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
This office action is in response to Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 01/27/2026, for application number 18/233,555 filed on 08/14/2023, in which claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-20 were previously presented for examination.
Claims 1, 11, and 18 are amended.
Claim 5 is canceled.
Claim 21 is new.
Claims 1-3, 6-14, and 16-21 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 01/27/2026 in response to the Non-Final office action mailed on 10/27/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the Claim Objections: The objections are withdrawn, as the claim amendments have properly addressed the informalities recited in the Non-Final office action.
Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103: With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant has amended the independent claims and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application. Therefore, the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the Final office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
FINAL OFFICE ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 8, 11, 12, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi et al. (JP2008054441 A, hereinafter “Yamagishi”) in view of Shirotaka et al. (JP2012249365 A, hereinafter “Shirotaka”) further in view of Lee (KR20140085137 A) and Yamaya et al. (US 2023/0382240 A1, hereinafter “Yamaya”). The rejections below are based on the machine translation of the Yamagishi, Shirotaka, and Lee.
Regarding claim 1, Yamagishi discloses a method of controlling a utility vehicle (Yamagishi at para. [0002]: “small electric vehicles that are designed for low-speed driving have become popular so that they can be easily used by the elderly and people with disabilities”; para. [0011]: “FIG. 2 is a perspective view of a small electric vehicle”), the method comprising:
initially setting a maximum speed constraint imposed on the utility vehicle to an initial value (Yamagishi at para. [0016]: “a speed limit changeover switch 26b”; para. [0027]: “Generally, the upper limit of the vehicle speed of the small electric vehicle 1 is set to, for example, 6 km/h, and when this upper limit is exceeded, the motor is operated as a regenerative brake to reduce the vehicle speed”);
receiving a state of charge signal that indicates a current state of charge of a (Yamagishi at para. [0018]: “A battery 29 is mounted as a power source for driving the rear wheels 12”; para. [0026]: “A voltage detection unit 52 in the sub-ECU 33 detects the terminal voltage of the battery 29 and detects the charge capacity of the battery 29”); and
based on the state of charge signal that indicates the current state of charge of the (Yamagishi at para. [0026]: “The initial battery capacity limit value is a preset value, and can be set arbitrarily below a value (100%) equivalent to a full charge. For example, in order to prevent the battery 29 from being overcharged, a value equivalent to 80% of full charge is set”; para. [0027]: “The overcharge detection signal is input to upper vehicle speed limit changing section 56, which then reduces the upper vehicle speed limit”; para. [0032]: “In step S11, it is determined whether or not the terminal voltage of the battery 29 is equal to or higher than a preset voltage value equivalent to overcharging (overcharging voltage value). If it is determined that the terminal voltage is equal to or higher than the overcharge voltage value, the process proceeds to step S12, where the upper vehicle speed limit value of the small electric vehicle 1 is reduced to a predetermined value. For example, change 6km/h to 4km/h”)
However, Yamagishi does not explicitly state the lithium battery,
wherein adjusting the maximum speed constraint imposed on the utility vehicle further includes:
performing an incline assessment operation that indicates whether the utility vehicle is currently traveling down an incline to prevent the maximum speed constraint imposed on the utility vehicle from being lowered from a first speed limit to a second speed limit unless the utility vehicle is currently traveling down an incline;
wherein the utility vehicle includes an electric motor that provides utility vehicle propulsion; and
wherein performing the incline assessment operation includes:
providing an incline assessment operation result indicating that the utility vehicle is traveling front-to-back down the incline in response to the electric motor rotating in a predefined direction and regenerating an amount of energy that exceeds an energy regeneration threshold.
Nevertheless, Yamagishi at least suggests the idea of the battery being rechargeable by regenerative braking (Yamagishi at para. [0020]).
In the same field of endeavor, Shirotaka teaches the lithium battery (Shirotaka at para. [0003]: “Because electric carts are equipped with electric motors, when braking or going down a slope, the electric motor functions as a generator, generating regenerative current that can be used to perform regenerative braking. At the same time, the regenerative current can also be used to charge a lithium-ion battery”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the utility vehicle of Yamagishi by adding the lithium battery of Shirotaka with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the utility vehicle of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka is to provide electric carts with light weight and high capacity lithium batteries (see Shirotaka at para. [0002]).
However, Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka does not explicitly state wherein adjusting the maximum speed constraint imposed on the utility vehicle further includes:
performing an incline assessment operation that indicates whether the utility vehicle is currently traveling down an incline to prevent the maximum speed constraint imposed on the utility vehicle from being lowered from a first speed limit to a second speed limit unless the utility vehicle is currently traveling down an incline;
wherein the utility vehicle includes an electric motor that provides utility vehicle propulsion; and
wherein performing the incline assessment operation includes:
providing an incline assessment operation result indicating that the utility vehicle is traveling front-to-back down the incline in response to the electric motor rotating in a predefined direction and regenerating an amount of energy that exceeds an energy regeneration threshold.
Nevertheless, Yamagishi at least suggests the idea of necessity of lowering the speed limit when the vehicle is driving downhill (see Yamagishi at para. [0002], [0003], [0008], and [0027]).
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches performing an incline assessment operation that indicates whether the utility vehicle is currently traveling down an incline to prevent the maximum speed constraint imposed on the utility vehicle from being lowered from a first speed limit to a second speed limit unless the utility vehicle is currently traveling down an incline (Lee at para. [0067]: “The above controller (120) determines that the difference between the driver's requested acceleration and the current acceleration is greater than a set value in S105, determines that the driving is on a slope (gradient) (S106), determines whether the driving is on a downhill road, and detects the slope (gradient) of the road (S107)”; para. [0072]: “the controller (120) controls the motor (180) with the calculated regenerative braking torque through the inverter (130) to provide deceleration without driver intervention and without generating hydraulic braking force while driving down a slope, thereby providing driving while maintaining an optimal speed (S111)”; FIG. 2: when no slope is detected at step S105, the deceleration control is not performed);
wherein the utility vehicle includes an electric motor that provides utility vehicle propulsion (Lee at para. [0004]: “Eco-friendly cars are provided with an EV mode that provides driving with only the motor operating depending on the acceleration/deceleration will through the operation of the accelerator and brake pedals, the gradient of the road, and the conditions of the battery and motor, and an HEV mode that provides driving in the area where the engine and motor are most efficient by combining the engine and motor with the engine clutch”); and
wherein performing the incline assessment operation includes:
providing an incline assessment operation result indicating that the utility vehicle is traveling front-to-back down the incline (Lee at para. [0067]: “The above controller (120) determines that the difference between the driver's requested acceleration and the current acceleration is greater than a set value in S105, determines that the driving is on a slope (gradient) (S106), determines whether the driving is on a downhill road, and detects the slope (gradient) of the road (S107)”; When the vehicle is driving on the downhill road, the vehicle travels in a forward direction (i.e., the front-to-back down the incline)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka by adding the incline assessment operation as taught by Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee is to provide improved fuel efficiency when driving downhill (see Lee at para. [0010]).
However, Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee does not explicitly state:
providing an incline assessment operation result indicating that the utility vehicle is traveling front-to-back down the incline in response to the electric motor rotating in a predefined direction and regenerating an amount of energy that exceeds an energy regeneration threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, Yamaya teaches:
providing an incline assessment operation result indicating that the utility vehicle is traveling front-to-back down the incline in response to the electric motor rotating in a predefined direction and regenerating an amount of energy that exceeds an energy regeneration threshold (Yamaya at para. [0032]: “The MG torque Tm serves as a regenerative torque when acting as a negative torque for deceleration, with the front electric motor MG being rotated in the forward direction”; para. [0063]: “the slope determining portion 122 determines that the road surface is sloped upward when the MG rotational angle θm is changed in the reverse rotation direction, and determines that the road surface is sloped downward when the MG rotational angle θm is changed in the forward rotation direction”; Energy is regenerated more than zero amount (i.e., “regenerating an amount of energy that exceeds an energy regeneration threshold”) when the motor is rotated in the forward rotation direction (i.e., “the electric motor rotating in a predefined direction”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee by adding the predefined direction and the amount of energy as taught by Yamaya with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Yamaya is to provide improved determination of inclination.
Regarding claim 2, Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Yamaya teaches the method of claim 1.
Yamagishi further discloses wherein the initial value is the first speed limit (Yamagishi at para. [0027]: “Generally, the upper limit of the vehicle speed of the small electric vehicle 1 is set to, for example, 6 km/h”);
wherein the adjusted value is the second speed limit that is slower than the first speed limit (Yamagishi at para. [0032]: “If it is determined that the terminal voltage is equal to or higher than the overcharge voltage value, the process proceeds to step S12, where the upper vehicle speed limit value of the small electric vehicle 1 is reduced to a predetermined value. For example, change 6km/h to 4km/h”); and
wherein adjusting the maximum speed constraint imposed on the utility vehicle includes:
lowering the maximum speed constraint imposed on the utility vehicle from the first speed limit to the second speed limit (Yamagishi at para. [0032]: “the process proceeds to step S12, where the upper vehicle speed limit value of the small electric vehicle 1 is reduced to a predetermined value. For example, change 6km/h to 4km/h”).
Regarding claim 3, Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Yamaya teaches the method of claim 2.
Yamagishi further discloses wherein adjusting the maximum speed constraint imposed on the utility vehicle further includes:
performing a comparison operation that compares the current state of charge of the lithium battery indicated by the state of charge signal to a predefined state of charge threshold for the lithium battery (Yamagishi at para. [0032]: “If it is determined that the terminal voltage is equal to or higher than the overcharge voltage value”), a result of the comparison operation indicating that the current state of charge of the lithium battery exceeds the predefined state of charge threshold for the lithium battery, the maximum speed constraint for the utility vehicle being lowered from the first speed limit to the second speed limit in response to the result of the comparison operation indicating that the current state of charge of the lithium battery exceeds the predefined state of charge threshold for the lithium battery (Yamagishi at para. [0032]: “If it is determined that the terminal voltage is equal to or higher than the overcharge voltage value, the process proceeds to step S12, where the upper vehicle speed limit value of the small electric vehicle 1 is reduced to a predetermined value. For example, change 6km/h to 4km/h”).
Regarding claim 8, Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Yamaya teaches the method of claim 2.
Yamagishi further discloses wherein a current speed of the utility vehicle is lower than the first speed limit and higher than the second speed limit (Yamagishi at Fig. 8: where the time is between t1 and t3, the vehicle speed is lower than 6 km/h and higher than 4 km/h); and
wherein the method further comprises:
slowing the utility vehicle from the current speed to at least a rate of the second speed limit in response to lowering the maximum speed constraint imposed on the utility vehicle from the first speed limit to the second speed limit (Yamagishi at para. [0037]: “when the accelerator command is turned on at timing t0, the vehicle speed (motor rotation speed) increases according to the amount of operation of the accelerator lever 28, and when the motor rotation speed corresponding to the default vehicle speed upper limit (6 km/h) is reached at timing t1, the terminal voltage of the battery 29 becomes equal to or higher than the overcharge voltage value (e.g., 34 volts). As a result, an alarm indicating overcharging is issued and the upper vehicle speed limit is gradually lowered, so that the motor rotation speed decreases and the vehicle speed decreases gradually”; Fig. 8: where the time is between t1 and t3, the vehicle speed is lower than 6 km/h and higher than 4 km/h, and the vehicle speed is gradually reduced to reach 4 km/h).
Regarding claim 11, Yamagishi discloses Electronic circuitry to control a utility vehicle (Yamagishi at para. [0002]: “small electric vehicles that are designed for low-speed driving have become popular so that they can be easily used by the elderly and people with disabilities”; para. [0011]: “FIG. 2 is a perspective view of a small electric vehicle”; para. [0024]: “The sub-ECU 33 includes a bridge circuit (not shown) consisting of six FETs as a drive circuit for the motor 18, and drives the motor 18 by determining the duty ratio of the FETs through PWM control”), the electronic circuitry comprising: a battery system interface (Yamagishi at para. [0016]: “The operation unit 26 is provided with … a speed limit changeover switch 26b”); and a controller coupled with the battery system interface (Yamagishi at para. [0019]: “the sub-ECU 33 receives operation information from input devices”), the controller being constructed and arranged to perform a method of: initially setting a maximum speed constraint imposed on the utility vehicle to an initial value, receiving, through the battery system interface (Yamagishi at para. [0016]: “a speed limit changeover switch 26b”; para. [0027]: “Generally, the upper limit of the vehicle speed of the small electric vehicle 1 is set to, for example, 6 km/h, and when this upper limit is exceeded, the motor is operated as a regenerative brake to reduce the vehicle speed”), a state of charge signal that indicates a current state of charge of a (Yamagishi at para. [0018]: “A battery 29 is mounted as a power source for driving the rear wheels 12”; para. [0026]: “A voltage detection unit 52 in the sub-ECU 33 detects the terminal voltage of the battery 29 and detects the charge capacity of the battery 29”), and based on the state of charge signal that indicates the current state of charge of the (Yamagishi at para. [0026]: “The initial battery capacity limit value is a preset value, and can be set arbitrarily below a value (100%) equivalent to a full charge. For example, in order to prevent the battery 29 from being overcharged, a value equivalent to 80% of full charge is set”; para. [0027]: “The overcharge detection signal is input to upper vehicle speed limit changing section 56, which then reduces the upper vehicle speed limit”; para. [0032]: “In step S11, it is determined whether or not the terminal voltage of the battery 29 is equal to or higher than a preset voltage value equivalent to overcharging (overcharging voltage value). If it is determined that the terminal voltage is equal to or higher than the overcharge voltage value, the process proceeds to step S12, where the upper vehicle speed limit value of the small electric vehicle 1 is reduced to a predetermined value. For example, change 6km/h to 4km/h”).
However, Yamagishi does not explicitly state the lithium battery,
wherein adjusting the maximum speed constraint imposed on the utility vehicle further includes:
performing an incline assessment operation that indicates whether the utility vehicle is currently traveling down an incline to prevent the maximum speed constraint imposed on the utility vehicle from being lowered from a first speed limit to a second speed limit unless the utility vehicle is currently traveling down an incline;
wherein the utility vehicle includes an electric motor that provides utility vehicle propulsion; and
wherein performing the incline assessment operation includes:
providing an incline assessment operation result indicating that the utility vehicle is traveling front-to-back down the incline in response to the electric motor rotating in a predefined direction and regenerating an amount of energy that exceeds an energy regeneration threshold.
Nevertheless, Yamagishi at least suggests the idea of the battery being rechargeable by regenerative braking (Yamagishi at para. [0020]).
In the same field of endeavor, Shirotaka teaches the lithium battery (Shirotaka at para. [0003]: “Because electric carts are equipped with electric motors, when braking or going down a slope, the electric motor functions as a generator, generating regenerative current that can be used to perform regenerative braking. At the same time, the regenerative current can also be used to charge a lithium-ion battery”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuitry of Yamagishi by adding the lithium battery of Shirotaka with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the circuitry of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka is to provide electric carts with light weight and high capacity lithium batteries (see Shirotaka at para. [0002]).
However, Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka does not explicitly state wherein adjusting the maximum speed constraint imposed on the utility vehicle further includes:
performing an incline assessment operation that indicates whether the utility vehicle is currently traveling down an incline to prevent the maximum speed constraint imposed on the utility vehicle from being lowered from a first speed limit to a second speed limit unless the utility vehicle is currently traveling down an incline;
wherein the utility vehicle includes an electric motor that provides utility vehicle propulsion; and
wherein performing the incline assessment operation includes:
providing an incline assessment operation result indicating that the utility vehicle is traveling front-to-back down the incline in response to the electric motor rotating in a predefined direction and regenerating an amount of energy that exceeds an energy regeneration threshold.
Nevertheless, Yamagishi at least suggests the idea of necessity of lowering the speed limit when the vehicle is driving downhill (see Yamagishi at para. [0002], [0003], [0008], and [0027]).
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches performing an incline assessment operation that indicates whether the utility vehicle is currently traveling down an incline to prevent the maximum speed constraint imposed on the utility vehicle from being lowered from a first speed limit to a second speed limit unless the utility vehicle is currently traveling down an incline (Lee at para. [0067]: “The above controller (120) determines that the difference between the driver's requested acceleration and the current acceleration is greater than a set value in S105, determines that the driving is on a slope (gradient) (S106), determines whether the driving is on a downhill road, and detects the slope (gradient) of the road (S107)”; para. [0072]: “the controller (120) controls the motor (180) with the calculated regenerative braking torque through the inverter (130) to provide deceleration without driver intervention and without generating hydraulic braking force while driving down a slope, thereby providing driving while maintaining an optimal speed (S111)”; FIG. 2: when no slope is detected at step S105, the deceleration control is not performed);
wherein the utility vehicle includes an electric motor that provides utility vehicle propulsion (Lee at para. [0004]: “Eco-friendly cars are provided with an EV mode that provides driving with only the motor operating depending on the acceleration/deceleration will through the operation of the accelerator and brake pedals, the gradient of the road, and the conditions of the battery and motor, and an HEV mode that provides driving in the area where the engine and motor are most efficient by combining the engine and motor with the engine clutch”); and
wherein performing the incline assessment operation includes:
providing an incline assessment operation result indicating that the utility vehicle is traveling front-to-back down the incline (Lee at para. [0067]: “The above controller (120) determines that the difference between the driver's requested acceleration and the current acceleration is greater than a set value in S105, determines that the driving is on a slope (gradient) (S106), determines whether the driving is on a downhill road, and detects the slope (gradient) of the road (S107)”; When the vehicle is driving on the downhill road, the vehicle travels in a forward direction (i.e., the front-to-back down the incline)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuitry of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka by adding the incline assessment operation as taught by Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the circuitry of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee is to provide improved fuel efficiency when driving downhill (see Lee at para. [0010]).
However, Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee does not explicitly state:
providing an incline assessment operation result indicating that the utility vehicle is traveling front-to-back down the incline in response to the electric motor rotating in a predefined direction and regenerating an amount of energy that exceeds an energy regeneration threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, Yamaya teaches:
providing an incline assessment operation result indicating that the utility vehicle is traveling front-to-back down the incline in response to the electric motor rotating in a predefined direction and regenerating an amount of energy that exceeds an energy regeneration threshold (Yamaya at para. [0032]: “The MG torque Tm serves as a regenerative torque when acting as a negative torque for deceleration, with the front electric motor MG being rotated in the forward direction”; para. [0063]: “the slope determining portion 122 determines that the road surface is sloped upward when the MG rotational angle θm is changed in the reverse rotation direction, and determines that the road surface is sloped downward when the MG rotational angle θm is changed in the forward rotation direction”; Energy is regenerated more than zero amount (i.e., “regenerating an amount of energy that exceeds an energy regeneration threshold”) when the motor is rotated in the forward rotation direction (i.e., “the electric motor rotating in a predefined direction”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuitry of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee by adding the predefined direction and the amount of energy as taught by Yamaya with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the circuitry of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Yamaya is to provide improved determination of inclination.
Regarding claim 12, Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Yamaya teaches the electronic circuitry as in claim 11.
Yamagishi further discloses wherein the initial value is the first speed limit (Yamagishi at para. [0027]: “Generally, the upper limit of the vehicle speed of the small electric vehicle 1 is set to, for example, 6 km/h”);
wherein the adjusted value is the second speed limit that is slower than the first speed limit (Yamagishi at para. [0032]: “If it is determined that the terminal voltage is equal to or higher than the overcharge voltage value, the process proceeds to step S12, where the upper vehicle speed limit value of the small electric vehicle 1 is reduced to a predetermined value. For example, change 6km/h to 4km/h”); and
wherein adjusting the maximum speed constraint imposed on the utility vehicle includes:
lowering the maximum speed constraint imposed on the utility vehicle from the first speed limit to the second speed limit (Yamagishi at para. [0032]: “the process proceeds to step S12, where the upper vehicle speed limit value of the small electric vehicle 1 is reduced to a predetermined value. For example, change 6km/h to 4km/h”).
Regarding claim 18, Yamagishi discloses a utility vehicle (para. [0002]: “small electric vehicles that are designed for low-speed driving have become popular so that they can be easily used by the elderly and people with disabilities”; para. [0011]: “FIG. 2 is a perspective view of a small electric vehicle”), comprising:
a battery management system (BMS) having a (Yamagishi at para. [0020]: “The battery 29 is connected to the sub-ECU 33 so that the battery 29 can be charged with the current generated by this regenerative braking”; para. [0026]: “A voltage detection unit 52 in the sub-ECU 33”);
a utility vehicle propulsion system constructed and arranged to provide utility vehicle propulsion using electric power from the (Yamagishi at para. [0018]: “A battery 29 is mounted as a power source for driving the rear wheels 12”); and
electronic circuitry coupled with the BMS and the utility vehicle propulsion system (Yamagishi at para. [0024]: “The sub-ECU 33 includes a bridge circuit (not shown) consisting of six FETs as a drive circuit for the motor 18, and drives the motor 18 by determining the duty ratio of the FETs through PWM control”), the electronic circuitry being constructed and arranged to perform a method of:
initially setting a maximum speed constraint imposed on the utility vehicle to an initial value (Yamagishi at para. [0016]: “a speed limit changeover switch 26b”; para. [0027]: “Generally, the upper limit of the vehicle speed of the small electric vehicle 1 is set to, for example, 6 km/h, and when this upper limit is exceeded, the motor is operated as a regenerative brake to reduce the vehicle speed”),
receiving, from the BMS, a state of charge signal that indicates a current state of charge of the (Yamagishi at para. [0026]: “A voltage detection unit 52 in the sub-ECU 33 detects the terminal voltage of the battery 29 and detects the charge capacity of the battery 29”), and
based on the state of charge signal that indicates the current state of charge of the (Yamagishi at para. [0026]: “The initial battery capacity limit value is a preset value, and can be set arbitrarily below a value (100%) equivalent to a full charge. For example, in order to prevent the battery 29 from being overcharged, a value equivalent to 80% of full charge is set”; para. [0027]: “The overcharge detection signal is input to upper vehicle speed limit changing section 56, which then reduces the upper vehicle speed limit”; para. [0032]: “In step S11, it is determined whether or not the terminal voltage of the battery 29 is equal to or higher than a preset voltage value equivalent to overcharging (overcharging voltage value). If it is determined that the terminal voltage is equal to or higher than the overcharge voltage value, the process proceeds to step S12, where the upper vehicle speed limit value of the small electric vehicle 1 is reduced to a predetermined value. For example, change 6km/h to 4km/h”).
However, Yamagishi does not explicitly state the lithium battery,
wherein adjusting the maximum speed constraint imposed on the utility vehicle further includes:
performing an incline assessment operation that indicates whether the utility vehicle is currently traveling down an incline to prevent the maximum speed constraint imposed on the utility vehicle from being lowered from the first speed limit to the second speed limit unless the utility vehicle is currently traveling down an incline;
wherein the utility vehicle includes an electric motor that provides utility vehicle propulsion; and
wherein performing the incline assessment operation includes:
providing an incline assessment operation result indicating that the utility vehicle is traveling front-to-back down the incline in response to the electric motor rotating in a predefined direction and regenerating an amount of energy that exceeds an energy regeneration threshold.
Nevertheless, Yamagishi at least suggests the idea of the battery being rechargeable by regenerative braking (Yamagishi at para. [0020]).
In the same field of endeavor, Shirotaka teaches the lithium battery (Shirotaka at para. [0003]: “Because electric carts are equipped with electric motors, when braking or going down a slope, the electric motor functions as a generator, generating regenerative current that can be used to perform regenerative braking. At the same time, the regenerative current can also be used to charge a lithium-ion battery”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the utility vehicle of Yamagishi by adding the lithium battery of Shirotaka with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the utility vehicle of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka is to provide electric carts with light weight and high capacity lithium batteries (see Shirotaka at para. [0002]).
However, Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka does not explicitly state wherein adjusting the maximum speed constraint imposed on the utility vehicle further includes:
performing an incline assessment operation that indicates whether the utility vehicle is currently traveling down an incline to prevent the maximum speed constraint imposed on the utility vehicle from being lowered from the first speed limit to the second speed limit unless the utility vehicle is currently traveling down an incline;
wherein the utility vehicle includes an electric motor that provides utility vehicle propulsion; and
wherein performing the incline assessment operation includes:
providing an incline assessment operation result indicating that the utility vehicle is traveling front-to-back down the incline.
Nevertheless, Yamagishi at least suggests the idea of necessity of lowering the speed limit when the vehicle is driving downhill (see Yamagishi at para. [0002], [0003], [0008], and [0027]).
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches performing an incline assessment operation that indicates whether the utility vehicle is currently traveling down an incline to prevent the maximum speed constraint imposed on the utility vehicle from being lowered from the first speed limit to the second speed limit unless the utility vehicle is currently traveling down an incline (Lee at para. [0067]: “The above controller (120) determines that the difference between the driver's requested acceleration and the current acceleration is greater than a set value in S105, determines that the driving is on a slope (gradient) (S106), determines whether the driving is on a downhill road, and detects the slope (gradient) of the road (S107)”; para. [0072]: “the controller (120) controls the motor (180) with the calculated regenerative braking torque through the inverter (130) to provide deceleration without driver intervention and without generating hydraulic braking force while driving down a slope, thereby providing driving while maintaining an optimal speed (S111)”; FIG. 2: when no slope is detected at step S105, the deceleration control is not performed);
wherein the utility vehicle includes an electric motor that provides utility vehicle propulsion (Lee at para. [0004]: “Eco-friendly cars are provided with an EV mode that provides driving with only the motor operating depending on the acceleration/deceleration will through the operation of the accelerator and brake pedals, the gradient of the road, and the conditions of the battery and motor, and an HEV mode that provides driving in the area where the engine and motor are most efficient by combining the engine and motor with the engine clutch”); and
wherein performing the incline assessment operation includes:
providing an incline assessment operation result indicating that the utility vehicle is traveling front-to-back down the incline (Lee at para. [0067]: “The above controller (120) determines that the difference between the driver's requested acceleration and the current acceleration is greater than a set value in S105, determines that the driving is on a slope (gradient) (S106), determines whether the driving is on a downhill road, and detects the slope (gradient) of the road (S107)”; When the vehicle is driving on the downhill road, the vehicle travels in a forward direction (i.e., the front-to-back down the incline)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the utility vehicle of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka by adding the incline assessment operation as taught by Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the utility vehicle of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee is to provide improved fuel efficiency when driving downhill (see Lee at para. [0010]).
However, Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee does not explicitly state:
providing an incline assessment operation result indicating that the utility vehicle is traveling front-to-back down the incline in response to the electric motor rotating in a predefined direction and regenerating an amount of energy that exceeds an energy regeneration threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, Yamaya teaches:
providing an incline assessment operation result indicating that the utility vehicle is traveling front-to-back down the incline in response to the electric motor rotating in a predefined direction and regenerating an amount of energy that exceeds an energy regeneration threshold (Yamaya at para. [0032]: “The MG torque Tm serves as a regenerative torque when acting as a negative torque for deceleration, with the front electric motor MG being rotated in the forward direction”; para. [0063]: “the slope determining portion 122 determines that the road surface is sloped upward when the MG rotational angle θm is changed in the reverse rotation direction, and determines that the road surface is sloped downward when the MG rotational angle θm is changed in the forward rotation direction”; Energy is regenerated more than zero amount (i.e., “regenerating an amount of energy that exceeds an energy regeneration threshold”) when the motor is rotated in the forward rotation direction (i.e., “the electric motor rotating in a predefined direction”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee by adding the predefined direction and the amount of energy as taught by Yamaya with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the vehicle of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Yamaya is to provide improved determination of inclination.
Regarding claim 21, Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Yamaya teaches the method of claim 1.
Yamagishi further discloses:
wherein adjusting the maximum speed constraint further includes:
lowering the maximum speed constraint in response to detecting that the state of charge signal exceeds a predefined state of charge threshold and (Yamagishi at para. [0032]: “If it is determined that the terminal voltage is equal to or higher than the overcharge voltage value, the process proceeds to step S12, where the upper vehicle speed limit value of the small electric vehicle 1 is reduced to a predetermined value. For example, change 6km/h to 4km/h”).
Yamagishi further suggests the idea of necessity of lowering the speed limit when the vehicle is driving downhill (see Yamagishi at para. [0002], [0003], [0008], and [0027]).
Lee further teaches:
lowering the maximum speed constraint in response to detecting that the state of charge signal exceeds a predefined state of charge threshold and the incline assessment operation result indicating that the utility vehicle is traveling front-to-back down the incline (Lee at para. [0067]: “The above controller (120) determines that the difference between the driver's requested acceleration and the current acceleration is greater than a set value in S105, determines that the driving is on a slope (gradient) (S106), determines whether the driving is on a downhill road, and detects the slope (gradient) of the road (S107)”; para. [0072]: “the controller (120) controls the motor (180) with the calculated regenerative braking torque through the inverter (130) to provide deceleration without driver intervention and without generating hydraulic braking force while driving down a slope, thereby providing driving while maintaining an optimal speed (S111)”; FIG. 2: when down slope is detected, the deceleration control to maintain the optimal speed is performed (i.e., “lowering the maximum speed constraint”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Yamaya by adding the incline assessment operation as taught by Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Yamaya is to provide improved fuel efficiency when driving downhill (see Lee at para. [0010]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee, Yamaya, and Goto (US 2023/0260293 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Yamaya teaches the method of claim 3.
However, Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Yamaya does not explicitly state wherein the utility vehicle includes a set of inertial measurement units (IMUs); and
wherein providing the incline assessment operation result occurs in response to a set of output signals from the set of IMUs.
In the same field of endeavor, Goto teaches wherein the utility vehicle includes a set of inertial measurement units (IMUs) (Goto at para. [0020]: “an inertial measurement unit (IMU) 2”); and
wherein providing the incline assessment operation result occurs in response to a set of output signals from the set of IMUs (Goto at para. [0030]: “The gradient value correction unit 112 corrects the gradient value calculated by the environment recognition unit 111 based on the detection data of the IMU 2. Specifically, the gradient value correction unit 112 corrects the road gradient (gradient value) of the travel route of the subject vehicle 101 recognized based on the captured image of the imaging unit 1 based on the attitude angle of the subject vehicle 101 detected by the IMU 2, that is, a pitch angle of the subject vehicle 101”; para. [0031]: “A solid line MG schematically represents the pitch angle of the subject vehicle 101 detected by the IMU 2, that is, the inclination in the front-rear direction with respect to the road surface of the subject vehicle 101”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Yamaya by adding the inertial measurement units as taught by Goto with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee, Yamaya, and Goto is to provide improved accuracy of inclination detection (see Goto at para. [0019]). Further, modifying the IMU of Goto by using multiple IMUs (i.e., a set of inertial measurement units (IMUs)) is mere duplication of parts since there is no patentable significance in such modification (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee, Yamaya, and Kolhouse et al. (US 2019/0093573 A1, hereinafter “Kolhouse”).
Regarding claim 7, Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Yamaya teaches the method of claim 2.
Yamagishi further discloses wherein the utility vehicle includes an accelerator pedal and a motor controller coupled with the accelerator pedal (Yamagishi at para. [0024]: “the sub-ECU 33 reads the angle of the accelerator sensor 35, i.e., the angle sensor that detects the operating angle of the accelerator lever 28, and controls the motor 18 and the electromagnetic brake 32”).
However, Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Yamaya does not explicitly state the motor controller initially mapping angular deflection of the accelerator pedal to a first linear utility vehicle propulsion response from zero to the first speed limit; and
wherein lowering the maximum speed constraint imposed on the utility vehicle from the first speed limit to the second speed limit includes:
remapping the angular deflection of the accelerator pedal to a second linear utility vehicle propulsion response from zero to the second speed limit in place of the first linear utility vehicle propulsion response.
Nevertheless, Yamagishi at least suggests the idea of lowering the vehicle speed even when the accelerator lever 28 is rotated to increase the vehicle speed (see Yamagishi at FIG. 7 and para. [0035]).
In the same field of endeavor, Kolhouse teaches the motor controller initially mapping angular deflection of the accelerator pedal to a first linear utility vehicle propulsion response from zero to the first speed limit (Kolhouse at para. [0025]: “the throttle system 120 generally includes a throttle valve 121, which is operatively and communicably coupled to an accelerator pedal 122 and one or more sensors 123” and “the sensors 123 may include an accelerator pedal position sensor that acquires data indicative of a depression amount of the pedal (e.g., a potentiometer)”; para. [0027]: “the controller 150 may determine the throttle position needed or likely needed to achieve or maintain a desired operating condition (e.g., vehicle speed)” and “one or more throttle maps may be included with the controller. The throttle map(s) may relate an engine speed to engine torque as a function of the position of the throttle valve”); and
wherein lowering the maximum speed constraint imposed on the utility vehicle from the first speed limit to the second speed limit includes:
remapping the angular deflection of the accelerator pedal to a second linear utility vehicle propulsion response from zero to the second speed limit in place of the first linear utility vehicle propulsion response (Kolhouse at para. [0015]: “the controller may at least one of adjust an actuator response value, such as a remapping of the throttle table” and “the throttle map be adjusted to account for the rapid depression of the pedal, e.g., rather than the full depression opening the throttle valve 70%, the throttle table may be re-mapped to only open the throttle valve 30% for the same or substantially the same throttle command”; para. [0081]: “the re-mapping may be fully or only partially implemented. That is to say, the entire map (i.e., throttle map or torque command map for a diesel engine) may be managed” and “the portion of the map managed is based on a selected engine speed range”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of lowering the maximum speed constraint of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Yamaya by remapping the angular deflection of the accelerator as taught by Kolhouse with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee, Yamaya, and Kolhouse is to provide a vehicle management system that can conform speed limits or maximum values (see Kolhouse at para. [0004]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Schmitz et al. (US 2003/0028310 A1, hereinafter “Schmitz”).
Regarding claim 9, Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Yamaya teaches the method of claim 2.
However, Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Yamaya does not explicitly state wherein a current speed of the utility vehicle is lower than the first speed limit and the second speed limit; and
wherein the method further comprises: maintaining the current speed of the utility vehicle below the second speed limit.
Nevertheless, Yamagishi suggests at least the idea of maintaining the current speed at the lower speed limit (see Yamagishi at para. [0036]: “when the motor rotation speed drops to a value equivalent to the lower set upper vehicle speed limit (4 km/h) at timing t4, the motor rotation speed is controlled so as to maintain the vehicle speed at this upper vehicle speed limit”).
In the same field of endeavor, Schmitz teaches wherein a current speed of the utility vehicle is lower than the first speed limit and the second speed limit (Schmitz at para. [0044]: “a value which depends on the current speed v act as follows is defined as the speed limiting value: If Vact is lower than 30 km/h, the speed limiting value is set to 30 km/h. If the Vact is between 30 km/h and 50 km/h, the speed limiting value is set to 50 km/h”); and
wherein the method further comprises: maintaining the current speed of the utility vehicle below the second speed limit (Schmitz at para. [0047]: “The current speed Vact of the vehicle is usually below the set speed limiting value Vlim”; claim 1: “said speed limiting device begins regulating the speed of said vehicle such that the speed of said vehicle remains at or below said first speed limiting value until said speed limiting device receives a further input”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Yamaya by adding maintaining the current speed of the utility vehicle below the second speed limit as taught by Schmitz with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee, Yamaya, and Schmitz is to ensure that the current speed of the vehicle does not exceed the predefined speed limit (see Schmitz at para. [0002]).
Claims 10, 13, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee, Yamaya, and Cote et al. (US 2021/0276426 A1, hereinafter “Cote”).
Regarding claim 10, Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Yamaya teaches the method of claim 1.
Yamagishi further discloses wherein the utility vehicle includes a battery management system (BMS) coupled with the lithium battery (Yamagishi at para. [0020]: “The battery 29 is connected to the sub-ECU 33 so that the battery 29 can be charged with the current generated by this regenerative braking”; para. [0026]: “A voltage detection unit 52 in the sub-ECU 33”).
However, Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Yamaya does not explicitly state the state of charge signal that indicates the current state of charge of the lithium battery being received from the BMS; and
wherein the method further comprises:
receiving a current voltage signal that indicates a current voltage of the lithium battery, the current voltage signal being different from the state of charge signal that indicates the current state of charge of the lithium battery.
In the same field of endeavor, Cote teaches the state of charge signal that indicates the current state of charge of the lithium battery being received from the BMS (Cote at para. [0032]: “A battery management system measures each cell voltage within the battery with voltage sensors”); and
wherein the method further comprises:
receiving a current voltage signal that indicates a current voltage of the lithium battery, the current voltage signal being different from the state of charge signal that indicates the current state of charge of the lithium battery (Cote at para. [0031]: “The charging capacity, or the maximum additional energy that the batteries can safely receive, can be determined based on many measured and calculated parameters, such as battery state of charge, voltage, and temperature”; para. [0032]: “the available recharging power may be determined by counting battery current (which is measured with a current sensor) over time”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Yamaya by adding the current voltage signal different from the state of charge signal of Cote with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee, Yamaya, and Cote is to provide improved determination of the state of charge.
Regarding claim 13, Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Yamaya teaches the electronic circuitry as in claim 12.
Yamagishi further discloses a battery management system (BMS) coupled with the lithium battery (Yamagishi at para. [0020]: “The battery 29 is connected to the sub-ECU 33 so that the battery 29 can be charged with the current generated by this regenerative braking”; para. [0026]: “A voltage detection unit 52 in the sub-ECU 33”).
However, Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Yamaya does not explicitly state wherein the battery system interface is constructed and arranged to receive the state of charge signal that indicates the current state of charge of the lithium battery from a battery management system (BMS) coupled with the lithium battery; and
wherein the method further comprises:
receiving, through the battery system interface, a current voltage signal that indicates a current voltage of the lithium battery, the current voltage signal being different from the state of charge signal that indicates the current state of charge of the lithium battery.
In the same field of endeavor, Cote teaches wherein the battery system interface (Cote at para. [0057]: “bus connector 18 is shown, which is one contemplated method of integration of the controller 5 into the remainder of the system of the vehicle 1”) is constructed and arranged to receive the state of charge signal that indicates the current state of charge of the lithium battery from a battery management system (BMS) coupled with the lithium battery (Cote at para. [0032]: “A battery management system measures each cell voltage within the battery with voltage sensors”); and
wherein the method further comprises:
receiving, though the battery system interface, a current voltage signal that indicates a current voltage of the lithium battery, the current voltage signal being different from the state of charge signal that indicates the current state of charge of the lithium battery (Cote at para. [0031]: “The charging capacity, or the maximum additional energy that the batteries can safely receive, can be determined based on many measured and calculated parameters, such as battery state of charge, voltage, and temperature”; para. [0032]: “the available recharging power may be determined by counting battery current (which is measured with a current sensor) over time”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic circuitry of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Yamaya by adding the current voltage signal different from the state of charge signal of Cote with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the electronic circuitry of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee, Yamaya, and Cote is to provide improved determination of the state of charge.
Regarding claim 14, Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee, Yamaya, and Cote teaches the electronic circuitry as in claim 13.
Yamagishi further discloses wherein adjusting the maximum speed constraint imposed on the utility vehicle further includes:
performing a comparison operation that compares the current state of charge of the lithium battery indicated by the state of charge signal to a predefined state of charge threshold for the lithium battery (Yamagishi at para. [0032]: “If it is determined that the terminal voltage is equal to or higher than the overcharge voltage value”), a result of the comparison operation indicating that the current state of charge of the lithium battery exceeds the predefined state of charge threshold for the lithium battery, the maximum speed constraint for the utility vehicle being lowered from the first speed limit to the second speed limit in response to the result of the comparison operation indicating that the current state of charge of the lithium battery exceeds the predefined state of charge threshold for the lithium battery (Yamagishi at para. [0032]: “If it is determined that the terminal voltage is equal to or higher than the overcharge voltage value, the process proceeds to step S12, where the upper vehicle speed limit value of the small electric vehicle 1 is reduced to a predetermined value. For example, change 6km/h to 4km/h”).
Regarding claim 16, Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee, Yamaya, and Cote teaches the electronic circuitry as in claim 14.
Yamagishi further discloses wherein a current speed of the utility vehicle is lower than the first speed limit and higher than the second speed limit (Yamagishi at Fig. 8: where the time is between t1 and t3, the vehicle speed is lower than 6 km/h and higher than 4 km/h); and
wherein the method further comprises: slowing the utility vehicle from the current speed to at least a rate of the second speed limit in response to lowering the maximum speed constraint imposed on the utility vehicle from the first speed limit to the second speed limit (Yamagishi at para. [0037]: “when the accelerator command is turned on at timing t0, the vehicle speed (motor rotation speed) increases according to the amount of operation of the accelerator lever 28, and when the motor rotation speed corresponding to the default vehicle speed upper limit (6 km/h) is reached at timing t1, the terminal voltage of the battery 29 becomes equal to or higher than the overcharge voltage value (e.g., 34 volts). As a result, an alarm indicating overcharging is issued and the upper vehicle speed limit is gradually lowered, so that the motor rotation speed decreases and the vehicle speed decreases gradually”; Fig. 8: where the time is between t1 and t3, the vehicle speed is lower than 6 km/h and higher than 4 km/h, and the vehicle speed is gradually reduced to reach 4 km/h).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee, Yamaya, Cote, and Schmitz et al. (US 2003/0028310 A1, hereinafter “Schmitz”).
Regarding claim 17, Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee, Yamaya, and Cote teaches the electronic circuitry as in claim 14.
However, Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee, Yamaya, and Cote does not explicitly state wherein a current speed of the utility vehicle is lower than the first speed limit and the second speed limit; and
wherein the method further comprises: maintaining the current speed of the utility vehicle below the second speed limit.
Nevertheless, Yamagishi suggests at least the idea of maintaining the current speed at the lower speed limit (see Yamagishi at para. [0036]: “when the motor rotation speed drops to a value equivalent to the lower set upper vehicle speed limit (4 km/h) at timing t4, the motor rotation speed is controlled so as to maintain the vehicle speed at this upper vehicle speed limit”).
In the same field of endeavor, Schmitz teaches wherein a current speed of the utility vehicle is lower than the first speed limit and the second speed limit (Schmitz at para. [0044]: “a value which depends on the current speed v act as follows is defined as the speed limiting value: If Vact is lower than 30 km/h, the speed limiting value is set to 30 km/h. If the Vact is between 30 km/h and 50 km/h, the speed limiting value is set to 50 km/h”); and
wherein the method further comprises: maintaining the current speed of the utility vehicle below the second speed limit (Schmitz at para. [0047]: “The current speed Vact of the vehicle is usually below the set speed limiting value Vlim”; claim 1: “said speed limiting device begins regulating the speed of said vehicle such that the speed of said vehicle remains at or below said first speed limiting value until said speed limiting device receives a further input”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuitry of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee, Yamaya, and Cote by adding maintaining the current speed of the utility vehicle below the second speed limit as taught by Schmitz with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the circuitry of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee, Yamaya, Cote, and Schmitz is to ensure that the current speed of the vehicle does not exceed the predefined speed limit (see Schmitz at para. [0002]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee, Yamaya, and Goto (US 2023/0260293 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Yamaya teaches the utility vehicle of claim 18.
Yamagishi further discloses further comprising:
a set of ground engagement members (Yamagishi at para. [0013]: “The steering column 7 is supported by a support 3 and a subframe 4, and is connected to a pair of left and right front wheels 9 via a steering mechanism (not shown)”; para. [0014]; “A pair of left and right rear wheels 12 are provided at the rear of the vehicle body”);
wherein the electric motor is further constructed and arranged to operate the set of ground engagement members, and a motor controller coupled with the electronic circuitry, the motor controller being constructed and arranged to control the electric motor (Yamagishi at para. [0006]: “a small electric vehicle having a means for charging an on-board battery with current generated by regenerative braking of an electric motor that drives wheels with current supplied from the battery”; para. [0018]: “The motor 18 is a DC brushless motor and is equipped with an electromagnetic brake”; para. [0024]: “The sub-ECU 33 includes a bridge circuit (not shown) consisting of six FETs as a drive circuit for the motor 18, and drives the motor 18 by determining the duty ratio of the FETs through PWM control”).
However, Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Yamaya does not explicitly state wherein the motor controller includes a set of inertial measurement units (IMUs); and
wherein the incline assessment operation result is based on input from the set of IMUs.
In the same field of endeavor, Goto teaches wherein the motor controller includes a set of inertial measurement units (IMUs) (Goto at para. [0020]: “an inertial measurement unit (IMU) 2”); and
wherein the incline assessment operation result is based on input from the set of IMUs (Goto at para. [0030]: “The gradient value correction unit 112 corrects the gradient value calculated by the environment recognition unit 111 based on the detection data of the IMU 2. Specifically, the gradient value correction unit 112 corrects the road gradient (gradient value) of the travel route of the subject vehicle 101 recognized based on the captured image of the imaging unit 1 based on the attitude angle of the subject vehicle 101 detected by the IMU 2, that is, a pitch angle of the subject vehicle 101”; para. [0031]: “A solid line MG schematically represents the pitch angle of the subject vehicle 101 detected by the IMU 2, that is, the inclination in the front-rear direction with respect to the road surface of the subject vehicle 101”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the utility vehicle of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Yamaya by adding the inertial measurement units as taught by Goto with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the utility vehicle of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee, Yamaya, and Goto is to provide improved accuracy of inclination detection (see Goto at para. [0019]). Further, modifying the IMU of Goto by using multiple IMUs (i.e., a set of inertial measurement units (IMUs)) is mere duplication of parts since there is no patentable significance in such modification (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee, Yamaya, and Aldag et al. (EP 2433831 A2, hereinafter “Aldag”). The rejections below are based on the machine translation of Aldag.
Regarding claim 20, Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Yamaya teaches the method of claim 1.
Yamagishi further discloses wherein adjusting the maximum speed constraint imposed on the utility vehicle includes:
decreasing the maximum speed constraint based on the state of charge signal indicating that the current state of charge has reached a predefined state of charge threshold (Yamagishi at para. [0026]: “The initial battery capacity limit value is a preset value, and can be set arbitrarily below a value (100%) equivalent to a full charge. For example, in order to prevent the battery 29 from being overcharged, a value equivalent to 80% of full charge is set”; para. [0032]: “In step S11, it is determined whether or not the terminal voltage of the battery 29 is equal to or higher than a preset voltage value equivalent to overcharging (overcharging voltage value). If it is determined that the terminal voltage is equal to or higher than the overcharge voltage value, the process proceeds to step S12, where the upper vehicle speed limit value of the small electric vehicle 1 is reduced to a predetermined value. For example, change 6km/h to 4km/h”),
However, Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Yamaya does not explicitly state the current state of charge being a percentage of a full charge of the lithium battery.
In the same field of endeavor, Aldag teaches the current state of charge being a percentage of a full charge of the lithium battery (Aldag at para. [0009]: “The determination of a state of charge of the battery can be carried out on the basis of a measured battery voltage. It is also possible to continuously detect the state of charge of the battery. The determination of the state of charge can be limited to exceeding or falling below a single threshold value for the maximum state of charge. Alternatively, the state of charge may be determined in more detail, for example by determining a percentage value related to the maximum capacity of the battery”; para. [0010]: “the travel speed of the industrial truck is limited to a maximum travel speed if the state of charge and the angle of inclination exceed predetermined maximum values”; para. [0021]: “a device for limiting the travel speed of the industrial truck to a maximum travel speed which is less than a maximum speed of the industrial truck, wherein the device for limiting is designed such that the limitation takes place if the state of charge exceeds a predefined maximum state of charge and the angle of inclination exceeds a predefined maximum angle of inclination”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee and Yamaya by adding the percentage of the full charge as taught by Aldag with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Yamagishi in view of Shirotaka further in view of Lee, Yamaya, and Aldag is to improve battery performance and life.
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 JISUN CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-0710. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)270-0151. 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.
/JISUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666