DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the amendments and arguments filed , 2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited of record Beckman; Brian C. (US Pub. No. 20160083073 A1), herein after Beckman, in further view of previously cited of record Pantalone et al. (US Pub. No. 20190185149 A1), herein after Pantalone, and further in view of Atmur, Robert J. (US Pub. No. 20050125114 A1), herein after Atmur.
Regarding claim 1, Beckman teaches [a]n electric off-highway vehicle, comprising:... a first component associated with a first rotor and a second component associated with a second rotor (Beckman: Para. 0012, teaching that the invention is applicable to any suitable vehicle; and Para. 0024, teaching the vehicle has at least two rotors), wherein, in use, the first rotor is associated with a first noise waveform (Beckman: Para. 0028, teaching that the first rotor has a noise associated with it) and the second rotor is associated with a second noise waveform (Beckman: Para. 0030, teaching that the second rotor has a noise associated with it), and wherein the electric off-highway vehicle is associated with a resultant noise waveform comprising the first and second noise waveforms (Beckman: Para. 0030, teaching that a resultant cancelled noise is created by combining the noises of the first and second rotor); and a control system configured to control... the first rotor and/or the second rotor such that a parameter associated with the resultant noise waveform is optimized (Beckman: Para. 0032, teaching that various characteristics of both rotors are detected and controlled to cause the noise from both rotors to cancel out, the characteristics can include rotational characteristics of the rotors such as frequency, amplitude, phase, etc.).
Beckman is silent to the electric off-highway vehicle comprising a hydraulic system and/or a traction system, the hydraulic system and/or the traction system comprising, and the control system is configured to control an angular position of the first rotor and/or the second rotor.
In a similar field, Pantalone teaches a control system is configured to control an angular position of the first rotor and/or the second rotor such that a parameter associated with the resultant noise waveform is optimized (Pantalone: Para. 0035, teaching sensing and controlling the rotational position and speed of multiple rotors of a vehicle) for the benefit of reducing the noise of the rotors by cancelling out the sound waves they create.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify noise cancellation of multiple rotors by controlling their rotation from Beckman with control of the rotors angular position, as taught by Pantalone, for the benefit of reducing the noise of the rotors by cancelling out the sound waves they create.
Beckman in view of Pantalone are silent to the electric off-highway vehicle comprising a hydraulic system and/or a traction system, the hydraulic system and/or the traction system comprising.
In a similar field, Atmur teaches [a]n electric off-highway vehicle, comprising: a hydraulic system and/or a traction system, the hydraulic system and/or the traction system comprising (Atmur: Para. 0003 and 0020, teaching controlling hydraulic motors to damp the sound they produced) for the benefit of reducing the noise of the hydraulic motors.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify noise cancellation of multiple rotors by controlling their rotation from Beckman in view of Pantalone to be applicable to hydraulic motors, as taught by Atmur, for the benefit of reducing the noise of the hydraulic motors.
Regarding claim 2, Beckman, Pantalone, and Atmur remain as applied as in claim 1, and Beckman goes on to further teach [t]he electric off-highway vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the electric off-highway vehicle comprises N number of components, wherein N is greater than 2, wherein each component is associated with a respective rotor and wherein each rotor is associated with a respective noise waveform when in use (Beckman: Para. 0053, teaching that the invention can be applied to multiple additional rotors as well), wherein the resultant noise waveform comprises each of the respective noise waveforms (Beckman: Para. 0054, teaching that the noise generated by multiple rotors is analyzed and controlled to cause them to cancel each other out), and wherein the control system is configured to adjust the angular position of at least one of the rotors such that a parameter associated with the resultant noise waveform is optimized (Beckman: Para. 0085, teaching that the angular/rotational position of the plurality of rotors is controlled to cause the sound of the different rotors to compensate for each other and cancel out).
Regarding claim 3, Beckman, Pantalone, and Atmur remain as applied as in claim 1, and Pantalone goes on to further teach [t]he electric off-highway vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to control the angular position of at least one of the rotors such that the parameter associated with the resultant noise waveform is minimized (Pantalone: Para. 0035, teaching that the angular/rotational position of the plurality of rotors is controlled to cause the sound of the different rotors to cancel out).
Regarding claim 5, Beckman, Pantalone, and Atmur remain as applied as in claim 1, and Beckman goes on to further teach [t]he electric off-highway vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the angular position of at least one of the rotors is controlled so as to maintain a desired phase offset between the noise waveforms associated with the respective rotors (Beckman: Para. 0030 and 0031, teaching that the motors of both rotors are controlled so that the rotors have the same amplitude and frequency but different phases so that they cancel out), wherein the electric off-highway vehicle comprises N number of components, wherein N is 2 or more (Beckman: Para. 0053, teaching that the invention can be applied to multiple additional rotors as well), wherein each component is associated with a respective rotor and wherein each rotor is associated with a respective noise waveform when in use (Beckman: Para. 0054, teaching that the noise generated by multiple rotors is analyzed and controlled to cause them to cancel each other out), and wherein the control system is configured to control the angular position of at least one of the rotors such that the noise waveforms associated with the rotors of the N components are approximately 360/N degrees out of phase (Beckman: Para. 0085, teaching that the angular/rotational position of the plurality of rotors is controlled to cause the sound of the different rotors to compensate for each other and cancel out).
Regarding claim 6, Beckman, Pantalone, and Atmur remain as applied as in claim 1, and Pantalone goes on to further teach [t]he electric off-highway vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to control the angular position of at least one of the rotors by controlling an angular velocity of said rotor (Pantalone: Para. 0036, teaching that the rotational (angular) position of the rotors are monitored and controlled by the system by controlling the rotational velocity of the rotors).
Regarding claim 7, Beckman, Pantalone, and Atmur remain as applied as in claim 1, and Beckman goes on to further teach [t]he electric off-highway vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to control an angular velocity of one or more of the rotors such that the frequencies of the noise waveforms associated with the respective rotors during use are controlled to optimize the parameter associated with the resultant noise waveform (Beckman: Para. 0030-0032, teaching that the rotational speed of the rotors is controlled so that they have the same frequency but different phases thus causing them to cancel each other out), and wherein the control system is configured to control the angular velocity of one or more of the rotors such that the frequencies of the waveforms associated with the respective rotors are substantially equal (Beckman: Para. 0031, teaching that the rotational speed of the rotors is controlled so that they have the same frequency).
Regarding claim 8, Beckman, Pantalone, and Atmur remain as applied as in claim 1, and Pantalone goes on to further teach [t]he electric off-highway vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to: a) determine the angular position of each rotor (Pantalone: Para. 0035, teaching that the angular/rotational position of the plurality of rotors is monitored); b) determine an offset between the angular positions of the rotors; and c) control the angular position of at least one of the rotors based on the determined offset in order to optimize the parameter of the resultant noise waveform (Pantalone: Para. 0036, teaching that the rotational (angular) position of the rotors are monitored and offset from each other by the system by controlling the rotational velocity of the rotors).
Regarding claim 9, Beckman, Pantalone, and Atmur remain as applied as in claim 1, and Pantalone goes on to further teach [t]he electric off-highway vehicle according to claim 8, wherein the control system is configured to control the angular position of at least one of the rotors when the determined offset differs from a target offset value by at least a predetermined amount (Pantalone: Para. 0036, teaching that the rotational (angular) position of the rotors are monitored and offset from each other by the system by controlling the rotational velocity of the rotors).
Regarding claim 10, Beckman, Pantalone, and Atmur remain as applied as in claim 1, and Beckman goes on to further teach [t]he electric off-highway vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to: a) obtain a resultant noise waveform of the electric vehicle at a time tn; and b) control the angular position of at least one of the rotors; c) after step b), obtain an updated resultant noise waveform of the electric vehicle at a time tn+1; and d) compare the resultant noise waveform at time tn to the resultant noise waveform at time tn+1; and e) control the angular position of at least one of the rotors based on the comparison carried out during step d) to optimize the parameter of the resultant noise waveform of the electric vehicle (Pantalone: Para. 0036, teaching that the rotational (angular) position of the rotors are monitored and offset from each other by the system by controlling the rotational velocity of the rotors; and Para. 0044, teaching that the control of the rotors is updated periodically such that the rotors stay out of phase with each other thus causing them to cancel other out the sound of each).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckman in view of Pantalone in further view of Atmur as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of previously cited of record Gea Aguilera et al. (US Pub. No. 20200148325 A1), herein after Gea Aguilera.
Regarding claim 4, Beckman, Pantalone, and Atmur remain as applied as in claim 3 and Beckman goes on to further teach [t]he electric off-highway vehicle according to claim 3, wherein the parameter comprises at least one of: a maximum amplitude of the resultant noise waveform; an average amplitude of the resultant noise waveform (Beckman: Para. 0032, teaching that various characteristics of both rotors are detected and controlled to cause the noise from both rotors to cancel out, the characteristics can include rotational characteristics of the rotors such as amplitude).
They are silent to the parameter comprises at least one of:… a maximum peak to trough distance; and/or an average peak to trough distance.
In a similar field, Gea Aguilera teaches the parameter comprises at least one of:… a maximum peak to trough distance; and/or an average peak to trough distance (Gea Aguilera: Para. 0065 and 0021, teaching that the waveform of a sound wave generated by a rotor is controlled according to the peaks and troughs of the sound wave) for the benefit of enhanced noise cancellation of a vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the noise cancellation by controlling the sound waves emitted from the rotors from Beckman in view of Pantalone in further view of Atmur with to consider the peaks and troughs of the sound waves, as taught by Gea Aguilera, for the benefit of enhanced noise cancellation of a vehicle.
Claims 11-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited of record Beckman; Brian C. (US Pub. No. 20160083073 A1), herein after Beckman, in further view of Schnetzka et al. (US Pub. No. 20060018764 A1), herein after Schnetzka, and further in view of previously cited of record Pantalone et al. (US Pub. No. 20190185149 A1), herein after Pantalone.
Regarding claim 11, Beckman teaches [a]n electric off-highway vehicle comprising: a power supply; a first component associated with a first rotor which is associated with a first waveform when in use (Beckman: Para. 0012, teaching that the invention is applicable to any suitable vehicle; Para. 0024, teaching the vehicle has at least two rotors; Para. 0028, teaching that the first rotor has a noise associated with it; and Para. 0043, teaching a power supply that provides power to the rotors); and a second component associated with a second rotor which is associated with a second waveform when in use (Beckman: Para. 0030, teaching that the second rotor has a noise associated with it); wherein the electric off-highway vehicle is associated with a resultant noise waveform comprising the first and second noise waveforms, when in use (Beckman: Para. 0030, teaching that a resultant cancelled noise is created by combining the noises of the first and second rotor); and a control system configured to control the first and second inverters to control... the first rotor and/or the second rotor such that a parameter associated with the resultant noise waveform is optimized (Beckman: Para. 0032, teaching that various characteristics of both rotors are detected and controlled to cause the noise from both rotors to cancel out, the characteristics can include rotational characteristics of the rotors such as frequency, amplitude, phase, etc.).
Beckman is silent to first and second electric motors configured to actuate the first and second rotors, respectively; first and second inverters configured to regulate the flow of electrical power from the power supply to the first and second motors, respectively, and control an angular position of the first and/or second rotor.
In a similar field, Schnetzka teaches first and second electric motors configured to actuate the first and second rotors, respectively; first and second inverters configured to regulate the flow of electrical power from the power supply to the first and second motors, respectively (Schnetzka: Para. 0023, teaching the control of multiple motors by controlling inverters that control the electrical power supplied to the motors) for the benefit of improving control of the motors to reduce the noise created by motors.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify noise cancellation of multiple rotors by controlling their rotation from Beckman to use inverters to control the rotors and motors, as taught by Schnetzka, for the benefit of improving control of the motors to reduce the noise created by motors.
Beckman in view of Schnetzka are silent to control the first and second inverters to control an angular position of the first and/or second rotor.
In a similar field, Pantalone teaches a control system configured to control the first and second inverters to control an angular position of the first rotor and/or the second rotor such that a parameter associated with the resultant noise waveform is optimized (Pantalone: Para. 0035, teaching sensing and controlling the rotational position and speed of multiple rotors of a vehicle) for the benefit of reducing the noise of the rotors by cancelling out the sound waves they create.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify noise cancellation of multiple rotors by controlling their rotation from Beckman in view of Schnetzka with control of the rotors angular position, as taught by Pantalone, for the benefit of reducing the noise of the rotors by cancelling out the sound waves they create.
Regarding claim 12, Beckman, Schnetzka, and Pantalone remain as applied as in claim 11, and Beckman goes on to further teach [t]he electric off-highway vehicle according to claim 11, wherein the electric vehicle comprises N number of components, wherein N is greater than 2, and wherein each component is associated with a respective rotor which is associated with a respective noise waveform when in use (Beckman: Para. 0053, teaching that the invention can be applied to multiple additional rotors as well), and wherein the resultant noise waveform comprises each of the respective noise waveforms (Beckman: Para. 0054, teaching that the noise generated by multiple rotors is analyzed and controlled to cause them to cancel each other out).
Regarding claim 13, Beckman, Schnetzka, and Pantalone remain as applied as in claim 11 and Beckman goes on to further teach [t]he electric off-highway vehicle according to claim 11, wherein the electric vehicle further comprises: a plurality of electric motors, each configured to actuate a respective one of the rotors (Beckman: Para. 0024, teaching that the invention is applicable to control of more than two rotors) and Schnetzka goes on to further teach at least one inverter configured to control a speed of at least one of the plurality of electric motors (Schnetzka: Para. 0026, teaching using the inverters to control the rotational speed of the motors).
Regarding claim 14, Beckman, Schnetzka, and Pantalone remain as applied as in claim 13, and Pantalone goes on to further teach [t]he electric off-highway vehicle according to claim 13, wherein the control system is configured to control the angular position and/or an angular velocity of at least one of the rotors by controlling a motor operating target speed supplied to the at least one inverter associated with said rotor (Pantalone: Para. 0036, teaching controlling the rotational position and speed of multiple rotors of a vehicle to have them be offset from each other).
Regarding claim 15, Beckman, Schnetzka, and Pantalone remain as applied as in claim 13, and Schnetzka goes on to further teach [t]he electric off-highway vehicle according to claim 13, wherein the control system is configured to modulate the angular velocity of at least one of the rotors via the at least one inverter during use (Nashiki: Para. 0326, teaching the use of an inverter to control a motor).
Regarding claim 16, Beckman, Schnetzka, and Pantalone remain as applied as in claim 11, and Pantalone goes on to further teach [t]he electric off-highway vehicle according to claim 11, further comprising at least one position sensor configured to measure an angular position of each rotor, and wherein the control system is configured to determine the angular position of each rotor based on the measurements provided by the at least one position sensor (Pantalone: Para. 0035, teaching that the angular/rotational position of the plurality of rotors is monitored).
Regarding claim 17, Beckman, Schnetzka, and Pantalone remain as applied as in claim 11, and Beckman goes on to further teach [t]he electric off-highway vehicle according to claim 11, further comprising a transducer configured to measure a vibration signature of the electric vehicle (Beckman: Para. 0014, teaching that each motor can have a microphone attached to it that measures the sound of the motor); and wherein the control system is configured to obtain the resultant noise waveform for the electric vehicle based on the vibration signature obtained by the transducer (Beckman: Para. 0014, teaching that the controller of the motors can adjust the motors based on the sound detected).
Regarding claim 18, Beckman, Schnetzka, and Pantalone remain as applied as in claim 11, and Schnetzka goes on to further teach [t]he electric off-highway vehicle according to claim 11, further comprising a cooling system; a hydraulic system; and/or a traction system comprising the first component and/or second component and/or Nth component (Schnetzka: Para. 0003, 0009, and 0015, teaching controlling the rotors of an HVAC system in a car to cause the sound generated by the rotors to cancel out).
Regarding claim 19, Beckman, Schnetzka, and Pantalone remain as applied as in claim 11, and Beckman goes on to further teach [t]he electric off-highway vehicle according to claim 11, wherein the electric vehicle is a working vehicle or a land vehicle (Beckman: Para. 0012, teaching that the invention is applicable to any suitable land vehicle).
Regarding claim 21, Beckman, Schnetzka, and Pantalone remain as applied as in claim 11, and Beckman goes on to further teach [t]he electric off-highway vehicle according to claim 12, wherein the control system is configured to control the plurality of inverters to control the angular positions of the respective rotors such that the noise waveforms associated with the rotors of the N components are approximately 360/N degrees out of phase (Beckman: Para. 0085, teaching that the angular/rotational position of the plurality of rotors is controlled to cause the sound of the different rotors to compensate for each other and cancel out).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 21st, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments filed July 21st, 2025 with respect to the objections and 112(b) rejections of record have rendered the objections and 112(b) rejections of record moot. Therefore, the objection to claim 10 and 112(b) rejections of claims 5, 7, 13, and 16-18 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed July 21st, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-19 under 103 in light of the amendments of record have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Beckman in view of Pantalone in further view of Atmur for claims 1-3 and 5-10, Beckman in view of Pantalone in further view of Atmur in further view of Gea Aguilera for claim 4, Beckman in view of Schnetzka in further view of Pantalone for claims 11-19 and 21.
Applicant contends (see page 9 lines 16-35 and see page 10 lines 9-25, July 21st, 2025) that Beckman is deficient in teaching that the invention is for an electric off-highway- vehicle and instead is directed towards an aerial vehicle. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the interpretation of an “off-highway vehicle” could reasonably include aerial vehicles as aerial vehicles are not known to travel on highways. The examiner further notes that Beckman teaches that “While various aspects are described with reference to AAVs, it should be understood that this disclosure includes any type of vehicle suitable for use with the systems, methods, and techniques described herein. For example, any other type of aircraft (e.g., a passenger airplane), any type of land craft (e.g., an automobile), or any type of watercraft (e.g., a motor boat), may be used with the systems, methods, and techniques described in this disclosure” (Beckman: Para. 0012). Therefore, one ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that Beckman can reasonably be applied to the claimed invention.
Applicant contends (see page 10 line 9 through page 11 line 6, July 21st, 2025) that Beckman, Pantalone, and Nashiki are deficient in teaching controlling the rotors through the use of multiple inverters to control the speed of the rotors. The examiner respectfully agrees. The examiner notes, however, that this limitation is now being taught by the reference of Schnetzka as it is in the field of reducing the noise generated by motors and it teaches the control of the motors by the use of inverters.
Applicant contends (see page 10 lines 1-7 and page 11 lines 8-11, July 21st, 2025) that the dependent claims are allowable over the prior art of record as they depend upon claims that have been rendered allowable. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that as the independent claims have not been rendered allowable over the prior art of record the dependent claims stand to fall with the claims they depend upon.
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 Aaron K McCullers whose telephone number is (571)272-3523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, Roughly 9 AM - 6 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663