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 Claims
Claims 1-20 filed on 06/23/2023 have been examined.
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 09/25/2025. Claims 1, 5, 14, and 19 have been amended. Claims 7 and 15-17 have been cancelled. Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 18-20 are currently pending and addressed below.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s accompanying amendments and arguments, on pages 5-6 of the Applicant Arguments/Remarks (hereinafter referred to as the “Remarks”), filed 09/25/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 5 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) stating “… Applicant has made a genuine effort to respond to each of the Examiner's objections and rejections to advance prosecution of this case…” have been considered and are persuasive as the previously undefined term “HMI” has been removed from amended claim 5, and claim 17 has been cancelled to clarify and address the previously identified indefinite limitation of “the measure pressure or force” from claim 17 in amended claim 14 to define the scope of the invention. Therefore, the Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 5 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant’s accompanying amendments and arguments, on page 5-6 of the Applicant Remarks, filed 09/25/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 stating “… Amended claim1 is patentable. Claim 1 now recites, a controller programmed to, in response to the signal being received, command a torque to the powerplant to propel the vehicle in a sequence of discrete distance intervals, wherein a frequency of the interval is based on the signal. This is not disclosed in the prior art, either alone or in combination… Claim 19 is similarly patentable…” have been considered and are not persuasive.
The Examiner submits that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of amended claim 1, Kapadia GB 2562836 A (“Kapadia”) discloses a controller programmed to, in response to the signal being received, command a torque to the powerplant to propel the vehicle (See at least [0041] of Kapadia – “… computer 110 may be programmed to receive motion data from the motion sensor 170, and to actuate one or more subsystems in the vehicle 100 including at least … a powertrain. Thus, advantageously, a user may steer, accelerate… the vehicle 100 via the control device …” Examiner notes that accelerating a vehicle by controlling an internal combustion engine, electric motor, hybrid engine, etc. includes providing a torque to drive the vehicle forward) in a sequence of discrete distance intervals, wherein a frequency of the intervals is based on the signal (See at least [0057] of Kapadia – “… the computer 110 may be programmed to adjust a speed and/or an acceleration of the vehicle 100 based on an angle of movement of the elongated member 155 about the axis A2 relative to the line Ll. For example, the computer 110 may be programmed to proportionally increase the vehicle 100 speed based on an increase of the angle of the member 155 about the axis A2 relative to the line Ll…” Examiner also notes that a user may vary the amount of acceleration/torque to move the vehicle forward in varying distance amounts, as a result, that correspond to the acceleration/torque amounts such that a frequency of the distances travelled by the vehicle depends on the instances/occurrences of a user adjusting/increasing the pressure or force applied to move the elongated member from the default position to different angle of movements that meet the required threshold to accelerate the vehicle forward). Therefore, the rejections of claim 1 and the corresponding dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained by the Examiner.
Additionally, the Examiner submits that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of amended claim 19, Kapadia GB 2562836 A (“Kapadia”) also discloses wherein the vehicle is propelled in a sequence of discrete distance intervals, wherein a frequency of the intervals is based on the propulsion request (See at least [0057] of Kapadia – “… the computer 110 may be programmed to adjust a speed and/or an acceleration of the vehicle 100 based on an angle of movement of the elongated member 155 about the axis A2 relative to the line Ll. For example, the computer 110 may be programmed to proportionally increase the vehicle 100 speed based on an increase of the angle of the member 155 about the axis A2 relative to the line Ll…” Examiner notes that a user may vary the amount of acceleration/torque to move the vehicle forward in varying distance amounts, as a result, that correspond to the acceleration/torque amounts such that a frequency of the distances travelled by the vehicle depends on the instances/occurrences of a user adjusting/increasing the pressure or force applied to move the elongated member from the default position to different angle of movements that meet the required threshold to accelerate the vehicle forward). Therefore, the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102 is maintained by the Examiner.
Applicant’s accompanying amendments and arguments, on page 6 of the Applicant Remarks, filed 09/25/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102 stating “… Amended claim 14 is patentable. Claim 14 now recites a controller programmed to, when the signal exceeds a threshold, command a torque to the powerplant to propel the vehicle according to the signal such that the vehicle moves forward a predetermined distance that is based on the measured pressure or force, wherein the predetermined distance increases as the measured pressure or force increases, and the torque is commanded in discrete intervals and a frequency of the intervals is based on the measure pressure or force. This is not disclosed in the prior art, either alone or in combination…” have been considered but are moot due to the amendments and clarified limitations provided above. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kim et al. US 20200262460 A1 (“Kim”) and Trubiano US 5439253 A (“Trubiano”).
See at least [0055]-[0059], [0061]-[0063], and [0086] of Kim, the Abstract and Fig. 1 of Trubiano, and detailed mapping provided below for the rejection of amended claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Examiner notes that the Applicant may overcome the prior art rejection of independent claim 1 by amending claim 1 to include the features of a pressure or force sensor located externally to the passenger compartment allowing a user to control vehicle movement from outside of the vehicle, the sensor being configured to measure an input by the user and output a measured pressure or force signal and command a torque to the powerplant to propel the vehicle according to the signal such that the vehicle moves forward a predetermined distance that is based on the measured pressure or force, wherein the predetermined distance increases as the measured pressure or force increases, and the torque is commanded in discrete intervals and a frequency of the intervals is based on the measured pressure or force from claim 14, as Kim teaches a cart-robot vehicle that includes a controller that is capable of adjusting the speed of the cart-robot to move cart-robot forward distances based on a measured force applied by a user on a sensor located on the handle of the cart that is outside of the storage area of the cart which is not same field of endeavor as Kapadia with Nania because Kapadia with Nania teach external control of a vehicle by a user using an elongated member with a sensor attached to a step assembly associated with the tailgate to drive a vehicle forward based on measured angles of movement for the elongated member, which is different than the structural configuration and used measured forces taught in Kim to drive the cart.
Examiner notes that the Applicant may overcome the prior art rejection of independent claim 14 by amending claim 14 to include the structural features of a body defining a passenger cabin and a box and having a tailgate mounted to the box; a step assembly associated with the box and including a step and a handle, wherein the handle includes a sensor configured to receive input from a user located outside of the passenger cabin from claim 1, as Kapadia with Nania teach a step assembly associated with the tailgate and including a step and a handle with a sensor, which is not in the same field of endeavor as Kim because Kim discloses the sensor being located on the handle on a shopping cart which is different than the structural configuration of the sensor being on a handle associated with the step assembly and tailgate of a vehicle taught in Kapadia with Nania.
Examiner notes that the Applicant may overcome the prior art rejection of independent claim 19 by amending claim 19 to include the structural features of a body defining a passenger cabin and a box and having a tailgate mounted to the box; a step assembly associated with the box and including a step and a handle, wherein the handle includes a sensor configured to receive input from a user located outside of the passenger cabin from claim 1, and the features of a pressure or force sensor located externally to the passenger compartment allowing a user to control vehicle movement from outside of the vehicle, the sensor being configured to measure an input by the user and output a measured pressure or force signal and command a torque to the powerplant to propel the vehicle according to the signal such that the vehicle moves forward a predetermined distance that is based on the measured pressure or force, wherein the predetermined distance increases as the measured pressure or force increases, and the torque is commanded in discrete intervals and a frequency of the intervals is based on the measured pressure or force from claim 14 since Kim is not in the same field of endeavor as Kapadia and Nania, as previously discussed above.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 recites “… a frequency of the intervals is based on the measure pressure or force”
Claim 14 should read “… a frequency of the intervals is based on the measured pressure or force”. 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 14 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.
Claim 14 currently recites “wherein the predetermined distance such that the distance;”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, the predetermined distance as currently recited above is not appropriately defined in this limitation, so it is unclear whether the applicant intended to further define the predetermined distance in the recited limitation for the scope of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kapadia GB 2562836 A (“Kapadia”).
For claim 19, Kapadia discloses a method of propelling a vehicle by a person outside of the vehicle (See at least [0041] of Kapadia – “… a user may steer, accelerate, and/or stop the vehicle 100 via the control device 150 while standing/walking outside the vehicle 100…”), the method comprising:
receiving a propulsion request from a human machine interface (HMI) located on an exterior of the vehicle (See at least [0064] of Kapadia – “… the computer 110 may be programmed to determine whether the control device 150 is the deployed position… perform the vehicle 100 operation based on received motion data from the motion sensor 170 only when determined that the elongated member 155 is in the deployed position…”); and
in response to the propulsion request being received, commanding a torque to a powerplant of the vehicle such that the vehicle is propelled according to commands from a person who is located outside of the vehicle (See at least [0041] of Kapadia – “The device 150 includes one or more motion sensors 170 mounted to… so as to sense movement of, the elongate member 155. A vehicle 100 computer 110 may be programmed to receive motion data from the motion sensor 170, and to actuate one or more subsystems in the vehicle 100 including at least one of a steering, braking, and a powertrain.… a user may steer, accelerate, and/or stop the vehicle 100 via the control device 150 while standing/walking outside the vehicle 100…”), wherein the vehicle is propelled in a sequence of discrete distance intervals, wherein a frequency of the intervals is based on the propulsion request (See at least [0057] of Kapadia – “… the computer 110 may be programmed to adjust a speed and/or an acceleration of the vehicle 100 based on an angle of movement of the elongated member 155 about the axis A2 relative to the line Ll. For example, the computer 110 may be programmed to proportionally increase the vehicle 100 speed based on an increase of the angle of the member 155 about the axis A2 relative to the line Ll…” Examiner notes that a user may vary the amount of acceleration/torque to move the vehicle forward in varying distance amounts, as a result, that correspond to the acceleration/torque amounts such that a frequency of the distances travelled by the vehicle depends on the instances/occurrences of a user adjusting/increasing the pressure or force applied to move the elongated member from the default position to different angle of movements that meet the required threshold to accelerate the vehicle forward).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapadia in view of Nania et al. US 20200109588 A1 (“Nania”).
For claim 1, Kapadia discloses a vehicle (See at least Abstract of Kapadia – “…A system has a control device 150 with an elongate member 155 connected to an attachment point 165 at an external surface of a vehicle…”) comprising:
a body defining a passenger cabin (See at least Fig. 1A of Kapadia – vehicle interior space that contain the driver and passengers) and a box (See at least [0048] of Kapadia – “… the elongated member 155 may fittable in the receptacle 180… alternatively… may be storable … in a vehicle 100 trunk…”);
a step assembly associated with the box and including a step and a handle (See at least Fig. 1A of Kapadia – sliding member 175 near the vehicle trunk and with the control device 150 elongated member 155), wherein the handle includes a sensor configured to receive input from a user located outside of the passenger cabin and output a signal when the input is active (See at least [0041] of Kapadia – “The device 150 includes one or more motion sensors 170 mounted to… so as to sense movement of, the elongate member 155. A vehicle 100 computer 110 may be programmed to receive motion data from the motion sensor 170… a user may steer, accelerate, and/or stop the vehicle 100 via the control device 150 while standing/walking outside the vehicle 100…”);
a powerplant (See at least [0033] of Kapadia – “The computer 110 may include programming to operate … propulsion (e.g., control of acceleration in the vehicle by controlling one or more of an internal combustion engine, electric motor, hybrid engine, etc…”); and
a controller programmed to, in response to the signal being received, command a torque to the powerplant to propel the vehicle (See at least [0041] of Kapadia – “… computer 110 may be programmed to receive motion data from the motion sensor 170, and to actuate one or more subsystems in the vehicle 100 including at least … a powertrain. Thus, advantageously, a user may steer, accelerate… the vehicle 100 via the control device …” Examiner notes that accelerating a vehicle by controlling an internal combustion engine, electric motor, hybrid engine, etc. includes providing a torque to drive the vehicle forward) in a sequence of discrete distance intervals, wherein a frequency of the intervals is based on the signal (See at least [0057] of Kapadia – “… the computer 110 may be programmed to adjust a speed and/or an acceleration of the vehicle 100 based on an angle of movement of the elongated member 155 about the axis A2 relative to the line Ll. For example, the computer 110 may be programmed to proportionally increase the vehicle 100 speed based on an increase of the angle of the member 155 about the axis A2 relative to the line Ll…” Examiner also notes that a user may vary the amount of acceleration/torque to move the vehicle forward in varying distance amounts, as a result, that correspond to the acceleration/torque amounts such that a frequency of the distances travelled by the vehicle depends on the instances/occurrences of a user adjusting/increasing the pressure or force applied to move the elongated member from the default position to different angle of movements that meet the required threshold to accelerate the vehicle forward).
Kapadia fails to specifically disclose having a tailgate mounted to the box.
However, Nania, in the same field of endeavor teaches having a tailgate mounted to the box (See at least [0019] of Nania – “…The step assembly 54 may include a hand assist support 56 that is retractable into the tailgate 30 when not needed… The support rails 58 may also be pivoted downward after being extended from the tailgate 30 (see FIG. 1) in order to more easily be used as a step by someone wishing to climb into the bed 20…”). Thus, Kapadia discloses a system for external control of a vehicle by a user that features an elongated member that sensing manipulation of the elongated member by the user to drive a vehicle forward, while Nania teaches a tailgate that provides access to a bed of a truck.
Therefore, 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 and method as disclosed in Kapadia to include the feature of having a tailgate mounted to the box as taught by Nania, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide access to a bed of a vehicle as specified in at least [0019] of Nania.
For claim 3, Kapadia discloses wherein the controller is further programmed to discontinue the torque to the powerplant in response the signal no longer being received (See at least [0055]-[0056] of Kapadia – “…the computer 110 may be programmed to interpret a deviation of elongated member 155 longitudinal axis A3 away from the line LI as a user input such as to move the vehicle 100 forward… motion sensor 170 may include mechanical biasing means, e.g., a leaf spring, etc., to hold the elongated member … at the default position … when the control device 150 is in the deployed position and the user does not apply any force to the elongated member 155… the computer 110 may be programmed to actuate a vehicle 100 actuator 120 to move the vehicle 100 in a forward direction upon determining that an angle of movement of the elongated member 155 about the axis A2 relative to the line Ll exceeds a predetermined threshold angle, e.g., 5 degrees…” Examiner notes that the system discontinues the torque command to accelerate the vehicle when the elongated member is returned to the default position because no force is applied to the elongated member by a user to cause the angle of movement of the elongated member to exceed a threshold to move the vehicle forward).
For claim 5, Kapadia discloses wherein the sensor is configured to sense a force or pressure of the input and the signal is indicative of the force or pressure, wherein the torque commanded to the powerplant is based on a magnitude of the signal (See at least [0054]-[0056] of Kapadia – “… the computer 110 may be programmed to actuate the vehicle 100 actuators 120 based on motion data received from the motion sensor(s) 170… motion sensor 170 may include mechanical biasing means… to hold the elongated member 155 longitudinal axis A3 at the default position … when …. the user does not apply any force to the elongated member 155. The computer 110 may be programmed to perform vehicle 100 operation by actuating vehicle 100 actuators 120 at least in part based on the motion data. For example, the computer 110 may be programmed to actuate a vehicle 100 actuator 120 to move the vehicle 100 in a forward direction upon determining that an angle of movement of the elongated member 155 about the axis A2 relative to the line Ll exceeds a predetermined threshold angle…”).
For claim 6, Kapadia discloses wherein the handle includes a movable portion, and the sensor is configured to sense displacement of the movable portion (See at least [0054] of Kapadia – “… the computer 110 may be programmed to actuate the vehicle 100 actuators 120 based on motion data received from the motion sensor(s) 170. In one example, the motion data may include an angle of rotation of the elongate member.…”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapadia in view of Nania, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Semenov et al. US 20220097700 A1 (“Semenov”).
For claim 2, Kapadia discloses further comprising friction brakes (See at least [0012] of Kapadia – “… the computer is further programmed to actuate a vehicle brake actuator to stop the vehicle upon determining that the elongated member is in the default position…”).
Kapadia fails to specifically disclose wherein the controller is further programmed to command a braking torque to the friction brakes in response to the signal being received.
However, Semenov, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the controller is further programmed to command a braking torque to the friction brakes in response to the signal being received (See at least [0011] – “… In the one-pedal driving mode, the driver commands a raw driver-demanded wheel torque by actuating the accelerator pedal. Depending upon the vehicle speed and the accelerator pedal position the raw driver-demanded torque may be a positive value or a negative value… The vehicle may provide the target braking torque using either the powertrain, e.g. regenerative braking, the friction brakes, or a combination of both…” and [0027] of Semenov – “… The controller 40 may be programmed to receive the pedal-position signal and determine the raw driver-demanded torque based on pedal position… The maps associated with the one-pedal drive mode may include more aggressive negative driver-demanded torque values so that the vehicle is braked (powertrain, friction, or both) in response to the accelerator pedal being released…”). Thus, Kapadia discloses a system for external control of a vehicle by a user that features an elongated member that sensing manipulation of the elongated member by the user to drive a vehicle forward, while Semenov teaches a one-pedal driving system for a vehicle that generates a negative braking torque to stop a vehicle in response to an accelerator input signal.
Therefore, 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 and method as disclosed in Kapadia to include the feature of the controller being programmed to command a braking torque to the friction brakes in response to the signal being received as taught by Semenov, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to control the vehicle to a complete stop after an acceleration input has been received as specified in at least [0013] of Semenov.
Claims 4 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapadia in view of Nania, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ding et al. US 20210024057 A1 (“Ding”).
For claim 4, Kapadia fails to specifically disclose wherein the torque to the powerplant is based on an error between a target speed of the vehicle and a measured speed of the vehicle.
However, Ding, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the torque to the powerplant is based on an error between a target speed of the vehicle and a measured speed of the vehicle (See at least [0084] of Ding – “… calculating a speed error between the current speed and the target speed… calculating first acceleration for the vehicle to move from the current position to the target position based on the speed error… inputting the first acceleration to a predetermined longitudinal dynamics model of the vehicle to obtain a wheel torque… determining an engine torque based on the wheel torque…”). Thus, Kapadia discloses a system for external control of a vehicle by a user that features an elongated member that sensing manipulation of the elongated member by the user to drive a vehicle forward, while Ding teaches a vehicle parking control system that determines an acceleration and torque for a vehicle based on an error between a target speed and a current speed of the vehicle.
Therefore, 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 and method as disclosed in Kapadia to include the feature of the torque to the powerplant being based on an error between a target speed of the vehicle and a measured speed of the vehicle as taught by Ding, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to move the vehicle from a current position to a target position as specified in at least [0084] of Ding.
For claim 8, Kapadia fails to specifically disclose wherein the torque commanded to the powerplant is based on an error between a target position of the vehicle and a measured position of the vehicle.
However, Ding, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the torque commanded to the powerplant is based on an error between a target position of the vehicle and a measured position of the vehicle (See at least [0084] of Ding – “… calculating first acceleration for the vehicle to move from the current position to the target position … inputting the first acceleration to a predetermined longitudinal dynamics model of the vehicle to obtain a wheel torque… determining an engine torque based on the wheel torque…”). Thus, Kapadia discloses a system for external control of a vehicle by a user that features an elongated member that sensing manipulation of the elongated member by the user to drive a vehicle forward, while Ding teaches a vehicle parking control system that determines an acceleration and torque for a vehicle based on a difference between a target position and a current position of the vehicle.
Therefore, 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 and method as disclosed in Kapadia to include the feature of the torque commanded to the powerplant being based on an error between a target position of the vehicle and a measured position of the vehicle as taught by Ding, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to move the vehicle from a current position to a target position as specified in at least [0084] of Ding.
For claim 9, Kapadia fails to specifically disclose wherein the target position is based on a current position of the vehicle plus an incremental travel.
However, Ding, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the target position is based on a current position of the vehicle plus an incremental travel (See at least [0033] of Ding – “… with the current position as a start point, a position ahead along the road that has a length equal to the target distance is determined as a target position point…”). Thus, Kapadia discloses a system for external control of a vehicle by a user that features an elongated member that sensing manipulation of the elongated member by the user to drive a vehicle forward, while Ding teaches a vehicle parking control system that determines a distance to bring a vehicle from a current position to a target position.
Therefore, 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 and method as disclosed in Kapadia to include the feature of the target position being based on a current position of the vehicle plus an incremental travel as taught by Ding, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to determine a distance to move the vehicle from a current position to a target position as specified in at least [0033] of Ding.
For claim 10, Kapadia discloses wherein the incremental travel is based on a duration of the input such that the incremental travel increases as the duration increases (See at least [0057] of Kapadia – “… the computer 110 may be programmed to adjust a speed and/or an acceleration of the vehicle 100 based on an angle of movement of the elongated member 155 about the axis A2 relative to the line Ll. For example, the computer 110 may be programmed to proportionally increase the vehicle 100 speed based on an increase of the angle of the member 155 about the axis A2 relative to the line Ll…” Examiner notes that as long as a user continues to provide an input that meets the required threshold via the elongated member to accelerate the vehicle forward, the vehicle will continue to move forward as the input is being received).
For claim 11, Kapadia discloses wherein the incremental travel is based on force of the input such that the incremental travel increases as the force increases (See at least [0057] of Kapadia – “… the computer 110 may be programmed to adjust a speed and/or an acceleration of the vehicle 100 based on an angle of movement of the elongated member 155 about the axis A2 relative to the line Ll. For example, the computer 110 may be programmed to proportionally increase the vehicle 100 speed based on an increase of the angle of the member 155 about the axis A2 relative to the line Ll…” Examiner notes that as long as a user increases an applied force to move the elongated member from the default position to an angle of movement that meets the required threshold to accelerate the vehicle forward, the vehicle will continue to move forward as the input is being received).
For claim 12, Kapadia discloses wherein the incremental travel is based on an energy applied to the input such that the incremental travel increases as the energy increases (See at least [0057] of Kapadia – “… the computer 110 may be programmed to adjust a speed and/or an acceleration of the vehicle 100 based on an angle of movement of the elongated member 155 about the axis A2 relative to the line Ll. For example, the computer 110 may be programmed to proportionally increase the vehicle 100 speed based on an increase of the angle of the member 155 about the axis A2 relative to the line Ll…” Examiner notes that as long as a user increases an applied energy to move the elongated member from the default position to an angle of movement that meets the required threshold to accelerate the vehicle forward, the vehicle will continue to move forward as the input is being received).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapadia in view of Nania, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hayakawa US 20190054927 A1 (“Hayakawa”).
For claim 13, Kapadia fails to specifically disclose wherein the torque is only commanded to the powerplant to propel the vehicle based on the signal when a dead-man switch is activated.
However, Hayakawa, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the torque is only commanded to the powerplant to propel the vehicle based on the signal when a dead-man switch is activated (See at least [0031] of Hayakawa – “… a switch such as a deadman switch is used which is turned on only while being pressed. In the parking assist apparatus 100, when the Deadman switch is pressed, the automated driving of the subject vehicle V is executed, and when the pressing of the Deadman switch is released, the automated driving of the subject vehicle V is suspended…”). Thus, Kapadia discloses a system for external control of a vehicle by a user that features an elongated member that sensing manipulation of the elongated member by the user to drive a vehicle forward, while Hayakawa teaches a parking assist control system that allows driving of a vehicle when a deadman switch is pressed.
Therefore, 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 and method as disclosed in Kapadia to include the feature of the torque being only commanded to the powerplant to propel the vehicle based on the signal when a dead-man switch is activated as taught by Hayakawa, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to suspend driving of the vehicle when the deadman switch is released as specified in at least [0031] of Hayakawa.
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US 20200262460 A1 (“Kim”) in view of Trubiano US 5439253 A (“Trubiano”).
For claim 14, Kim discloses a vehicle (See at least [0019] of Kim – “FIG. 1 shows an appearance of a cart-robot according to an embodiment…”) comprising:
a powerplant (See at least [0061] of Kim – “… the controller 250 may adjust the magnitude of electric energy that is supplied to a motor for delivering power to the wheels of the moving part 190 … to adjust speed or direction of movement of the cart...”);
a pressure or force sensor located externally to the vehicle allowing a user to control vehicle movement from outside of the vehicle, the sensor being configured to measure an input by the user and output a measured pressure or force signal, wherein the predetermined distance such that the distance (See at least [0055]-[0059] of Kim – “… The force sensor 210 can be placed in the handle assembly 120 or otherwise coupled to the handle assembly. When the user applies force to the handle assembly 120, the force sensor senses magnitude of the force, changes in the force, and the like… the controller 250 may map a speed or a direction of movement of the cart-robot with respect to the force that the user pushes the cart-robot, in power-assist mode… In power-assist mode, the controller may control mapping of the force applied to the cart-robot and speed of movement of the cart. Thus, when sensed force is 5, speed of movement of the cart-robot is mapped as 30 cm/sec while when sensed force is 10, speed of movement of the cart-robot is mapped as 50 cm/sec…”. Examiner notes that the distance travelled by the cart-robot depends on the adjusted speed based on the applied force to the handle by the user); and
a controller programmed to, when the signal exceeds a threshold, command a torque to the powerplant to propel the vehicle according to the signal such that the vehicle moves forward a predetermined distance that is based on the measured pressure or force, wherein the predetermined distance increases as the measured pressure or force increases (See at least [0055]-[0059] – “…When the user applies force to the handle assembly 120, the force sensor senses magnitude of the force, changes in the force, and the like… the controller may control mapping of the force applied to the cart-robot and speed of movement of the cart… when sensed force is 5, speed of movement of the cart-robot is mapped as 30 cm/sec while when sensed force is 10, speed of movement of the cart-robot is mapped as 50 cm/sec…” and [0061] of Kim – “the controller 250 may adjust the magnitude of electric energy that is supplied to a motor for delivering power to the wheels of the moving part 190 … adjust the number of rotations of the motor to adjust speed or direction of movement of the cart. The controller 250 may control power of both of the wheels or may adjust a direction of rotation of the wheels to control the direction of movement of the cart…”. Examiner notes that changing the speed of a vehicle by controlling the motor that delivers power to the wheels includes providing a torque to drive the vehicle forward, and that the distance travelled by the cart-robot depends on the adjusted speed based on the applied force to the handle by the user such that the cart-robot travels farther distances at a faster rate as the measured user input force increases), and the torque is commanded in discrete intervals and a frequency of the intervals is based on the measure pressure or force (See at least [0110]-[0113] of Kim – “… the controller 250 adjusts speed of movement of the moving part, which is mapped in force that is sensed by the push sensor 211 on the basis of the frequency with which the pull sensor 212 senses force within a time period shorter than the shortest time period of movement… This technique may also be applied to increasing speed in the same manner… the controller 250 adjusts speed of movement of the moving part, which is mapped in force that is sensed by the push sensor 211, on the basis of the frequency with which the push sensor 211 senses second the magnitude of force that is greater than the first magnitude of force within a time period shorter than the shortest time period of movement… the controller 250 increases variable M1 of equation 1 for mapping speed of movement of the cart-robot_to 1.3, to respond to a second magnitude of changed force of the user. As a result of increasing variable M1 of equation 1 to 1.3, speed of movement of the cart-robot is greater than force that is sensed by the push sensor 211 than when variable M1 is 1.2 and increases…”).
Kim fails to specifically disclose a passenger cabin.
However, Trubiano, in the same field of endeavor teaches a passenger cabin (See at least Abstract – “… a child seated in a seat compartment of a shopping cart…” and Fig. 1 of Trubiano – a child seated in a seat compartment of a shopping cart). Thus, Kim discloses a cart-robot vehicle that includes a controller that is capable of adjusting the speed of the cart-robot to move cart-robot forward distances based on a measured force applied by a user on a sensor located on the handle of the cart that is outside of the storage area of the cart, while Trubiano teaches a passenger seat compartment on a shopping cart.
Therefore, 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 and method as disclosed in Kim to include the feature of a passenger cabin as taught by Trubiano, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow a child to be seated in a seat compartment of the cart as specified in at least Col. 1 lines 60-65 of Trubiano.
For claim 18, Kim discloses wherein the torque is commanded such that the vehicle moves forward at a predetermined speed (See at least [0055]-[0059] – “… the controller may control mapping of the force applied to the cart-robot and speed of movement of the cart… when sensed force is 5, speed of movement of the cart-robot is mapped as 30 cm/sec while when sensed force is 10, speed of movement of the cart-robot is mapped as 50 cm/sec…” and [0061] of Kim – “the controller 250 may adjust the magnitude of electric energy that is supplied to a motor for delivering power to the wheels of the moving part 190 … adjust the number of rotations of the motor to adjust speed or direction of movement of the cart. The controller 250 may control power of both of the wheels or may adjust a direction of rotation of the wheels to control the direction of movement of the cart…”. Examiner notes that changing the speed of a vehicle by controlling the motor that delivers power to the wheels includes providing a torque to drive the vehicle forward).
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 MICHAEL J HERRERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5271. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, FADEY JABR can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/M.J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668