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 .
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.
Claim Status
This action is in response to applicant’s filing on 10/23/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and considered below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-16 of U.S. Patent Number 12,156,493. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Comparing claims 12-16 of U.S. Patent Number 12,156,493 with claims 1-11 of the instant application:
“A method of controlling a zero-turn vehicle, the method comprising:” of U.S. Patent Number 12,156,493 is equivalent to “A zero-turn vehicle comprising:” of the instant application;
“generate first traction control signals configured to control a first traction motor and second traction control signals configured to control a second traction motor” of U.S. Patent Number 12,156,493 is equivalent to “a first drive wheel; a first traction motor coupled to provide torque to the first drive wheel; a second drive wheel; a second traction motor coupled to provide a torque to the second drive wheel” of the instant application;
“modifying at least one of the vehicle direction signals, vehicle speed signals and vehicle acceleration signals from the at least one user input based on operational mode instructions” of U.S. Patent Number 12,156,493 is equivalent to “at least one controller configured to selectively modify normal operating characteristics of the zero-turn vehicle to provide at least one of a straight mode and an auto zero turn mode, wherein the straight mode adjusts a speed of at least one of the first drive wheel and the second drive wheel” of the instant application; and
“applying a turn maneuver that changes the direction of the zero-turn vehicle and places the vehicle a select distance from a past travel path in an auto turn mode” of U.S. Patent Number 12,156,493 is equivalent to “wherein the auto zero turn mode applies a near zero turn maneuver that changes direction of the vehicle and places the vehicle a select distance over from a past travel path” of the instant application.
Comparing claims 12-16 of U.S. Patent Number 12,156,493 with claims 12-15 of the instant application:
“A method of controlling a zero-turn vehicle, the method comprising:” of U.S. Patent Number 12,156,493 is the same as “A method of controlling a zero-turn vehicle, the method comprising:” of the instant application;
“generating at least one of vehicle direction signals, vehicle speed signals, and vehicle acceleration signals with at least one user input” of U.S. Patent Number 12,156,493 is equivalent to “reading a right user input; reading a left user input” of the instant application; and
“the at least one vehicle direction signals, vehicle speed signals, and vehicle acceleration signals based at least in part on a difference between the at least one vehicle direction signals, the vehicle speed signals, and the vehicle acceleration signals used to control the first traction control motor and the second traction control motor” of U.S. Patent Number 12,156,493 is equivalent to “determining if an absolute delta of the right user input and the left user input is one of less than and equal to a select threshold; determining user intent when the absolute delta is one of less than and equal to the select threshold; and using the determined user intent to keep the zero-turn vehicle traversing in a straight line” of the instant application.
Comparing claims 12-16 of U.S. Patent Number 12,156,493 with claims 16-20 of the instant application:
“A method of controlling a zero-turn vehicle, the method comprising:” of U.S. Patent Number 12,156,493 is the same as “A method of controlling a zero-turn vehicle, the method comprising:” of the instant application;
“modifying at least one of the vehicle direction signals, vehicle speed signals and vehicle acceleration signals from the at least one user input based on operational mode instructions” of U.S. Patent Number 12,156,493 is equivalent to “determining if an auto zero turn mode has been selected” of the instant application;
“wherein the operational mode instructions modify the at least one vehicle direction signals, vehicle speed signals, and vehicle acceleration signals” of U.S. Patent Number 12,156,493 is equivalent to “slowing the vehicle down to threshold speed” of the instant application; and
“applying a turn maneuver that changes the direction of the zero-turn vehicle and places the vehicle a select distance from a past travel path in an auto turn mode” of U.S. Patent Number 12,156,493 is equivalent to “applying a near zero turn maneuver to automatically change direction of the zero-turn vehicle and place the vehicle a select distance from a past travel path” of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schulenberg et al. (US-2020/0021210-A1, hereinafter Schulenberg).
Regarding claim 12, Schulenberg discloses:
reading a right user input, reading a left user input (paragraphs [0058] and [0099-0100]; FIG. 10, outdoor power equipment-1000, external devices-1008, and user interface-1012; and FIG. 13, zero turn radius (ZTR) lawn mower-1208);
determining if an absolute delta of the right user input and the left user input is one of less than and equal to a select threshold (paragraphs [0092-0093]; and FIG. 11, motor-1002, external devices-1008, controller applications-1106, and straight line manager-1126);
determining user intent when the absolute delta is one of less than and equal to the select threshold (paragraphs [0092-0093]); and
using the determined user intent to keep the zero-turn vehicle traversing in a straight line (paragraphs [0092-0093]).
Regarding claim 13, Schulenberg further discloses:
subtracting the left user input from the right user input and determining an absolute result (paragraphs [0092-0093]).
Regarding claim 14, Schulenberg further discloses:
adding the right user input to the left user input (paragraphs [0092-0093]); and
dividing a result of adding the right user input to the left user input by two to get an average (paragraphs [0092-0093]).
Regarding claim 15, Schulenberg further discloses:
implementing a straight line mode to keep the zero-turn vehicle traversing in the straight line when the straight line mode is selected by a user (paragraphs [0092-0093]).
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 1-5, 7, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (U.S. Patent Number 11,230,319, hereinafter Brown) in view of Hiramatsu (US-2022/0163332-A1, hereinafter Hiramatsu).
Regarding claim 1, Brown discloses:
a first drive wheel, a first traction motor coupled to provide torque to the first drive wheel, a second drive wheel, a second traction motor coupled to provide a torque to the second drive wheel (col. 5, lines 13-39; FIG. 6, joystick-140, vehicle-600, driven wheels-616L,616R, controller-632, and wheel hub motors-639L,639R; and FIG. 7, joystick-140, stick-143, and pushbutton-145);
at least one controller configured to selectively modify normal operating characteristics of the zero-turn vehicle to provide at least one of a straight mode and an auto zero turn mode (col. 5, line 40 - col. 6, line 47; and FIG. 8, certain possible drive positions of the joystick); and
wherein the straight mode adjusts a speed of at least one of the first drive wheel and the second drive wheel (col. 6, line 58 - col. 7, line 4; and FIG. 12, maximum operating conditions allowed by the controller-70, and full forward speed at position 1 - 74).
Brown does not disclose placing a vehicle a select distance over from a past travel path. However, Hiramatsu discloses a route generating system for a working vehicle, including the following features:
wherein the auto zero turn mode applies a near zero turn maneuver that changes direction of the vehicle and places the vehicle a select distance over from a past travel path (paragraphs [0068-0092]; FIG. 4, robot tractor-1, work machine-3, route generating unit-35, work vehicle setting unit-36, and turning radius designating unit-59; FIG. 5, robot tractor-1, work machine-3, autonomous travel route-P, autonomous work paths-P1, and connection paths-P2; and FIG. 6, display-37, and tractor setting-61).
Hiramatsu teaches that a route generating unit should generate a route for a robot tractor and work machine based on the lateral width of the robot tractor and the lateral width of the work machine (paragraphs [0073] and [0089]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the autonomous travel route which includes a hundred and eighty degree turns of Hiramatsu into the vehicle control system which controls the maximum allowable speeds for the left and right driven wheels based on whether the vehicle is operating in forward mode or zero turn mode of Brown. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of covering a field in the most efficient manner possible. A person of ordinary skill would be familiar with the use of a zero-turn radius mower to cover parallel paths in a field.
Regarding claim 2, Brown further discloses:
a mode selection interface to provide a mode section input for a user (col. 5, lines 13-39);
a memory to store mode instructions relating to at least one operation mode (col. 7, lines 20-53; and FIG. 15, zero turn maximum speed positions-17,18, and range of possible speed and direction combinations-80a,80b); and
the at least one controller in communication with the mode selection interface and the memory, the controller configured to implement the mode instructions stored in memory based on an input the mode selection interface (col. 7, line 54 - col. 8, line 52; and FIG. 20, twist-to-zero-turn mode of operation-17,18, positions where the maximum reduction is applied to forward speeds while in very tight turns-C, and positions where the maximum reduction is applied to reverse speeds while in very tight turns-E).
Regarding claim 3, Brown further discloses:
wherein the at least one controller is further configured to provide the straight mode (col. 6, line 58 - col. 7, line 4); and
by reading a first user input to the first traction motor and a second user input to a second traction motor (col. 5, lines 13-39).
Regarding claim 4, Brown further discloses:
wherein the at least one controller is further configured to provide the near zero turn maneuver by slowing the zero-turn vehicle down when needed to a threshold speed independent of a user input before initiation of a turn and returning the zero-turn vehicle to normal operating characteristics upon completion of the near zero turn maneuver (col. 6, line 48 - col. 7, line 4; col. 7, line 54 - col. 8, line 52; FIG. 12, positions where the controller limits the speed of driven wheels during zero turn operations-5,13, and maximum operating conditions allowed by the controller-70; and FIG. 20, twist-to-zero-turn mode of operation-17,18, positions where the maximum reduction is applied to forward speeds while in very tight turns-C, and positions where the maximum reduction is applied to reverse speeds while in very tight turns-E).
Regarding claim 5, Brown further discloses:
at least one mode select interface (col. 5, lines 13-39); and
wherein the at least one controller is configured to provide the near zero turn maneuver when the at least one mode select interface is activated by a user (col. 6, line 48 - col. 7, line 19; col. 7, line 54 - col. 8, line 52; FIG. 11, positions where the controller limits the speed of driven wheels during zero turn operations-5,13; and FIG. 20, twist-to-zero-turn mode of operation-17,18, positions where the maximum reduction is applied to forward speeds while in very tight turns-C, and positions where the maximum reduction is applied to reverse speeds while in very tight turns-E).
Regarding claim 7, Brown further discloses:
wherein the at least one controller is configured to exit out of the near zero turn maneuver upon deselection of the auto zero turn mode (col. 6, lines 35-47; and FIG. 9, drive outputs corresponding to the positions of the joystick).
Regarding claim 16, Brown further discloses:
determining if an auto zero turn mode has been selected (col. 5, lines 13-39; FIG. 6, joystick-140, vehicle-600, driven wheels-616L,616R, controller-632, and wheel hub motors-639L,639R; and FIG. 7, joystick-140, stick-143, and pushbutton-145); and
slowing the vehicle down to threshold speed (col. 6, line 48 - col. 7, line 4; col. 7, line 54 - col. 8, line 52; FIG. 12, positions where the controller limits the speed of driven wheels during zero turn operations-5,13, and maximum operating conditions allowed by the controller-70; and FIG. 20, twist-to-zero-turn mode of operation-17,18, positions where the maximum reduction is applied to forward speeds while in very tight turns-C, and positions where the maximum reduction is applied to reverse speeds while in very tight turns-E).
Brown does not disclose placing a vehicle a select distance over from a past travel path. However, Hiramatsu further discloses:
applying a near zero turn maneuver to automatically change direction of the zero-turn vehicle and place the vehicle a select distance from a past travel path (paragraphs [0068-0092]; FIG. 4, robot tractor-1, work machine-3, route generating unit-35, work vehicle setting unit-36, and turning radius designating unit-59; FIG. 5, robot tractor-1, work machine-3, autonomous travel route-P, autonomous work paths-P1, and connection paths-P2; and FIG. 6, display-37, and tractor setting-61).
Hiramatsu teaches that a route generating unit should generate a route for a robot tractor and work machine based on the lateral width of the robot tractor and the lateral width of the work machine (paragraphs [0073] and [0089]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the autonomous travel route which includes a hundred and eighty degree turns of Hiramatsu into the vehicle control system which controls the maximum allowable speeds for the left and right driven wheels based on whether the vehicle is operating in forward mode or zero turn mode of Brown. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of covering a field in the most efficient manner possible. A person of ordinary skill would be familiar with the use of a zero-turn radius mower to cover parallel paths in a field.
Regarding claim 17, Brown further discloses:
identifying if one of a user input and a vehicle input is being used to control the vehicle (col. 4, lines 11-47; and FIG. 3, joystick-140, vehicle-300, controller-332, speed sensors-335L,335R, and control panel-350).
Regarding claim 18, Brown further discloses:
identifying a current user input and a vehicle output (col. 4, lines 11-47; and FIG. 3, joystick-140, vehicle-300, controller-332, speed sensors-335L,335R, and control panel-350); and
ramping up the vehicle output to the current user input after a completion of the near zero turn maneuver (col. 6, lines 35-47; and FIG. 9, drive outputs corresponding to the positions of the joystick).
Regarding claim 20, Brown further discloses:
exiting out of the near zero turn maneuver upon deselection of the auto zero turn mode (col. 6, lines 35-47; and FIG. 9, drive outputs corresponding to the positions of the joystick).
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Hiramatsu, as applied to claims 5 and 16 above, and further in view of Zeiler et al. (US-2020/0205338-A1, hereinafter Zeiler).
Regarding claim 6, Brown in view of Hiramatsu does not disclose a separate right wheel input device and left wheel input device. However, Zeiler discloses a zero turn radius lawnmower, including the following features:
wherein the at least one mode select interface includes a right user input and a left user input (paragraphs [0057-0058]; and FIG. 1, zero turn radius lawnmower-10, control console-12, control handles-14a,14b, rear drive wheel-18a, and wheel motor-19a); and
wherein the at least one controller is configured to initiate the near zero turn maneuver in a direction determined by the activation of one of the right user input and the left user input (paragraph [0090]).
Zeiler teaches that a zero turn radius lawnmower may comprise a pair of rear drive wheels independently driven by respective wheel motors controlled based on user input to a pair of control handles (paragraphs [0057-0058]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of right and left user input handles of Zeiler into the zero turn lawnmower which independently controls left and right motor-driven wheels based on user input provided via a joystick of Brown. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a user with an intuitive method for inputting desired control requests. A person of ordinary skill would be familiar with the use of right and left control handles on zero turn radius lawnmowers.
Regarding claim 19, Brown in view of Hiramatsu does not disclose a separate right wheel input device and left wheel input device. However, Zeiler further discloses:
using a right user input and a left user input to identify a direction of the near zero turn maneuver (paragraphs [0057-0058] and [0090]; and FIG. 1, zero turn radius lawnmower-10, control console-12, control handles-14a,14b, rear drive wheel-18a, and wheel motor-19a).
Zeiler teaches that a zero turn radius lawnmower may comprise a pair of rear drive wheels independently driven by respective wheel motors controlled based on user input to a pair of control handles (paragraphs [0057-0058]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of right and left user input handles of Zeiler into the zero turn lawnmower which independently controls left and right motor-driven wheels based on user input provided via a joystick of Brown. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a user with an intuitive method for inputting desired control requests. A person of ordinary skill would be familiar with the use of right and left control handles on zero turn radius lawnmowers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Hiramatsu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arendt et al. (US-2021/0195834-A1, hereinafter Arendt).
Regarding claim 8, Brown in view of Hiramatsu does not disclose a turf friendly mode. However, Arendt discloses a grounds maintenance vehicle with a traction and steering control system, including the following features:
wherein the at least one controller is further configured to selectively modify normal operating characteristics of the zero-turn vehicle to provide a turf friendly mode, the turf friendly mode selectively does one of increase and decrease one of a speed and power to one of the first drive wheel and the second drive wheel (paragraphs [0039-0046] and [0057-0060]; FIG. 5, mower-100, motor controllers-105a,105b, drive wheels-106a,106b, wheel motors-107a,107b, and electronic controller (EC) - 200; and FIG. 8, actual speed of the left and right drive wheels v. time, when wheel speeds are controlled by a traction and steering control system).
Arendt teaches that the electronic controller of a ground maintenance vehicle should control the wheels in a manner that does not directly correspond to the positions of the control levers in order to transition the drive wheels with little or no turf-damaging scrubbing/slipping (paragraph [0059]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the smooth transition mode of Arendt into the zero turn lawnmower which independently controls left and right motor-driven wheels based on user input provided via a joystick of Brown. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of protecting the turf from damage due to aggressive operation of the lawn mower. A person of ordinary skill would be familiar with the damage that can be caused by sharp turns of a lawn mower.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Hiramatsu and Arendt, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Schulenberg.
Regarding claim 9, Brown in view of Hiramatsu and Arendt does not disclose adjusting the speed of the left and right drive wheels from the speeds a user input into the left and right input devices based on a delta between the first and second user input in order to provide a turf friendly mode which prevents an excessively tight turning radius. However, Schulenberg further discloses:
wherein in providing the turf friendly mode the at least one controller is configured to read a first user input to the first traction motor and a second user input to the second traction motor (paragraphs [0058] and [0099-0100]; FIG. 10, outdoor power equipment-1000, external devices-1008, and user interface-1012; and FIG. 13, zero turn radius (ZTR) lawn mower-1208); and
the at least one controller is configured to determine a delta between the first user input and the second user input and adjust the speed of one of the first drive wheel and the second drive wheel if a delta is greater than a threshold (paragraphs [0124-0129]; and FIG. 11, motor-1002, external devices-1008, and controller applications-1106).
Schulenberg teaches that a controller of a zero turn radius (ZRT) lawn mower can determine a second speed for a second drive motor and a second direction for the second drive motor in response to determining that the first user input is greater than the first predefined amount and the second user input is less than the second predefined amount (paragraph [0128]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the turning control application of Schulenberg into the application which prevents turf-damaging scrubbing/slipping of a ground maintenance vehicle of Arendt. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of protecting the turf from damage due to aggressive operation of the lawn mower. A person of ordinary skill would be familiar with the damage that can be caused by sharp turns of a lawn mower.
Regarding claim 10, Brown in view of Hiramatsu and Arendt does not disclose adjusting the speed of the left and right drive wheels from the speeds a user input into the left and right input devices based on a delta between the first and second user input in order to provide a turf friendly mode which prevents an excessively tight turning radius. However, Schulenberg further discloses:
wherein adjusting the speed of one of the first drive wheel and the second drive wheel (paragraphs [0058] and [0099-0100]; FIG. 10, outdoor power equipment-1000, external devices-1008, and user interface-1012; and FIG. 13, zero turn radius (ZTR) lawn mower-1208); and
is achieved by one of adding one of a left user input and a right user input to a threshold value and subtracting the threshold value from one of the left user input and the right user input (paragraphs [0124-0129]; and FIG. 11, motor-1002, external devices-1008, and controller applications-1106).
Schulenberg teaches that a controller of a zero turn radius (ZRT) lawn mower can determine a second speed for a second drive motor and a second direction for the second drive motor in response to determining that the first user input is greater than the first predefined amount and the second user input is less than the second predefined amount (paragraph [0128]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the turning control application of Schulenberg into the application which prevents turf-damaging scrubbing/slipping of a ground maintenance vehicle of Arendt. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of protecting the turf from damage due to aggressive operation of the lawn mower. A person of ordinary skill would be familiar with the damage that can be caused by sharp turns of a lawn mower.
Regarding claim 11, Brown in view of Hiramatsu and Arendt does not disclose adjusting the speed of the left and right drive wheels from the speeds a user input into the left and right input devices based on a delta between the first and second user input in order to provide a turf friendly mode which prevents an excessively tight turning radius. However, Schulenberg further discloses:
wherein adjusting the speed of one of the first drive wheel and second drive wheel (paragraphs [0058] and [0099-0100]; FIG. 10, outdoor power equipment-1000, external devices-1008, and user interface-1012; and FIG. 13, zero turn radius (ZTR) lawn mower-1208); and
is achieved by setting a target used to control at least one of the first traction motor and the second traction motor for at least one of a first user input and a second user input based on one of the first user input plus an absolute delta value divided by two and the second user input minus the absolute delta value divided by two and the second user input minus the absolute delta value divided by two and the first user input plus the absolute delta value divided by two (paragraphs [0124-0129]; and FIG. 11, motor-1002, external devices-1008, and controller applications-1106).
Schulenberg teaches that a controller of a zero turn radius (ZRT) lawn mower can determine a second speed for a second drive motor and a second direction for the second drive motor in response to determining that the first user input is greater than the first predefined amount and the second user input is less than the second predefined amount (paragraph [0128]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the turning control application of Schulenberg into the application which prevents turf-damaging scrubbing/slipping of a ground maintenance vehicle of Arendt. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of protecting the turf from damage due to aggressive operation of the lawn mower. A person of ordinary skill would be familiar with the damage that can be caused by sharp turns of a lawn mower.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMARA L WEBER whose telephone number is (303)297-4249. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 MTN.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 3134464821. 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.
TAMARA L. WEBER
Examiner
Art Unit 3667
/TAMARA L WEBER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667