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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 10/08/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US 2018/0154723 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Anderson”) in view of Ito et al. (US 2004/0193352 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Ito”) further in view of Damaraju et al. (US 2021/0402842 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Damaraju”).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson teaches a vehicle (Fig. 15-3) comprising:
a power unit ( Fig. 15-6, 15-606) having a sump containing fluid (Fig. 15-6, 15-600);
an electric pump configured to pump (Fig. 15-16:fluid) the fluid from an inlet in the sump to outlet (Fig. 15-6, 15-606; para. [0058]: hydraulic motor/pump 15-606 (which may be a pump, a motor, or both; para. [0059]: the hydraulic motor/pump is operatively coupled to an electric motor 15-608).
Anderson does not specifically teach a controller programmed to measure lateral acceleration, predict, using a model, lateral acceleration based on power consumption of the electric pump, and in response to a correlation metric between the measured lateral acceleration and the predicted lateral acceleration being less than a threshold, restrict flow to a subset of the plurality of outlets.
However, Ito teaches a controller (para. [0135]: CPU 61) programmed to
measure lateral acceleration (Fig. 11 and para. [0135]: actual lateral acceleration Gy detected by the lateral acceleration sensor 54)
predict, using a model, lateral acceleration based on power consumption of the electric pump (Fig. 11, para. [0066]: theoretical formula as a predetermined rule directed from a vehicle motion model; para. [0135]: step 1115 for calculating the estimated lateral acceleration), and
in response to a correlation metric between the measured lateral acceleration (Fig. 11 and para. [0135]: actual lateral acceleration Gy detected by the lateral acceleration sensor 54) and the predicted lateral acceleration (para. [0066]: theoretical formula as a predetermined rule directed from a vehicle motion model; para. [0135]) being less than a threshold (para. [0137]: when both two conditions are established in the judgement at the step 1125 (i.e., when the vehicle is in the state of having high possibility of the roll-over).
Anderson and Ito are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of control device for a 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 incorporate the measuring a power consumption of the electric pump and a lateral acceleration such as is described in Ito into Anderson, in order to provide a control device for a vehicle that can surely prevent a roll angle of a vehicle from being excessive by considering a state of a road on which the vehicle runs (Ito, para. [0011]).
Anderson and Ito do not specifically teach restricting flow to a subset of the plurality of outlets.
However, Damaraju teaches restrict flow to a subset (para. [0065]:the inlets and/or outlets may be changed to adjust the flow rates as appropriate) of the plurality of outlets (para. [0027]: one or more of the flow channels may be defined by one or more inlets and/or one or more outlets).
Anderson and Damaraju are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of cooling one or more processing components of a 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 incorporate the restricting flow to a subset of the plurality of outlets such as is described in Damaraju into Anderson, in order to provide the fluid from the outlets of the heat exchanger to cool the one or more processing components (Damaraju, para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, Anderson in view of Ito and Damaraju teaches all the limitation of claim1. Anderson and Damaraju do not specifically teach that the power unit is an electric drive unit comprising a motor and a gearbox.
However, Ito teaches that the power unit is an electric drive unit comprising a motor (paras. [0040]-[0041]: motor M) and a gearbox (para. [0067]: gear ratio).
Anderson and Ito are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of controlling a 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 incorporate the power unit such as is described in Ito into Anderson, in order to provide a control device for a vehicle that can surely prevent a roll angle of a vehicle from being excessive by considering a state of a road on which the vehicle runs (Ito, para. [0011]).
Regarding claim 3, Anderson in view of Ito and Damaraju teaches all the limitation of claim1, in addition, Anderson teaches that the model is a neural network model (para. [0009]: a computer-based model or algorithm may predict or calculate energy usage by at least a portion of the plurality of loads at a variety of points along the route; para. [0030]: the vehicle effectively employs a learning algorithm).
Regarding claim 4, Anderson in view of Ito and Damaraju teaches all the limitation of claim1, in addition, Anderson teaches that the model has been trained using experimental data (para. [0030]: learning algorithm and learning function) associated with a sump (Fig. 15-6, 15-600) containing a predetermined quantity of fluid (Fig. 15-6, 15-600: fluid).
Regarding claim 5, Anderson in view of Ito and Damaraju teaches all the limitation of claim1, in addition, Anderson teaches that the measured lateral acceleration is unidirectional (para. [0010]: an algorithm mitigates passenger disturbance caused by such fore/aft and lateral acceleration by creating a compensation attitude, or a pitch/tilt condition of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 6, Anderson in view of Ito and Damaraju teaches all the limitation of claim1, in addition, Anderson teaches that the controller is further configured to measure vehicle speed and wherein the model is further based on vehicle speed (para. [0061]: in FIG. 15-7, a vehicle state estimator 15-700 determines a vehicle's kinematic state based on a number of sensors such as accelerometers, steering angle, vehicle velocity (wheel speed sensors, GPS, etc.).
Regarding claim 7, Anderson in view of Ito and Damaraju teaches all the limitation of claim1, in addition, Anderson teaches that the controller (paras. [0007]-[0010]: controller) is further configured to, in response to the correlation metric (para. [0026]: the topological map may contain a generalized roughness metric or a correction metric for an active suspension; par. [0027]: Output from the sensor fusion system is a position metric that serves as either an index to the topographical map 15-100) being less than the threshold, issue a signal to an operator (para.[0036]: several implementation methods exist using weight factors, thresholds, biases, and other algorithm).
Regarding claim 8, it is an apparatus type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, it is dependent on claim 8 and has similar limitations as of claim 2 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 10, it is dependent on claim 8 and has similar limitations as of claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 11, it is dependent on claim 8 and has similar limitations as of claim 4 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 12, it is dependent on claim 8 and has similar limitations as of claim 5 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 13, it is dependent on claim 8 and has similar limitations as of claim 7 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 14, Anderson teaches pumping fluid from a sump ( Fig. 15-6, 15-600) to a plurality of outlet using an electric pump (para. [0058]: hydraulic motor/pump 15-606 (which may be a pump, a motor, or both; para. [0059]: the hydraulic motor/pump is operatively coupled to an electric motor 15-608);
Anderson does not specifically teach detecting an abnormal fluid level; measuring a power consumption of the electric pump and a lateral acceleration; identifying a beginning of an air ingestion event based on a change in the power consumption; during the air ingestion event, computing a predicted lateral acceleration using a model based on the measured power consumption; comparing the predicted lateral acceleration during the event to the measured lateral acceleration during the event; and in response to a correlation metric between the measured lateral acceleration and the predicted lateral acceleration being less than a threshold.
However, Ito teaches detecting an abnormal fluid level (para. [0132]: the engine 31 produces a power smaller than the power according to the accelerator operating amount Accp, note that the above feature of “produces a power smaller than the power according to the accelerator operating amount Accp” reads on “detecting an abnormal fluid level”), measuring a power consumption of the electric pump (para. [0132]: the engine 31 produces a power smaller than the power according to the accelerator operating amount Accp) and a lateral acceleration (US 20040193352, Fig. 11 and para. [0135]: actual lateral acceleration Gy detected by the lateral acceleration sensor 54));
identifying a beginning of an air ingestion event based on a change in the power consumption (para. [0132]: the engine 31 produces a power smaller than the power according to the accelerator operating amount Accp, note that the above feature of “the engine 31 produces a power smaller than the power according to the accelerator operating amount Accp” reads on “identifying a beginning of an air ingestion event based on a change in the power consumption”);
during the air ingestion event (para. [0132]: the engine 31 produces a power smaller than the power according to the accelerator operating amount Accp, notes the above feature of” produces a power smaller than the power according to the accelerator operating amount Accp” reads on “during the air ingestion event”), computing a predicted lateral acceleration using a model (Fig. 11 and para. [0135]: step 1115 for calculating the estimated lateral acceleration) based on the measured power consumption (para. [0132]: the engine 31 produces a power smaller than the power according to the accelerator operating amount Accp);
comparing (US 20040193352, para. [0137]: when both two conditions are established in the judgement at the step 1125 (i.e., when the vehicle is in the state of having high possibility of the roll-over)) the predicted lateral acceleration during the event (Fig. 11, step 1115 for calculating the estimated lateral acceleration) to the measured lateral acceleration during the event (Fig. 11 and para. [0135]: actual lateral acceleration Gy detected by the lateral acceleration sensor 54); and
in response to a correlation metric between the measured lateral acceleration and the predicted lateral acceleration being less than a threshold (para. [0137]: high possibility of the roll-over),
Anderson and Ito are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of control device for a 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 incorporate the measuring a power consumption of the electric pump and a lateral acceleration such as is described in Ito into Anderson, in order to provide a control device for a vehicle that can surely prevent a roll angle of a vehicle from being excessive by considering a state of a road on which the vehicle runs (Ito, para. [0011]).
Anderson and Ito do not specifically teach restricting flow to a subset of the plurality of outlets.
However, Damaraju teaches restrict flow to a subset (para. [0065]:the inlets and/or outlets may be changed to adjust the flow rates as appropriate) of the plurality of outlets (para. [0027]: one or more of the flow channels may be defined by one or more inlets and/or one or more outlets).
Anderson and Damaraju are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of cooling one or more processing components of a 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 incorporate the restricting flow to a subset of the plurality of outlets such as is described in Damaraju into Anderson, in order to provide the fluid from the outlets of the heat exchanger to cool the one or more processing components (Damaraju, para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 15, it is dependent on claim 10 and has similar limitations as of claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 16, it is dependent on claim 10 and has similar limitations as of claim 4 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 17, it is dependent on claim 10 and has similar limitations as of claim 5 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 18, it is dependent on claim 10 and has similar limitations as of claim 6 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 19, it is dependent on claim 10 and has similar limitations as of claim 7 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 7 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Krank et al. (DE 102021133902 A1) teaches that the invention relates to a circulating sump device for an electric drive unit of a motor vehicle, which can be lubricated and/or temperature-controlled by means of a lubricant, having a lubricant sump with a first axial area and a second axial area, a lubricant reservoir which extends below and with the lubricant sump by means of a lubricant -Drain opening is connected to a lubricant sump pump line which is adapted to pump lubricant from the second axial region of the lubricant sump into the lubricant reservoir.
Dadam et al. (US 2021/0071555 A1) teaches that methods and systems are provided for an exhaust tuning valve. In one example, a method may include adjusting the exhaust tuning valve in response to a steering wheel angle input. Additionally or alternatively, the position of the exhaust tuning valve may be adjusted differently in response to a same steering wheel angle input during different driving behaviors.
Styron et al. (US 2016/0186647 A1) teaches that methods and systems are providing for improving engine coolant level estimation to reduce engine overheating. The level of fluid in a coolant overflow reservoir is inferred based on the fluid level in a hollow vertical standpipe fluidically coupled to the reservoir at top and bottom locations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-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, LEE RODARK can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858