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
The argument received on May, 19 2026 has been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-19 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on May, 19 2026 with respect to claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection. However, since the rejection below relies on previously cited prior art, Applicant’s arguments with respect to Anderson in view of Damaraju are addressed as follows:
On the pages 2-3 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that “[T]he Examiner states that "Anderson and Damaraju are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar field of cooling one of more processing components of a vehicle." Anderson is related to the active suspension system of an autonomous vehicle. Anderson makes no mention of cooling processing components. The Examiner states that it would have been obvious to incorporate restricting flow to a subset of outlets into Anderson "in order to provide the fluid from the outlets of the heat exchanger to cool the one or more processing components." The fluid in Anderson is not cooling fluid. It is hydraulic fluid for an active suspension actuator. (Anderson [0058]). The system of Damaraju is inapplicable in the context of the system of Anderson.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Anderson relates to a self-driving vehicle. Damaraju also relates to vehicle. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique of restricting flow to a subset of the plurality of outlets (paras. [0027] and [0065] of Damaraju) to known device, a self-driving vehicles (see paras. [0005]-[0007] of Anderson) because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Further, when combining reference to support an obviousness rejection, the Examiner is not required to incorporate all features of Damaraju into Anderson. Rather, Examiner believes that a person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reviewing Damaraju, would be motivated to modify Anderson to incorporate feature of restricting flow to a subset of the plurality of outlets of Damaraju, since feature of restricting flow to a subset of the plurality of outlets provides the advantageous feature of the vehicle . See MPEP 2145 III, which notes that “the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." Therefore, combination of Anderson and Damaraju can be combined and the combination of Anderson and Damaraju are proper.
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 1-13 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 Kenji et al. (JP 2011126535 A, hereinafter referred to as “Kenji”) and 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 (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 that predicting a lateral acceleration is performed by using the power consumption of an electric pump.
However, Kenji teaches that predicting a lateral acceleration is performed by using the power consumption of an electric pump (page 6, lines 3-8: By the way, the electric load includes a first electric load that consumes electric power according to the steering state of the vehicle…The electric load includes a second electric load that consumes electric power according to a lateral acceleration of the vehicle; page 7, lines 16-19: The electric brake device 3 (hereinafter, referred to as “electric brake 3”) is designed to improve the stability of the behavior of the vehicle according to the state of the vehicle such as lateral acceleration, yaw rate, rudder angle, etc. Adjust braking force automatically. The electric brake 3 includes a braking force adjusting motor (VSC motor) and a braking force adjusting computer (VSC-ECU). The VSC motor is a motor that drives a pump that adjusts the hydraulic pressure for adjusting the braking force, note that the above feature of “electric load that consumes electric power according to a lateral acceleration of the vehicle” in page 6, lines 3-8 and “The electric brake 3 including a braking force adjusting motor (VSC motor) that derives a pump that adjusts the hydraulic pressure for adjusting the braking force” in page 7, lines 16-19 reads on “predicting a lateral acceleration is performed by using the power consumption of an electric pump” because power consumption of an electric pump is depended on usage of a braking force adjusting motor (VSC motor), which drives a pump and electric power is consumed according to a lateral acceleration of the vehicle).
Anderson and Kenji are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed controls power supply to an electric load mounted on 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 predicting the lateral acceleration using the power consumption of an electric pump such as is described in Kenji into Anderson, in order to provide a vehicular power supply control device that can effectively use limited suppliable power (Kenji, page 5, lines 10-11).
Anderson, Ito, and Kenji 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 relates to a self-driving vehicle. Damaraju also relates to vehicle. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique of restricting flow to a subset of the plurality of outlets (paras. [0027] and [0065] of Damaraju) to known device, a self-driving vehicles (see paras. [0005]-[0007] of Anderson) because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Further, when combining reference to support an obviousness rejection, the Examiner is not required to incorporate all features of Damaraju into Anderson. Rather, Examiner believes that a person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reviewing Damaraju, would be motivated to modify Anderson to incorporate feature of restricting flow to a subset of the plurality of outlets of Damaraju, since feature of restricting flow to a subset of the plurality of outlets provides the advantageous feature of the vehicle . See MPEP 2145 III, which notes that “the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." Therefore, combination of Anderson and Damaraju can be combined and the combination of Anderson and Damaraju are proper.
Regarding claim 2, Anderson in view of Ito, Kenji, and Damaraju teaches all the limitation of claim1. Anderson, Kenji, 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, Kenji, 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, Kenji, 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, Kenji, 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, Kenji, 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, Kenji, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-19 are allowed over the prior art of record.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 14, the closest prior art fails to teach a method of detecting an abnormal fluid level that has following the limitations:
“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, restricting flow to a subset of the plurality of outlets.”
Dependent claims 15-19 are patent eligible based on dependence from claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Klaus et al. (DE 102015122158 B4) teaches ubricating device (10) for a wheel set (100) of a vehicle, having a lubricant container (20) and a lubricant pan (30) for collecting lubricant (200) from the lubricated wheel set (100), with a feed line (40) from the lubricant pan ( 30) leading to the lubricant container (20), having a pump device (42) for conveying lubricant (200) from the lubricant pan (30) into the lubricant container (20) and a lubricant spider (60) for supplying the wheel set (100) with lubricant (200).
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 RODAK 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
Prosecution Insights