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 . Claims 1-10 and 16-25 were previously pending. Claims 1-10 and 16-25 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled or newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-10 and 16-25 remain pending.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 25 recites “any of claims 19” but should instead recite –[[any of]] claim[[s]] 19--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 10,188,029 B1, cited in the IDS received 8/22/2025) in view of Holgersson (US 2018/0253096 A1) and Jang (KR 10-2022-0055542 A, a machine translation is attached and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 16, Brown discloses an electric mower with autonomous controls (see at least column 3, lines 42-45 – autonomous mower), the electric mower comprising: driven wheels (see at least Fig. 1, column 5, lines 1-5 – driven wheels 114); at least one electric motor configured to drive the driven wheels (see at least Fig. 1, column 2, lines 1-6, column 5, line 57 – column 6, line 5 – one or more electric motors); at least one mowing blade (see at least Fig. 1, column 4, line 67 – moving blades 119); at least one battery configured to power the at least one electric motor (see at least Fig. 1, column 5, lines 6-15 – battery 108); at least one battery management system configured to monitor the at least one battery (see at least Fig. 1, column 5, lines 48-56 – controllers 120a, 120b); at least one global navigation satellite system receiver (see at least Fig. 2, column 6, lines 6-20 – GPS unit 123); and one or more controllers communicatively connected to memory, wherein the one or more controllers are configured to (see at least Fig. 2, column 6, lines 15-51 – processor 121): identify whether map data for a mow area within boundary lines is stored in the memory (see at least Figs. 3-5, column 4, lines 49-55, column 7, line 62 – column 8, line 30, column 10, lines 30-60 – mapping phase); perform a sparse-mow routine in response to identifying that no map data corresponding to the mow area has been stored in the memory (see at least Figs. 3-5, column 2, lines 30-42, column 3, lines 30-33, column 4, lines 49-55, column 7, line 62 – column 8, line 30, column 10, lines 30-60 – perimeter of the lawn… field boundaries… mapping phase), wherein, to perform the sparse-mow routine, the one or more controllers are configured to: autonomously steer the electric mower, via the at least one electric motor, to travel over a sample of the mow area (see at least Figs. 3-5, column 4, lines 49-55, column 7, line 62 – column 8, line 30, column 10, lines 30-60 – mapping phase); collect location data via the at least one global navigation satellite system receiver during the sparse-mow routine (see at least Figs. 3-5, column 4, lines 49-55, column 7, line 62 – column 8, line 30, column 10, lines 30-60 – mapping phase… geographic location with GPS); and collect current discharge data via the at least one battery management system during the sparse-mow routine (see at least Figs. 3-5, column 4, lines 49-55, column 7, line 62 – column 8, line 30, column 10, lines 30-60 – mapping phase… instantaneous power usage as a function of position while the lawn is being mowed according to a particular path of travel); generate an energy-consumption map for the mow area by correlating the current discharge data collected during the sparse-mow routine with the location data collected during the sparse-mow routine (see at least Figs. 3-5, column 4, lines 49-55, column 7, line 62 – column 8, line 30, column 10, lines 30-60 – mapping phase… instantaneous power usage as a function of position while the lawn is being mowed according to a particular path of travel); and determine an efficient-mow path for subsequent mowing events of the mow area based on the energy-consumption map (see at least Figs. 3-5, column 4, lines 49-55, column 7, line 62 – column 8, line 30, column 10, lines 30-60 – instantaneous power usage as a function of position while the lawn is being mowed according to a particular path of travel… determine efficient work paths).
Brown does not appear to explicitly disclose at least one blade motor configured to drive the at least one mowing blade; at least one battery configured to power the at least one blade motor; a mow area within predetermined boundary lines is stored in the memory.
Holgersson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: at least one blade motor configured to drive the at least one mowing blade (see at least [0027] – motor associated with a cutting blade); at least one battery configured to power the at least one blade motor (see at least [0027] – batteries may power a motor associated with a cutting blade); a mow area within predetermined boundary lines is stored in the memory (see at least [0025] – boundary 30 may be defined using programmed location based boundaries).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Holgersson into the invention of Brown with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect Brown’s blade to include a blade motor powered by the battery. Furthermore, the motivation of doing so is to provide separate motors for selectively (and independently) driving the wheels and blades (Holgersson – [0027]), and to provide a fully electrically powered mower which is considered to be more environmentally friendly by reducing emissions created by combustion type engines. The motivation of providing predetermined boundary lines is to simplify the mapping and navigation process for the mower and eliminate the need for boundary wires. Predefining the boundary lines could be implemented with predictable results.
Brown does not appear to explicitly disclose redirect the electric mower from the efficient-mow path to a shaded area location in response to detecting that a measured temperature of the at least one battery exceeds a predetermined temperature threshold.
Jang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: redirect the electric vehicle from the path to a shaded area location in response to detecting that a measured temperature of the at least one battery exceeds a predetermined temperature threshold (see at least [0030, 0093, 0161] – If the temperature of the personal mobility battery rises, the personal mobility can be moved to a station or shaded area via autonomous driving.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Jang into the invention of Brown with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to prevent the battery from exceeding certain temperatures when exposed to sunlight that can degrade performance and cause the output of the battery to be cut off (Jang – [0004, 0007]). Redirecting a vehicle to a shaded area when the battery exceeds certain temperatures could be implemented into Brown’s invention to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Brown discloses wherein the at least one electric motor comprises a pair of motors, wherein each motors of the pair of motors is configured to drive a separate one of the driven wheels (see at least Fig. 1, column 2, lines 1-6, column 5, line 57 – column 6, line 5 – one or more electric motors).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Holgersson, Jang, and Kulkarni (US 2021/0064043 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Brown does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising at least one of a camera, a lidar sensor, a radar sensor, or an ultrasonic sensor, and wherein the one or more controllers are configured to determine the efficient-mow path based on data collected by the at least one of the camera, the lidar sensor, the radar sensor, and the ultrasonic sensor.
However, Brown does disclose at least one sensor, and wherein the one or more controllers are configured to determine the efficient-mow path based on data collected by the at least one sensor (see at least column 10, lines 12-60 – sensor data is analyzed to generate outputs and improve operating efficiency).
Kulkarni, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: at least one of a camera, a lidar sensor, a radar sensor, or an ultrasonic sensor, and wherein the one or more controllers are configured to determine the efficient-mow path based on data collected by the at least one of the camera, the lidar sensor, the radar sensor, and the ultrasonic sensor (see at least [0057, 0064, 0080, 0214, 0218] – generate a planned path based on gathering information about the area… camera… ultrasonic sensors… lidar… radar... obstacle detection…).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Kulkarni into the invention of Brown with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to use this data to generate an initial map, identify the outside boundary as well as the locations of permanent obstacles that are within the boundary (Kulkarni – [0057]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 19-25 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to explicitly disclose or render obvious the following limitation of independent claims 1 and 19 in its entirety:
“perform a sparse-mow routine in response to identifying that no map data corresponding to the mow area has been stored in the memory, wherein, to perform the sparse-mow routine, the one or more controllers are configured to: autonomously steer the electric mower, via the at least one electric motor, to travel over a sample of the mow area leaving unmowed sections in between each pass in the mow area”
Brown, the closest prior art of record, teaches the following limitations: an electric mower with autonomous controls (see at least column 3, lines 42-45 – autonomous mower), the electric mower comprising: driven wheels (see at least Fig. 1, column 5, lines 1-5 – driven wheels 114); at least one electric motor configured to drive the driven wheels (see at least Fig. 1, column 2, lines 1-6, column 5, line 57 – column 6, line 5 – one or more electric motors); at least one mowing blade (see at least Fig. 1, column 4, line 67 – moving blades 119); at least one battery configured to power the at least one electric motor (see at least Fig. 1, column 5, lines 6-15 – battery 108); at least one battery management system configured to monitor the at least one battery (see at least Fig. 1, column 5, lines 48-56 – controllers 120a, 120b); at least one global navigation satellite system receiver (see at least Fig. 2, column 6, lines 6-20 – GPS unit 123); and one or more controllers communicatively connected to memory, wherein the one or more controllers are configured to (see at least Fig. 2, column 6, lines 15-51 – processor 121): identify whether map data for a mow area within boundary lines is stored in the memory (see at least Figs. 3-5, column 4, lines 49-55, column 7, line 62 – column 8, line 30, column 10, lines 30-60 – mapping phase); perform a sparse-mow routine in response to identifying that no map data corresponding to the mow area has been stored in the memory (see at least Figs. 3-5, column 2, lines 30-42, column 3, lines 30-33, column 4, lines 49-55, column 7, line 62 – column 8, line 30, column 10, lines 30-60 – perimeter of the lawn… field boundaries… mapping phase), wherein, to perform the sparse-mow routine, the one or more controllers are configured to: autonomously steer the electric mower, via the at least one electric motor, to travel over each portion of the mow area (see at least Figs. 3-5, column 4, lines 49-55, column 7, line 62 – column 8, line 30, column 10, lines 30-60 – mapping phase); collect location data via the at least one global navigation satellite system receiver during the sparse-mow routine (see at least Figs. 3-5, column 4, lines 49-55, column 7, line 62 – column 8, line 30, column 10, lines 30-60 – mapping phase… geographic location with GPS); and collect current discharge data via the at least one battery management system during the sparse-mow routine (see at least Figs. 3-5, column 4, lines 49-55, column 7, line 62 – column 8, line 30, column 10, lines 30-60 – mapping phase… instantaneous power usage as a function of position while the lawn is being mowed according to a particular path of travel); generate an energy-consumption map for the mow area by correlating the current discharge data collected during the sparse-mow routine with the location data collected during the sparse-mow routine (see at least Figs. 3-5, column 4, lines 49-55, column 7, line 62 – column 8, line 30, column 10, lines 30-60 – mapping phase… instantaneous power usage as a function of position while the lawn is being mowed according to a particular path of travel); and determine an efficient-mow path for subsequent mowing events of the mow area based on the energy-consumption map (see at least Figs. 3-5, column 4, lines 49-55, column 7, line 62 – column 8, line 30, column 10, lines 30-60 – instantaneous power usage as a function of position while the lawn is being mowed according to a particular path of travel… determine efficient work paths).
Holgersson teaches the following limitations: at least one blade motor configured to drive the at least one mowing blade (see at least [0027] – motor associated with a cutting blade); at least one battery configured to power the at least one blade motor (see at least [0027] – batteries may power a motor associated with a cutting blade); a mow area within predetermined boundary lines is stored in the memory (see at least [0025] – boundary 30 may be defined using programmed location based boundaries); to travel over a sample of each portion of the mow area leaving unmowed sections in the mow area (see at least Fig. 4, [0050] – areas to entirely avoid).
Gray (US 2004/0193348 A1) teaches the following limitations: to travel over a mow area leaving unmowed sections in between each pass in the mow area (see at least Fig. 8, [0067-0068] – skip one or more intervening parallel rows between the starting row and the next row).
Nonetheless, it would not have been obvious to modify Brown’s mapping mow routine to be a sparse mow routine which mows only a sample of each area and leaves unmowed sections in between each pass in the mow area. Holgersson teaches leaving unmowed sections, but these are areas to avoid and do not include leaving unmowed sections in between each pass. Gray skips rows in order to increase the turn radius, but later returns to mow the skipped section and so these are not truly unmowed sections of a sparse-mow routine. Since the specific configuration of a sparse mow routine mowing a sample of each area and leaving the unmowed sections between each pass is not explicitly taught in the prior art, modifying the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention would require impermissible hindsight. One of ordinary skill in the art would not have thought to perform the sparse-mow routine in this specific manner of leaving unmowed sections between each pass in the mow area without using the specification as a roadmap to guide them.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 11-13 filed 7/21/2026, with respect to the interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Claim limitations are no longer being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-17 filed 7/21/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections of independent claims 1 and 19 and the corresponding dependent claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 17-18 filed 7/21/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections of independent claim 16 and the corresponding dependent claims has been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jang.
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 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/CAITLIN R MCCLEARY/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights