DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on January 30, 2024. Claims 1-21 are pending and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 1, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 9, 13, 14, 16, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 2, “the lawnmower” is grammatically confusing. While the scope of the claim is reasonably ascertainable, the Examiner recommends amending “the lawnmower” to “the walk-behind lawnmower”.
Claim 9, line 1, “wherein determining whether …” should read “wherein the determining whether …”.
Claim 13, line 2, “the lawnmower” is grammatically confusing. While the scope of the claim is reasonably ascertainable, the Examiner recommends amending “the lawnmower” to “the walk-behind lawnmower”.
Claim 14, line 1, “wherein disabling operation of the motor …” should read “wherein the disabling operation of the motor …”.
Claim 16, lines 2 and 8, “the amplitude profile” is grammatically confusing. While the scope of the claim is reasonably ascertainable, the Examiner recommends amending “the amplitude profile” to “the acceleration amplitude profile”.
Claim 21, line 3, “the lawnmower” is grammatically confusing. While the scope of the claim is reasonably ascertainable, the Examiner recommends amending “the lawnmower” to “the walk-behind lawnmower”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 21, the limitation “the drive control” at lines 2-3 is unclear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be “a drive control”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 13, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUKANO et al., US 2019/0269067 A1, hereinafter referred to as FUKANO, in view of Dobkin et al., US 2008/0319623 A1, hereinafter referred to as Dobkin, respectively.
As to claim 1, FUKANO teaches a walk-behind lawnmower comprising (see at least FIG. 1, FUKANO):
a lawnmower housing (see at least FIG. 1 and paragraphs 30-33 regarding a main body 2, FUKANO);
one or more wheels (see at least FIG. 1 and paragraphs 30-33 regarding a pair of left and right front wheels 4 and a pair of left and right rear wheels 5, FUKANO);
one or more cutting blades (see at least FIGS. 1-2 and paragraphs 30-33 regarding a blade 3A, FUKANO);
a motor configured to rotate the one or more wheels (see at least FIGS. 1-3 and paragraphs 30-33 regarding a pair of left and right travel motors 9L and 9R for driving the left and right rear wheels 5, FUKANO);
a sensor configured to sense an acceleration of the motor (see at least FIGS. 1-3 and paragraphs 30-36 regarding an acceleration sensor 41. See also at least paragraphs 45-47 regarding the control unit 10 first determines whether or not the travel motors 9L and 9R are in acceleration or deceleration (step S11), FUKANO); and
a controller coupled to the motor and the sensor (see at least FIGS. 1-3 and paragraphs 30-36 regarding the control unit 10, FUKANO), the controller configured to:
receive, from the sensor, a signal indicative of the acceleration of the motor (see at least paragraphs 34-36 and paragraphs 45-47 regarding the control unit 10 performs the determination in step S11 based on the value of the travel command signal. Specifically, the control unit 10 determines whether it is in a predetermined period from detection of an increase or decrease of the value of the travel command signal. In the aforementioned step S5, the rotational speed of the travel motors 9L and 9R is controlled based on the value of the travel command signal, and therefore, it can be determined that the travel motors 9L and 9R are in acceleration or deceleration during the predetermined period from an increase or decrease of the value of the travel command signal. If it is determined in step S11 that the main body 2 is in acceleration or deceleration (Yes), the control unit 10 performs a low-pass filtering process on the signal from the acceleration sensor 41 by use of a low-pass filter A in step S12, and if it is determined in step S11 that the main body 2 is not in acceleration or deceleration (No), the control unit 10 performs a low-pass filtering process on the signal from the acceleration sensor 41 by use of a low-pass filter B in step S13, FUKANO).
FUKANO does not explicitly teach determining, based on the signal, whether an amplitude of the acceleration of the motor is greater than or equal to an amplitude threshold; incrementing, in response to the amplitude being greater than or equal to the amplitude threshold, a hopping counter; determining whether the hopping counter is greater than or equal to a hopping threshold; or disabling, in response to the hopping counter being greater than or equal to the hopping threshold, operation of the motor.
However, Dobkin teaches determining, based on the signal, whether an amplitude of the acceleration of the motor is greater than or equal to an amplitude threshold (see at least FIG. 3 and paragraphs 17-23 regarding if the point indicated by the combination of the period and amplitude of the current accelerometer signal (e.g., oscillation half-signal) is found to exceed the first power hop value PH_Map1 in S50, the process proceeds to S60 where it is determined if the amplitude of the filtered accelerometer signal is greater than a predetermined percentage X % of the amplitude of the last (immediately preceding) accelerometer signal. The predetermined percentage is dependent on the vehicle. For example, the predetermined percentage may be 80%. This determination at S60 thus compares the amplitude of the current accelerometer signal to the amplitude of the last accelerometer signal to determine the relationship between the two); incrementing, in response to the amplitude being greater than or equal to the amplitude threshold, a hopping counter (see at least FIG. 3 and paragraphs 17-23 regarding if the amplitude of the current signal is greater than the predetermined percentage of the amplitude of the previous accelerometer signal, the system determines that the conditions may be indicative of a power hop condition that might need to be mitigated, and the process thus proceeds to S70 where a power hop counter is increased by 1); determining whether the hopping counter is greater than or equal to a hopping threshold. (see at least FIG. 3 and paragraphs 17-23 regarding the power hop detection process then proceeds to S80 where the value of the counter is checked to determine if the counter value is equal to a predetermined value N, where N is a non-zero positive integer); and disabling, in response to the hopping counter being greater than or equal to the hopping threshold, operation of the motor (see at least FIG. 3 and paragraphs 17-27 regarding if the power hop counter value equals the predetermined value N (i.e., the determination at S80 is Yes), the process proceeds to S100. In S100, it is determined whether the point represented by the combination of the period and amplitude of the filtered accelerometer signal exceeds a second predetermined power hop value PH_Map2 obtained from the power hop vibration map shown in FIG. 3. … On the other hand, if the combination of the period and amplitude exceeds the second predetermined power hop vibration value PH_Map2 (S100:Yes), the process proceeds to S110 where the power hop flag is set to ON. The routine then proceeds to the power hop mitigation control of FIG. 4. … The ECU 11 sends a command to the power train ECU 5 to automatically reduce the engine torque to reduce the severity of the power hop. The routine then returns to S10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Dobkin which teaches determining, based on the signal, whether an amplitude of the acceleration of the motor is greater than or equal to an amplitude threshold; incrementing, in response to the amplitude being greater than or equal to the amplitude threshold, a hopping counter; determining whether the hopping counter is greater than or equal to a hopping threshold; and disabling, in response to the hopping counter being greater than or equal to the hopping threshold, operation of the motor with the system of FUKANO as both systems are directed to a system and method for detecting driveline conditions and controlling powertrain operation to maintain stable performance, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of determining, based on the signal, whether an amplitude of the acceleration of the motor is greater than or equal to an amplitude threshold; incrementing, in response to the amplitude being greater than or equal to the amplitude threshold, a hopping counter; determining whether the hopping counter is greater than or equal to a hopping threshold; and disabling, in response to the hopping counter being greater than or equal to the hopping threshold, operation of the motor and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of FUKANO.
As to claim 6, FUKANO teaches wherein the controller is further configured to enable, in response to a power cycle of the lawnmower, operation of the motor (see at least paragraph 10 regarding an operation input means that inputs a signal corresponding to an operation by an operator to the control unit, wherein the control unit drive-controls the travel motor according to the signal from the operation input means. See also at least paragraphs 31-39, FUKANO).
As to claim 8, Examiner notes claim 8 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected under the same rational.
As to claim 13, Examiner notes claim 13 recites similar limitations to claim 6 and is rejected under the same rational.
As to claim 15, Examiner notes claim 15 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected under the same rational.
As to claim 21, Examiner notes claim 21 recites similar limitations to claim 6 and is rejected under the same rational.
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUKANO et al., US 2019/0269067 A1, hereinafter referred to as FUKANO, in view of Dobkin et al., US 2008/0319623 A1, hereinafter referred to as Dobkin, and further in view of Turski et al., US 6401853 B1, hereinafter referred to as Turski, respectively.
As to claim 2, FUKANO does not explicitly teach determining whether the amplitude of the acceleration of the motor is greater than or equal to a positive threshold.
However, such matter is taught by Dobkin (see at least FIG. 3 and paragraphs 17-27 regarding if the point indicated by the combination of the period and amplitude of the current accelerometer signal (e.g., oscillation half-signal) is found to exceed the first power hop value PH_Map1 in S50, the process proceeds to S60 where it is determined if the amplitude of the filtered accelerometer signal is greater than a predetermined percentage X % of the amplitude of the last (immediately preceding) accelerometer signal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Dobkin which teaches determining whether the amplitude of the acceleration of the motor is greater than or equal to a positive threshold with the system of FUKANO as both systems are directed to a system and method for detecting driveline conditions and controlling powertrain operation to maintain stable performance, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of determining whether the amplitude of the acceleration of the motor is greater than or equal to a positive threshold and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of FUKANO.
FUKANO, as modified by Dobkin, does not explicitly teach determining whether the amplitude of the acceleration of the motor is less than or equal to a negative threshold.
However, such matter is taught by Turski (see at least Col. 2, Line 36 – Col. 4, Line 14 regarding it will be seen that power-hop is detected according to this invention when a characteristic wheel jerk oscillation is identified. As such, the detection routine of FIG. 3 is periodically executed at a given rate to sample and process the wheel speed signals WS1, WS2. The signal processing utilizes a number of flags and variables, including the POWER-HOP_DET flag, a flag JERK_FLAG to indicate if the wheel jerk is in a positive or negative cycle, a timer JERK_TIMER to measure the elapsed time between wheel jerk oscillation cycles, a counter CYCLE_CTR to count the number of positive and negative wheel jerk cycles, and variables JERK_MAX and JERK_MIN to track the peak positive and negative wheel jerk values).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Turski which teaches determining whether the amplitude of the acceleration of the motor is less than or equal to a negative threshold with the system of FUKANO, as modified by Dobkin, as both systems are directed to a system and method for detecting driveline conditions and controlling powertrain operation to maintain stable performance, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of determining whether the amplitude of the acceleration of the motor is less than or equal to a negative threshold and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of FUKANO as modified by Dobkin.
As to claim 9, Examiner notes claim 9 recites similar limitations to claim 2 and is rejected under the same rational.
As to claim 16, FUKANO does not explicitly teach identifying, based on the signal, an acceleration peak; initiating, in response to identifying the acceleration peak, a timer counter; identifying, after identifying the acceleration peak, an acceleration valley; or recording a time between the acceleration peak and the acceleration valley based on the timer counter.
However, such matter is taught by Dobkin (see at least FIG. 3 and paragraphs 17-27 regarding the power hop detection process begins at S10 where a signal from the longitudinal accelerometer 7 is received by the ECU 11. The process then proceeds to S20 wherein the accelerometer signal is filtered according to a conventional process. Next, at S30, the peaks and bottoms of the filtered accelerometer signal are detected and the process proceeds to S40 where the period and amplitude of the filtered signal is calculated. The period and amplitude can be calculated based on the oscillation half-cycle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Dobkin which teaches identifying, based on the signal, an acceleration peak; initiating, in response to identifying the acceleration peak, a timer counter; identifying, after identifying the acceleration peak, an acceleration valley; and recording a time between the acceleration peak and the acceleration valley based on the timer counter with the system of FUKANO as both systems are directed to a system and method for detecting driveline conditions and controlling powertrain operation to maintain stable performance, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of identifying, based on the signal, an acceleration peak; initiating, in response to identifying the acceleration peak, a timer counter; identifying, after identifying the acceleration peak, an acceleration valley; and recording a time between the acceleration peak and the acceleration valley based on the timer counter and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of FUKANO.
FUKANO, as modified by Dobkin, does not explicitly teach constructing the amplitude profile based on the time between the acceleration peak and the acceleration valley, a value of the acceleration peak, and a value of the acceleration valley.
However, such matter is taught by Turski (see at least Col. 3, Line 4 – Col. 4, Line 28 regarding the signal processing utilizes a number of flags and variables, including the POWER-HOP_DET flag, a flag JERK_FLAG to indicate if the wheel jerk is in a positive or negative cycle, a timer JERK_TIMER to measure the elapsed time between wheel jerk oscillation cycles, a counter CYCLE_CTR to count the number of positive and negative wheel jerk cycles, and variables JERK_MAX and JERK_MIN to track the peak positive and negative wheel jerk values. A wheel jerk signal WJ is computed by differentiating the respective wheel acceleration signal (ACCEL1 or ACCEL2). The blocks 86 and 88 are then executed to detect a change in polarity (in excess of minimum magnitudes POS_ENTRY and NEG_ENTRY) of the computed wheel jerk signal WJ, based on the status of JERK_FLAG and the current polarity of WJ. At each negative-to-positive transition, block 86 is answered in the affirmative, and blocks 90, 92, 94 are executed to increment CYCLE_CTR so long as the time denoted by JERK_TIMER is less than a predetermined reference time REF_TIME, to reverse the state of JERK_FLAG, and to set JERK_TIMER to zero. In a similar manner, block 88 is answered in the affirmative at each positive-to-negative transition of WJ, in which case blocks 96, 98, 100 are executed to increment CYCLE_CTR so long as the time denoted by JERK_TIMER is less than REF_TIME, to reverse the state of JERK_FLAG, and to set JERK_TIMER to zero. If a polarity transition of WJ does not occur, blocks 86 and 88 are answered in the negative, and block 102 is executed to increment JERK_TIMER. Thus, it will be seen that the entry magnitudes POS_ENTRY, NEG_ENTRY define the minimum characteristic jerk magnitude of power-hop, while the timer JERK_TIMER defines the minimum characteristic jerk oscillation frequency of power-hop).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Turski which teaches constructing the amplitude profile based on the time between the acceleration peak and the acceleration valley, a value of the acceleration peak, and a value of the acceleration valley with the system of FUKANO, as modified by Dobkin, as both systems are directed to a system and method for detecting driveline conditions and controlling powertrain operation to maintain stable performance, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of constructing the amplitude profile based on the time between the acceleration peak and the acceleration valley, a value of the acceleration peak, and a value of the acceleration valley and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of FUKANO as modified by Dobkin.
Claim(s) 3-5, 10-12, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUKANO et al., US 2019/0269067 A1, hereinafter referred to as FUKANO, in view of Dobkin et al., US 2008/0319623 A1, hereinafter referred to as Dobkin, and further in view of HIGASHIMATA et al., JP H07137624 A, hereinafter referred to as HIGASHIMATA, respectively.
As to claim 3, FUKANO does not explicitly teach decrementing, in response to the blanking counter being greater than or equal to the blanking threshold, the hopping counter.
However, such matter is taught by Dobkin (see at least FIG. 3 and paragraphs 17-27 regarding if it is determined that the combination of the period and amplitude of the filtered accelerometer signal in the current cycle does not exceed the first predetermined power hop vibration value PH_Map1, the power hop detection process proceeds to S65 where the power hop counter is decreased by 1 (to a lower limit of zero). Similarly, if it is determined at S60 that the amplitude of the filtered oscillation or accelerometer signal in the current cycle is not greater than the predetermined percentage X % of the last (immediately preceding) filtered accelerometer or oscillation signal (S60:No), the power hop detection process proceeds to S65 where the power hop counter is decreased by 1. From S65, the process proceeds to S90 where the power hop flag is set to OFF. The power hop detection process may then proceed to the power hop mitigation control in FIG. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Dobkin which teaches decrementing, in response to the blanking counter being greater than or equal to the blanking threshold, the hopping counter with the system of FUKANO as both systems are directed to a system and method for detecting driveline conditions and controlling powertrain operation to maintain stable performance, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of decrementing, in response to the blanking counter being greater than or equal to the blanking threshold, the hopping counter and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of FUKANO.
FUKANO, as modified by Dobkin, does not explicitly teach determining, in response to the amplitude being less than the amplitude threshold, whether a blanking counter is greater than or equal to a blanking threshold.
However, such matter is taught by HIGASHIMATA (see at least paragraphs 31-35 regarding the process proceeds to step S4, in which it is determined whether the wheel acceleration/deceleration V'wj calculated in step S3 is smaller than a predetermined value V'w0 that is set in advance to a degree that is exceeded by the large amplitude wheel acceleration/deceleration that occurs when traveling on a rough road. If the wheel acceleration/deceleration V'wj is smaller than the predetermined value V'w0, the process proceeds to step S5. In step S5, it is determined whether the counter value N read in step S2 is smaller than the maximum value state NMAX of the counter value. If the counter value N is smaller than the maximum value state NMAX of the counter value. … In step S9, it is determined whether the counter value N read in step S2 is equal to or greater than the maximum counter value NMAX).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of HIGASHIMATA which teaches determining, in response to the amplitude being less than the amplitude threshold, whether a blanking counter is greater than or equal to a blanking threshold with the system of FUKANO, as modified by Dobkin, as both systems are directed to a system and method for detecting driveline conditions and controlling powertrain operation to maintain stable performance, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of determining, in response to the amplitude being less than the amplitude threshold, whether a blanking counter is greater than or equal to a blanking threshold and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of FUKANO as modified by Dobkin.
As to claim 4, FUKANO, as modified by Dobkin, does not explicitly teach incrementing, in response to the blanking counter being less than the blanking threshold, the blanking counter.
However, such matter is taught by HIGASHIMATA (see at least paragraphs 31-35 regarding it is determined whether the counter value N read in step S2 is smaller than the maximum value state NMAX of the counter value. If the counter value N is smaller than the maximum value state NMAX of the counter value, the process proceeds to step S7. In step S7, the counter value N is incremented by "1").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of HIGASHIMATA which teaches incrementing, in response to the blanking counter being less than the blanking threshold, the blanking counter with the system of FUKANO, as modified by Dobkin, as both systems are directed to a system and method for detecting driveline conditions and controlling powertrain operation to maintain stable performance, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of incrementing, in response to the blanking counter being less than the blanking threshold, the blanking counter and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of FUKANO as modified by Dobkin.
As to claim 5, FUKANO, as modified by Dobkin, does not explicitly teach resetting, in response to the amplitude being greater than or equal to the amplitude threshold, the blanking counter.
However, such matter is taught by HIGASHIMATA (see at least paragraphs 31-35 regarding it is determined whether the counter value N read in step S2 is equal to or greater than the maximum counter value NMAX. If the counter value N is equal to or greater than the maximum counter value NMAX, the process proceeds to step S10. In step S10, the counter value N is reset to "0").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of HIGASHIMATA which teaches resetting, in response to the amplitude being greater than or equal to the amplitude threshold, the blanking counter with the system of FUKANO, as modified by Dobkin, as both systems are directed to a system and method for detecting driveline conditions and controlling powertrain operation to maintain stable performance, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of resetting, in response to the amplitude being greater than or equal to the amplitude threshold, the blanking counter and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of FUKANO as modified by Dobkin.
As to claim 10, Examiner notes claim 10 recites similar limitations to claim 3 and is rejected under the same rational.
As to claim 11, Examiner notes claim 11 recites similar limitations to claim 4 and is rejected under the same rational.
As to claim 12, Examiner notes claim 12 recites similar limitations to claim 5 and is rejected under the same rational.
As to claim 17, Examiner notes claim 17 recites similar limitations to claim 3 and is rejected under the same rational.
As to claim 18, Examiner notes claim 18 recites similar limitations to claim 4 and is rejected under the same rational.
As to claim 19, Examiner notes claim 19 recites similar limitations to claim 5 and is rejected under the same rational.
Claim(s) 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUKANO et al., US 2019/0269067 A1, hereinafter referred to as FUKANO, in view of Dobkin et al., US 2008/0319623 A1, hereinafter referred to as Dobkin, and further in view of Burch et al., US 2014/0240125 A1, hereinafter referred to as Burch, respectively.
As to claim 7, FUKANO teaches a battery pack configured to provide power to the motor (see at least paragraphs 32-34 regarding a battery 20 for supplying electric power to the motors 8 and 9 and the control unit 10 is detachably received in a battery tray 19 formed by recessing the upper surface of the upper cover 18, FUKANO).
FUKANO, as modified by Dobkin, does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to disable operation of the motor by disconnecting the motor from the battery pack.
However, such matter is taught by Burch (see at least paragraphs 40 and 65 regarding the tool 105b disables itself to prevent further use of the tool 105b … To disable the tool 105b, the tool controller 145 may disconnect the battery 160 from the motor 165 by opening or closing one or more particular relays or switches (e.g., MOSFETs) as appropriate, or by taking another disabling action).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Burch which teaches wherein the controller is configured to disable operation of the motor by disconnecting the motor from the battery pack with the system of FUKANO, as modified by Dobkin, as both systems are directed to a system and method for monitoring operating conditions and controlling operation of a motor, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of disabling operation of the motor by disconnecting the motor from the battery pack and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of FUKANO as modified by Dobkin.
As to claim 14, Examiner notes claim 14 recites similar limitations to claim 7 and is rejected under the same rational.
As to claim 20, Examiner notes claim 20 recites similar limitations to claim 7 and is rejected under the same rational.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
ENGEL (DE 102010032045 A1) regarding a system for reducing oscillation of a drive train of a motor vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE S. PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-3151. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Anne M ANTONUCCI can be reached at (313)446-6519. 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.
/K.S.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666