transmission 40 such that the ground speed of the mower 10 is reduced [See at least Jansen, Col 2, lines 62-67]. The final speed after this adjustment may be regarded as applicant’s “target wheel rotation speed”); and
control the intelligent lawn mower to operate based on the target wheel rotation speed (Jansen discloses that When the controller 20 determines that the speed of the blade is less than the pre-determined normal speed or that the cutting load is higher than a predetermined value a signal is sent to the transmission control system 42 which in turn adjusts the variable ratio ground drive transmission 40 such that the ground speed of the mower 10 is reduced [See at least Jansen, Col 2, lines 62-67]).
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jansen et al. (US 7594377 B1) in view of Aposhian et al. (US 20190239427 A1), hereinafter referred to as Aposhian.
Regarding claim 2, Jansen discloses The method according to claim 1.
However, Jansen does not explicitly teach the method wherein the method further comprises:
controlling the wheel rotation speed of the intelligent lawn mower to increase to a set wheel rotation speed in response to the output torque reaches a second set threshold, wherein the second set threshold is less than the first set threshold.
However, Aposhian does teach a method for operating a lawn mower with cutting motors (See at least Fig. 3 in Aposhian: Aposhian teaches Mower deck 300 houses a number of cutting blades, which is four in the depicted example, and includes two motors 302 for driving the cutting blades [See at least Aposhian, 0021]. Aposhian further teaches that each of mower decks 300a-300c can include a sensor 303 for monitoring a load on a corresponding motor 302 [See at least Aposhian, 0023]) wherein the method further comprises:
controlling the wheel rotation speed (See at least Fig. 3 in Aposhian: Aposhian teaches that Mower deck 300 also includes front and rear rollers that are coupled together via a linkage 301 that is described in detail in the '065 application [See at least Aposhian, 0021]. Aposhian further teaches that, In some embodiments, the rollers can be replaced with four wheels [See at least Aposhian, 0021]. Aposhian further teaches that the drivetrain could be coupled to wheels or rollers that form part of mower decks 300 [See at least Aposhian, 0020]. Aposhian further teaches that Of importance to the present invention is that power plant 210 and/or the drivetrain can be controlled to alter the ground speed of mower 200 [See at least Aposhian, 0020]) of the intelligent lawn mower to increase (Aposhian teaches that If all of the current loads are below the optimal load parameter, control module 220 can determine that the ground speed of mower 200 can be increased and can therefore send control signals to cause power plant 210 to increase the ground speed by a specified amount [See at least Aposhian, 0027]) to a set wheel rotation speed (Aposhian teaches that If all of the current loads are below the optimal load parameter, control module 220 can determine that the ground speed of mower 200 can be increased and can therefore send control signals to cause power plant 210 to increase the ground speed by a specified amount [See at least Aposhian, 0027]. Aposhian further teaches that, For example, control module 220 could adjust the throttle by some defined increment or a value that is dynamically calculated based on the difference between the optimal load parameter and the current loads [See at least Aposhian, 0027]. This speed produced by this defined increment or value throttle change may be regarded as applicant’s “set wheel rotation speed”) in response to the output load reaches a second set threshold, wherein the second set threshold is less than (Aposhian teaches that If all of the current loads are below the optimal load parameter, control module 220 can determine that the ground speed of mower 200 can be increased and can therefore send control signals to cause power plant 210 to increase the ground speed by a specified amount [See at least Aposhian, 0027]. Aposhian further teaches that, For example, control module 220 could adjust the throttle by some defined increment or a value that is dynamically calculated based on the difference between the optimal load parameter and the current loads [See at least Aposhian, 0027]. Because this current load is less than the optimal load and triggers a particular and corresponding increase in ground speed, the current load in question may be regarded as applicant’s “second set threshold”) the first set threshold (Aposhian further teaches an optimal load parameter representing the load that motor 302 should experience when mower 200 is travelling at an optimal ground speed for the current density of the grass [See at least Aposhian, 0026]. Aposhian further teaches that the control module generates one or more control signals to decrease the ground speed when the monitored load is greater than an optimal load parameter [See at least Aposhian, claims 6-7 and 16-17]. It will therefore be appreciated that this optimal load parameter of Aposhian is analogous to the torque threshold of at least [Jansen, Col 2, lines 62-67], which has been interpreted as applicant’s “first set threshold”, since they are both cutting motor load thresholds that trigger decreases in ground speed. This analogy is the basis for this 103 rejection and combination). Both Aposhian and Jansen teach methods for operating lawn mowers which decrease wheel speed when a certain first load threshold (quantified using torque in at least [Jansen, Col 2, lines 34-36]) is exceeded. However, only Aposhian explicitly teaches where there are other load thresholds less than the first threshold which actually trigger increases in wheel speed.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cutting-motor-load-based wheel speed control method of Jansen to also include other load thresholds less than the first threshold which actually trigger increases in wheel speed, as in Aposhian. Doing so improves efficiency by optimizing the travel and operations of the mower at various different cutting motor loads.
Regarding claim 3, Jansen in view of Aposhian teaches The method according to claim 2, wherein the controlling the wheel rotation speed of the intelligent lawn mower to increase to a set wheel rotation speed comprises:
controlling the wheel rotation speed of the intelligent lawn mower to increase to the set wheel rotation speed based on a set acceleration slope (Aposhian teaches that If all of the current loads are below the optimal load parameter, control module 220 can determine that the ground speed of mower 200 can be increased and can therefore send control signals to cause power plant 210 to increase the ground speed by a specified amount [See at least Aposhian, 0027]. Aposhian further teaches that, For example, control module 220 could adjust the throttle by some defined increment or a value that is dynamically calculated based on the difference between the optimal load parameter and the current loads [See at least Aposhian, 0027]. This may broadly be regarded as increasing the wheel speed along a particular “acceleration slope”, because for a particular difference in the input variable (load), there is a corresponding increase in the output variable (throttle or wheel speed). Slope is rise over run, so this interpretation reads on that claim limitation).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jansen et al. (US 7594377 B1) in view of Nakamura et al. (JP 2020182402 A) (See the attached English translation), hereinafter referred to as Nakamura.
Regarding claim 4, Jansen discloses The method according to claim 1.
However, Jansen does not explicitly teach the method wherein the method further comprises:
replanning a moving path of the intelligent lawn mower in response to the output torque is not less than the first set threshold.
However, Nakamura does teach a method for operating an autonomous lawn mower which determines cutting motor load (See at least Figs. 1-2 in Nakamura: Nakamura teaches that The load determination unit 40 acquires the rotation speed of the output shaft 4 a of the engine 4 (hereinafter simply referred to as rotation speed) from the sensor 34 as the output rotation speed from the engine 4 [See at least Nakamura, 0073]. Nakamura further teaches that The load determination unit 40 calculates the mowing load from the acquired number of revolutions, and determines whether or not the mowing load is in a high load state [See at least Nakamura, 0073]. It will be appreciated that, given the relationship between torque and angular velocity of a motor, this measurement is equivalent to the torque-based load measurement of at least [Jansen, Col 2, lines 34-36]) wherein the method further comprises:
replanning a moving path of the intelligent lawn mower in response to the load on the cutting motor being not less than the first set threshold (Nakamura teaches that When it is determined that the load state is high,… The control unit 41 can also stop the engine 4, temporarily reverse the mower, or change the travel route as other countermeasures [See at least Nakamura, 0083-0084]). Both Nakamura and Jansen teach methods of operating lawnmowers responsive to detection of a higher cutting load which is indicative of high torque on the cutting motor. However, only Nakamura explicitly teaches where the lawn mower may respond to this condition by changing its route.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lawn mower of Jansen to also respond to the high cutting torque situation by changing its route, as in Nakamura. Doing so improves safety and efficiency of the cutting operation by avoiding a situation with a dangerously high load.
Regarding claim 5, Jansen in view of Nakamura teaches The method according to claim 4, wherein the method further comprises:
detecting a blade rotation speed of a blade driven by the mowing motor (Jansen discloses that When the controller 20 determines that the speed of the blade is less than the pre-determined normal speed or that the cutting load is higher than a predetermined value a signal is sent to the transmission control system 42 which in turn adjusts the variable ratio ground drive transmission 40 such that the ground speed of the mower 10 is reduced [See at least Jansen, Col 2, lines 62-67]); and
determining that the output torque (Jansen discloses that the controller 20 may be configured to sense the cutting load on the blade 26 through measurement of torque [See at least Jansen, Col 2, lines 34-36]) is not less than the first set threshold in a case that the blade rotation speed is less than a target blade rotation speed (Jansen discloses that When the controller 20 determines that the speed of the blade is less than the pre-determined normal speed or that the cutting load is higher than a predetermined value a signal is sent to the transmission control system 42 which in turn adjusts the variable ratio ground drive transmission 40 such that the ground speed of the mower 10 is reduced [See at least Jansen, Col 2, lines 62-67]).
Regarding claim 6, Jansen in view of Nakamura teaches The method according to claim 4, wherein the replanning the moving path of the intelligent lawn mower (Nakamura teaches that the control unit 41 may appropriately combine the notification of an alarm, the action of temporarily moving the mower backward, and the change of the travel route [See at least Nakamura, 0087]) comprises:
controlling the intelligent lawn mower to retreat by a preset distance (Nakamura teaches that The countermeasure for temporarily moving the mower backward is a process in which the control unit 41 controls the engine 4, the accelerator motor 47, and the forward/reverse motor 48 to once move the mower backward and then move it forward again [See at least Nakamura, 0085]), and adjusting an advancing direction of the intelligent lawn mower (Nakamura teaches that As a countermeasure for changing the travel route, the control unit 41 controls the first steering motor 13 and the second steering motor 14 to shift the current travel route to the area (travel route) where mowing has already been completed [See at least Nakamura, 0086]); and
controlling the intelligent lawn mower to move in an adjusted advancing direction (Nakamura teaches that As a countermeasure for changing the travel route, the control unit 41 controls the first steering motor 13 and the second steering motor 14 to shift the current travel route to the area (travel route) where mowing has already been completed [See at least Nakamura, 0086]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 12-14 are 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.
The closest prior art of record for claims 7 and 12 is Jansen et al. (US 7594377 B1). The following is a statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 7 and 12, Jansen discloses The intelligent lawn mower according to claim 11.
However, none of the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the intelligent lawn mower wherein the controller is further configured to control the wheel rotation speed of the intelligent lawn mower to reduce to the target wheel rotation speed based on a set deceleration slope.
In interpreting the above missing limitations, it is of particular significance that the final wheel speed reached using the set deceleration slope is the target wheel speed relating to the blade torque from earlier. No reference teaches using such a set deceleration slope to reach that speed. Jansen comes the closest because Jansen at least teaches a reduced speed in response to a particular blade torque, but the only comparable numerical value that Jansen uses to attain this reduced speed corresponding to the blade torque is a different transmission ratio (See at least [Jansen, Col 2, lines 62-67]). However, a transmission ratio is not the same as a deceleration slope, because a ratio is not a slope. There is no indication that a certain value is changing by a certain amount corresponding to an amount of change in a wheel speed or acceleration. Instead, a transmission ratio is simply a change in a gear. So Jansen does not read on the claim limitation.
None of the other prior art of record resolves this deficiency of Jansen.
For at least the above stated reasons, claims 7 and 12 contain allowable subject matter.
The closest prior art of record for claims 8 and 13 is Jansen et al. (US 7594377 B1) in view of Aposhian et al. (US 20190239427 A1). The following is a statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 8 and 13, Jansen discloses The intelligent lawn mower according to claim 11.
Aposhian teaches an intelligent lawn mower wherein the controller is further configured to:
determine a first difference between the output load (which does correspond to a torque) and the first set threshold (Aposhian teaches that If all of the current loads are below the optimal load parameter, control module 220 can determine that the ground speed of mower 200 can be increased and can therefore send control signals to cause power plant 210 to increase the ground speed by a specified amount [See at least Aposhian, 0027]. Aposhian further teaches that, For example, control module 220 could adjust the throttle by some defined increment or a value that is dynamically calculated based on the difference between the optimal load parameter and the current loads [See at least Aposhian, 0027]. The “difference between the optimal load parameter and the current loads” may be regarded as applicant’s “first difference”).
However, none of the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, teaches or suggests wherein the mower is configured to determine, based on maximum output torque of the mowing motor, a second difference between the maximum output torque and the first set threshold;
obtain a ratio of the first difference to the second difference; and
calculate a product of the ratio and the set deceleration percentage, and determine the product as the deceleration coefficient of the wheel rotation speed.
While Aposhian does determine a second difference between an output torque and the first threshold (Aposhian teaches that If all of the current loads are below the optimal load parameter, control module 220 can determine that the ground speed of mower 200 can be increased and can therefore send control signals to cause power plant 210 to increase the ground speed by a specified amount [See at least Aposhian, 0027]. Aposhian further teaches that, For example, control module 220 could adjust the throttle by some defined increment or a value that is dynamically calculated based on the difference between the optimal load parameter and the current loads [See at least Aposhian, 0027]. The “defined increment” is arguably a “second difference”), Aposhian does not teach or suggest using a maximum output torque of the mowing motor to calculate this second difference. It follows that Aposhian cannot possibly calculate a difference in ratios between the two claimed differences when the second difference of Aposhian does not match the second difference claimed because Aposhian, unlike the claimed invention, does not make use of maximum output torque of the mowing motor. It further follows that the resulting controls of the wheel speed also cannot be taught or suggested by Aposhian.
None of the other prior art of record resolves these deficiencies of Aposhian.
For at least the above stated reasons, claims 8 and 13 contain allowable subject matter.
The closest prior art of record for claims 9 and 14 is Jansen et al. (US 7594377 B1). The following is a statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 9 and 14, Jansen discloses The intelligent lawn mower according to claim 11.
However, none of the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the intelligent lawn mower wherein the controller is further configured to:
determine a wheel rotation speed by which the intelligent lawn mower reduces according to the wheel rotation speed of the intelligent lawn mower and the deceleration coefficient; and,
determine a difference between the wheel rotation speed of the intelligent lawn mower and the wheel rotation speed by which the intelligent lawn mower reduces as the target wheel rotation speed of the intelligent lawn mower after the deceleration. (emphasis added).
In order for a reference to read on the above missing claim limitations, the reference would have to teach not just where the speed of the lawnmower is reduced by a certain amount (i.e., a “difference” between the current speed and the desired speed), but where this speed difference is calculated based on the deceleration coefficient which is ultimately based on the torque of the mowing motor. No reference in the prior art calculates a speed decrease based on such specific parameters.
The closest that any reference gets is Jansen, which, as discussed previously, reduces speed based on a transmission ratio when a certain mowing motor torque is detected (Jansen discloses that When the controller 20 determines that the speed of the blade is less than the pre-determined normal speed or that the cutting load is higher than a predetermined value a signal is sent to the transmission control system 42 which in turn adjusts the variable ratio ground drive transmission 40 such that the ground speed of the mower 10 is reduced [See at least Jansen, Col 2, lines 62-67]). But Jansen does not calculate a speed difference based on this ratio; instead, Jansen simply changes the transmission’s ratio without ever determining or specifying how much this will reduce the wheel speed by (See at least [Jansen, Col 2, lines 62-67]). Accordingly, Jansen is simply not specific enough to read on the missing claim limitations.
None of the prior art of record resolves the deficiencies of Jansen in this regard.
For at least the above stated reasons, claims 9 and 14 contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAEEM T ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-5901. 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, FADEY JABR can be reached at (571) 272-1516. 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.
/NAEEM TASLIM ALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3668