DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 18/806,792 filed on April 6, 2026 in which claims 1 and 2 were amended and claim 9 was added.
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 Claims
Claims 1-9 are pending, of which claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(b) and 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, this claim includes the limitation “a travel motor controller configured or programmed to drive the travel electric motor by driving the inverter unit based on the vehicle speed control signal.” (Emphasis added). This appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and appears to be an idiomatic error.
Therefore, this claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, this limitation shall be interpreted as “a travel motor controller configured or programmed to drive the travel electric motor by using
Regarding claims 2-9, these claims depend from claim 1 above and, therefore, inherit the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Spitz, US Publication 2020/0010092 (hereinafter Spitz) in view of Kiyooka et al., US Publication 2021/0076561 (hereinafter Kiyooka), each cited on the Notice of References Cited dated January 6, 2026.
Regarding claim 1, Spitz discloses a work machine to perform work while traveling, the work machine comprising “a travel electric motor” (Spitz ¶¶ 14, 38) where engine 20 may be an electric engine. Additionally, Spitz discloses “a drive wheel rotatable by the travel electric motor” (Spitz 13 and Fig. 2) where 3a and 3b are drive wheels that are rotated by engine 20. Further, Spitz discloses “a work electric motor; a work device rotatable by the work electric motor” (Spitz ¶ 17 and Fig. 2) where work transmission mechanism (i.e., a work motor) transmit engine power, which may be electric as discussed above, to the mower (i.e., a rotatable work device). Moreover, Spitz discloses “a vehicle speed setter to set a desired vehicle speed corresponding to an amount of operation of the vehicle speed setter” (Spitz ¶ 25) where the vehicle speed input portion 50 receives a requested vehicle speed and adjusts the speed accordingly. Likewise, Spitz discloses “a controller” (Spitz ¶ 23) by including a plurality of control portions. Spitz also discloses “a revolution sensor provided in the work device; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to include: a number-of-revolutions detector to detect a number of revolutions of the work device based on a signal from the revolution sensor” (Spitz ¶ 21) where number-of-revolutions sensor 92 performs this function. In addition, Spitz discloses “a number-of-revolutions change behavior calculator to which the number of revolutions is inputted and to calculate change behavior of the number of revolutions over time” (Spitz ¶¶ 25, 33) where the vehicle speed calculation algorithm calculates the number of revolutions over time n, which is based on the number of revolutions input into the number-of-revolutions input portions. Furthermore, Spitz discloses “a vehicle speed controller configured or programmed to generate a vehicle speed control signal based on the desired vehicle speed and the change behavior” (Spitz ¶ 36) by generating vehicle speed control signal VS. Finally, Spitz discloses “a travel motor controller configured or programmed to drive the travel electric motor … based on the vehicle speed control signal” (Spitz ¶ 19) by performing the speed change.
Spitz does not appear to explicitly disclose “an inverter unit to feed electric power to the travel electric motor and the work electric motor and to be drivable based on a control signal from the controller” and, therefore, also does not appear to explicitly disclose “a travel motor controller configured or programmed to drive the travel electric motor by driving the inverter unit based on the vehicle speed control signal.”
However, Kiyooka discloses a work machine to perform work while traveling, the work machine comprising “a travel electric motor” (Kiyooka ¶ 25) by including a left and right electric travel motor. Additionally, Kiyooka discloses “a drive wheel rotatable by the travel electric motor” (Kiyooka ¶ 25) where the wheels are controlled by the electric motor. Further, Kiyooka discloses “a work electric motor; a work device rotatable by the work electric motor” (Kiyooka ¶ 29) where the motor mower is a work electric motor that rotates lawn cutting blades (i.e., work devices). Moreover, Kiyooka discloses “a vehicle speed setter to set a desired vehicle speed corresponding to an amount of operation of the vehicle speed setter” (Kiyooka ¶ 35) where the operation levels are used to control the vehicle speed. Likewise, Kiyooka discloses “a controller.” (Kiyooka ¶ 35). Kiyooka also discloses “an inverter unit to feed electric power to the travel electric motor and the work electric motor and to be drivable based on a control signal from the controller” (Kiyooka ¶¶28-29) by including a traveling inverter and a mower inverter. Finally, Kiyooka discloses “a travel motor controller configured or programmed to drive the travel electric motor by driving the inverter unit based on the vehicle speed control signal.” (Kiyooka ¶ 28).
Spitz and Kiyooka are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of mowing machines.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Spitz and Kiyooka before him or her to modify the electric motors of Spitz to include the inverters of Kiyooka.
The motivation for doing so would have been that inverters are known to those of ordinary skill in the art to provide the advantageous feature of allowing for soft start and stops that reduces wear or the motor, thereby extending its lifespan.
A second motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Spitz teaches the “base device” for powering electric mowers. Further, Kiyooka teaches the “known technique” for using an inverter to convert the electricity form the batteries into the appropriate form for the motors of an electric mower that is applicable to the base device of Kiyooka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system because inverters are a well-established and well-understood technology and are readily available as off the shelf components that would be easy for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use in the system of Spitz.
A third motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of simple substitution. See KSR Int’l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(B). Spitz differs from the claimed invention by including a generic and un disclosed method for converting the electricity from the batteries into the appropriate form for the motors in place of the claimed inverter. Further, Kiyooka teaches that using an inverter to convert the electricity from the batteries into the appropriate form for the motors for a mower was well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have predictably substituted the inverter of Kiyooka for the unspecified electricity conversion component of Spitz because both are responsible for the same process—namely putting the electrical current in the proper manner for the motors to use.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Spitz and Kiyooka discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Spitz discloses “the controller is configured or programmed to include an actual vehicle speed calculator to calculate an actual vehicle speed of the work machine” (Spitz ¶ 36) where the actual vehicle speed must necessarily be calculated in order to be used in the calculation of the vehicle speed command. Further, the combination of Spitz and Kiyooka discloses “the vehicle speed control signal is based on the desired vehicle speed, the change behavior, and the actual vehicle speed.” (Spitz ¶ 36).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Spitz and Kiyooka discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Spitz and Kiyooka discloses “the number-of-revolutions change behavior calculator determines sharp change behavior indicative of a first rate of change in the number of revolutions and gentle change behavior indicative of a second rate of change in the number of revolutions which second rate is lower than the first rate” (Spitz ¶ 33) by determining if the speed, which is based on the change in the number of revolutions is outside of a tolerable range (i.e., a first rate of change) or within a tolerable range (i.e., a second rate of change lower than the first). Further, the combination of Spitz and Kiyooka discloses “the vehicle speed control signal causes the work machine to change a vehicle speed differently for the sharp change behavior and the gentle change behavior” (Spitz ¶ 26) where, if the change is within the tolerable range, the command is processed “as-is,” while if the change is outside the tolerable range, the value is processed according the PID computation function.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Spitz and Kiyooka discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Spitz and Kiyooka discloses “the number-of-revolutions change behavior calculator determines sharp change behavior indicative of a first rate of change in the number of revolutions and gentle change behavior indicative of a second rate of change in the number of revolutions which second rate is lower than the first rate” (Spitz ¶ 33) by determining if the speed, which is based on the change in the number of revolutions is outside of a tolerable range (i.e., a first rate of change) or within a tolerable range (i.e., a second rate of change lower than the first). Further, the combination of Spitz and Kiyooka discloses “the vehicle speed control signal causes the work machine to change a vehicle speed at a rate for each of the sharp change behavior and the gentle change behavior independently of each other” (Spitz ¶ 26) where the formulas for each rate are different, meaning that they are changed independently of each other.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Spitz and Kiyooka discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Spitz and Kiyooka discloses “wherein the vehicle speed controller discriminates between an acceleration relation for acceleration and a deceleration relation for deceleration each as a vehicle speed control relation between (i) the desired vehicle speed and the change behavior each as an input parameter and (ii) the vehicle speed control signal as an output parameter.” (Spitz ¶ 36). The broadest reasonable interpretation of “discriminate” is to recognize a distinction. Spitz discloses this limitation by using the desired vehicle speed and the change behavior and the change behavior as input to calculate the vehicle speed control.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Spitz and Kiyooka discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Spitz and Kiyooka discloses “wherein the acceleration relation and the deceleration relation are each adjustable independently of each other” (Spitz ¶ 13) where each wheel’s speed control is independently adjustable of the other wheel.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Spitz and Kiyooka discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Spitz and Kiyooka discloses “wherein the work device is a mower including a rotary blade.” (Spitz ¶ 20).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Spitz and Kiyooka discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Spitz and Kiyooka discloses “wherein the inverter unit includes a travel motor inverter configured to feed electric power to the travel electric motor and a mower motor inverter configured to feed electric power to the work electric motor” (Kiyooka ¶¶ 28-29) for the reasons discussed in the rejection to claim 1 above.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Spitz in view of Kiyooka, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Simpson, US Patent 12,029,156 (hereinafter Simpson), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated January 6, 2026.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Spitz and Kiyooka discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Spitz and Kiyooka discloses “the number-of-revolutions change behavior calculator determines sharp change behavior indicative of a first rate of change in the number of revolutions and gentle change behavior indicative of a second rate of change in the number of revolutions which second rate is lower than the first rate” (Spitz ¶ 33) by determining if the speed, which is based on the change in the number of revolutions is outside of a tolerable range (i.e., a first rate of change) or within a tolerable range (i.e., a second rate of change lower than the first). Further, the combination of Spitz and Kiyooka discloses “the vehicle speed control signal causes the work machine to change a vehicle speed sharply for the sharp change behavior and gently for the gentle change behavior” (Spitz ¶¶ 33, 36) by controlling the mower based on whether or not the speed fell within the tolerable range.
The combination of Spitz and Kiyooka does not appear to explicitly disclose “the work machine is operable in an unmanned autonomous driving mode for unmanned work travel” and thus, also does not appear to explicitly disclose “with the work machine in the unmanned autonomous driving mode, the vehicle speed control signal causes the work machine to change a vehicle speed sharply for the sharp change behavior and gently for the gentle change behavior.”
However, Simpson discloses that it is well known for a “work machine is operable in an unmanned autonomous driving mode for unmanned work travel” (Simpson col. 8, ll. 3-27) where the lawn mower may operate in an autonomous mode.
Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that when Simpson was combined with Spitz and Kiyooka, that the speed changes of the autonomously controlled vehicle of Simpson would operate according to the single of Spitz and Kiyooka. Thus, the combination of Spitz, Kiyooka, and Simpson at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitation “with the work machine in the unmanned autonomous driving mode, the vehicle speed control signal causes the work machine to change a vehicle speed sharply for the sharp change behavior and gently for the gentle change behavior,” rendering it obvious.
Spitz, Kiyooka, and Simpson are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of mower control systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Spitz, Kiyooka, and Simpson before him or her to modify the mower of Spitz and Kiyooka to include the autonomous control features of Simpson.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the safety of a mowing operation by allowing an operator to not be present in unsafe areas. (Simpson col. 46, ll. 37-47).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed April 6, 2026, with respect to the interpretation of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and the associated rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (Remarks 6-9) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The interpretation of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and the associated rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed April 6, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 103 (Remarks 9-13) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights