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 .
1. This action is responsive to restriction election received Oct. 6, 2025. Applicant elected Group I with traverse. Applicant argues in substance that the examination of both Groups would require searching in the same locations per the classifications thus, no additional burden is required in terms of the search involved. In response, Group I recites: determines a vehicle acceleration based on information received from the IMU; determines a motor-rotor estimated vehicle acceleration based on a measured acceleration of a rotor of the electric motor; and detects wheelspin by determining if the IMU-measured vehicle acceleration is less than the motor-rotor estimated vehicle acceleration. Group II recites: determines a first estimated vehicle acceleration based on a first measured parameter of the electric motor; determines a second estimated vehicle acceleration based on a second measured parameter of the electric motor; and detects wheelspin by determining if the first estimated vehicle acceleration is less than the second estimated vehicle acceleration. Group I and II differ in that the system and method of group I determines a slippage by comparing a motor-rotor estimated vehicle acceleration and a vehicle acceleration based on information received from the IMU to determine wheelspin while Group II comparing a first and second measured parameter of the electric motor to determine a wheel spin. Comparing acceleration of a motor with acceleration determined by IMU vs. comparing two parameters of a motor would require serious search burden. Therefore, the restriction is proper. Restriction is made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
2. Claims 1, 5-8, 12-13 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “determines a vehicle acceleration; determines a motor-rotor estimated vehicle acceleration; and detects wheelspin by determining if the IMU/GPS-measured vehicle acceleration is less than the motor-rotor estimated vehicle acceleration”.
The recited limitations above are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by one or more processors”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determine”, “determine”, “detect” in the context of this claim encompasses the user to mentally determine the acceleration value of a motor and acceleration value based on IMU or GPS data and then determine that a wheel is spinning if the two values are different.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements- “system”, “electric motor”, “one or more drive wheels”, “GPS receiver”, “motor controller”, and “control circuitry” in claims 1 and 9; “system”, “electric motor”, “one or more drive wheels”, “an inertial measurement unit (IMU)”, “motor controller”, and “control circuitry” in claim 8; to perform the above recited steps. The computer elements recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer elements performing a generic computer function of determine a vehicle acceleration and detecting a wheelspin based on the measured values. Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer elements to perform the steps of claims 1, 8 and 21 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 2-4 and 9-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
4. The prior art of record does not teach the limitations of claims 1-14 and 20-21 as claimed.
The closest prior art, Kumar et al., U.S. Patent application Publication No. 2017/0334414, teaches a system for detecting and correcting wheelspin in an electric vehicle, comprising: an electric motor having a rotor coupled to one or more drive wheels, the one or more drive wheels operable to propel the electric vehicle in response to rotation of the rotor of the electric motor; an inertial measurement unit (IMU) attached to the electric vehicle and operable to provide an IMU-measured vehicle acceleration; and a motor controller comprising control circuitry in communication with the electric motor and IMU, wherein the motor controller: determines a vehicle speed based on information received from the IMU/GPS; and determine a speed of a wheel, and detects wheelspin by determining if the IMU/GPS-measured vehicle speed is different than the wheel speed.
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the claimed limitations “determines a vehicle acceleration based on information received from the IMU/GPS; determines a motor-rotor estimated vehicle acceleration based on a measured acceleration of a rotor of the electric motor; and detects wheelspin by determining if the IMU-measured vehicle acceleration is less than the motor-rotor estimated vehicle acceleration” as in claims 1-14 and 21-22.
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSEIN A EL CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3999. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at 571-272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUSSEIN ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669