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 .
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.
Claims 5, 17, and 20 are 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.
The term “reasonable” in claims 5 and 17 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “reasonable” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the mower" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the mower" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the persistent memory device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear whether persistent is used to describe the device or how it works. This renders the claim as vague and indefinite. Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Liu et al WO 2019174452 (English translation provided and referenced).
Regarding claim 1, Liu et al discloses a control system for a vehicle comprising a plurality of wheels (see FIG. 1), the control system comprising: a master control unit ECU; a plurality of traction systems, wherein each of the traction systems corresponds to one of the wheels (see page 15, paragraph 11); and a plurality of rolling radius offset values stored in a memory device accessible by the MCU, wherein each of the rolling radius offset values corresponds to one of the wheels (see page 26, paragraph 6); wherein the MCU determines for each one of the wheels a command speed based on the rolling radius offset value corresponding to the one of the wheels in combination with at least one of a tire diameter of the one of the wheels, a steered angle of the vehicle, a traction pedal command, and vehicle geometry information, and provides the determined command speed for the one of the wheels to the traction system corresponding to the one of the wheels (see page 4, paragraph 5); and wherein each of the traction systems controls a speed of the corresponding one of the wheels based on the determined command speed for the one of the wheels received from the MCU. See page 31, paragraph 7.
Regarding claim 2, Liu et al discloses wherein each of the traction systems comprises: a traction motor for providing rotational force to the corresponding one of the wheels, wherein the traction motor comprises an electric motor; and a traction control unit (TCU) for controlling a speed of the rotational force generated by the traction motor. See page 16, paragraphs 9-12.
Regarding claim 3, Liu et al discloses further comprising a traction pedal for indicating a desired speed for the vehicle. This is inherent as a vehicle typically, conventionally, and routinely includes a pedal for adjusting speed of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 10, Liu et al discloses vehicle comprising: a plurality of wheels (see FIG. 1); a master control unit ECU; a plurality of traction systems, wherein each of the traction systems corresponds to one of the wheels (see page 15, paragraph 11); and a plurality of rolling radius offset values stored in a memory device accessible by the MCU, wherein each of the rolling radius offset values corresponds to one of the wheels (see page 26, paragraph 6); wherein the MCU determines for each one of the wheels a command speed based on the rolling radius offset value corresponding to the one of the wheels in combination with at least one of a tire diameter of the one of the wheels, a steered angle of the vehicle, a traction pedal command, and vehicle geometry information, and provides the determined command speed for the one of the wheels to the traction system corresponding to the one of the wheels (see page 4, paragraph 5); and wherein each of the traction systems controls a speed of the corresponding one of the wheels based on the determined command speed for the one of the wheels received from the MCU. See page 31, paragraph 7.
Regarding claim 11, Liu et al discloses wherein each of the traction systems comprises: a traction motor for providing rotational force to the corresponding one of the wheels, wherein the traction motor comprises an electric motor; and a traction control unit (TCU) for controlling a speed of the rotational force generated by the traction motor. See page 16, paragraphs 9-12.
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.
Claims 4, 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al, as applied above, in view of Joseph et al US 2020/0356788.
Regarding claim 4, Liu et al fails to explicitly disclose, but Joseph et al discloses wherein during operation of the vehicle, the MCU determines whether a set of calibration mode conditions has been met and if so, causes the vehicle to operate in a calibration mode. See paragraph [0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the calibration mode of Joseph et al in the system of Liu et al to optimize the system for smoother operation.
Regarding claim 5, Liu et al fails to explicitly disclose, but Joseph et al discloses wherein the set of calibration mode conditions includes at least one of: whether the mower is driving at a consistent command speed in excess of a minimum threshold speed; whether the vehicle is driving in a substantially straight line; whether the vehicle is driving on a substantially level surface; and whether traction motor currents are within a reasonable range for driving on a substantially level surface. See paragraph [0020].
Regarding claim 12, Liu et al fails to explicitly disclose, but Joseph et al discloses wherein the MCU determines whether a set of calibration mode conditions has been met and if so, causes the vehicle to operate in a calibration mode. See paragraph [0020].
Claims 6-9 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al and Joseph et al, as applied above, in view of Yang et al US 2023/0320266.
Regarding claim 6, Liu et al fails to explicitly disclose, but Yang et al discloses wherein operating in the calibration mode comprises: for each of the traction systems, comparing a traction motor current for the traction system with an average traction motor current for all of the traction systems; and based on results of the comparing, adjusting the command speed corresponding to the one of the wheels. See paragraphs [0003]-[0012].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the calibration mode of Yang et al in the system of Liu et al to even out the wheel speed for smoother operation.
Regarding claim 7, Liu et al fails to explicitly disclose, but Yang et al discloses wherein operating in calibration mode further comprises, based on results of the comparing, updating the rolling radius offset value corresponding to the one of the wheels. See paragraphs [0141] and [0142].
Regarding claim 8, Liu et al discloses wherein the MCU determines for each one of the wheels an updated command speed based on the updated rolling radius offset value corresponding to the one of the wheels in combination with at least one of a tire diameter of the one of the wheels, a steered angle of the vehicle, a traction pedal command, and vehicle geometry information, and provides the determined updated command speed for the one of the wheels to the traction system corresponding to the one of the wheels. See page 4, paragraph 5 and page 31, paragraph 7.
Regarding claim 9, Liu et al fails to explicitly disclose, but Yang et al discloses wherein the plurality of rolling radius offset values stored in the memory device are replaced with the updated rolling radius offset values when the vehicle ceases operation. See paragraphs [0141] and [0142].
Regarding claim 13, Liu et al fails to explicitly disclose, but Yang et al discloses wherein the operating in the calibration mode comprises: for each of the traction systems, comparing a traction motor current for the traction system with an average traction motor current for all of the traction systems; and based on results of the comparing: adjusting the command speed corresponding to the one of the wheels; and updating the rolling radius offset value corresponding to the one of the wheels. See paragraphs [0003]-[0012].
Regarding claim 14, Liu et al discloses wherein the MCU determines for each one of the wheels an updated command speed based on the updated rolling radius offset value corresponding to the one of the wheels in combination with at least one of a tire diameter of the one of the wheels, a steered angle of the vehicle, a traction pedal command, and vehicle geometry information, and provides the determined updated command speed for the one of the wheels to the traction system corresponding to the one of the wheels. See page 4, paragraph 5 and page 31, paragraph 7.
Regarding claim 15, Liu et al fails to explicitly disclose, but Yang et al discloses wherein the vehicle comprises a riding lawn mower.
Regarding claim 16, Liu et al discloses computer-implemented method comprising: determining for each of a plurality of wheels of a vehicle a command speed based on a rolling radius offset value corresponding to the wheel in combination with at least one of a tire diameter of the one of the wheels, a steered angle of the vehicle, a traction pedal command, and vehicle geometry information, wherein the rolling radius offset values are stored in a non-volatile memory device (see page 4, paragraph 5);
Yang et al discloses for each of the determined command speeds, providing the determined command speed to a traction system for the corresponding wheel, wherein the traction system controls a speed of the corresponding wheel in accordance with the received command speed for the corresponding the wheel (See paragraphs [0003]-[0012]);
Joseph et al discloses determining whether a set of calibration mode conditions has been met; and if the set of calibration mode conditions has been met, causing the vehicle to operate in a calibration mode. See paragraph [0020].
Regarding claim 17, Liu et al fails to explicitly disclose, but Joseph et al discloses wherein the set of calibration mode conditions includes at least one of: the mower driving at a consistent command speed in excess of a minimum threshold speed; the vehicle driving in a substantially straight line; the vehicle driving on a substantially level surface; and traction motor currents are within a reasonable range for driving on a substantially level surface. See paragraph [0020].
Regarding claim 18, Liu et al fails to explicitly disclose, but Yang et al discloses wherein causing the vehicle to operate in the calibration mode comprises: for each of the traction systems, comparing a traction motor current for the traction system with an average traction motor current for all of the traction systems; based on results of the comparing, adjusting the command speed of the corresponding wheel; and based on results of the comparing, updating the rolling radius offset value of the corresponding wheel. See paragraphs [0003]-[0012].
Regarding claim 19, Liu et al discloses further comprising determining for each of the wheels an updated command speed based on the updated rolling radius offset value corresponding to the wheel in combination with at least one of a tire diameter of the wheel, a steered angle of the vehicle, a traction pedal command, and vehicle geometry information, and provides the determined updated command speed for the wheel to the traction system corresponding to the wheel. See page 4, paragraph 5 and page 31, paragraph 7.
Regarding claim 20, Liu et al fails to explicitly disclose, but Yang et al discloses further comprising replacing the plurality of rolling radius offset values stored in the persistent memory device with the updated rolling radius offset values. See paragraphs [0141] and [0142].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH J DALLO whose telephone number is (313)446-4844. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-7pm ET M-Th.
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, Phutthiwat(Pat) Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/JOSEPH J DALLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747