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 (IDS) submitted on 9 January 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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)(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.
Claims 25-30, 32, 34-46, 48-51 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huett, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0254883).
For claim 25, Huett discloses an electric powered towable habitat, comprising: a frame comprising two or more wheels (see Fig. 2, #14), wherein at least one wheel is positioned on each side of the frame and where the at least one wheel positioned on each side of the frame is associated with a unique electric motor (see Fig. 2, #16, #21); a hitch assembly configured to couple the towable habitat to a towing vehicle (see Fig. 2, #15); at least one sensor configured to gather sensor data (see para. 0038); a power source providing electrical power to each said unique electric motor (see para. 0036); a controller communicatively coupled with each unique electric motor (see para. 0043); and the at least one sensor, said controller being operatively configured to receive sensor data from each sensor and wherein the controller is further configured to generate independent torque commands for each unique electric motor based on the sensor data and a power management protocol (see para. 0043).
Referring to claim 26, Huett further discloses wherein the power management protocol is configured to provide independent torque commands to each unique electric motor based on a towing vehicle parameter (see paras. 0044, 0048-0049).
With regards to claim 27, Huett further discloses wherein the power management protocol is configured to provide independent torque commands to each unique electric motor based on a towable habitat parameter (see paras. 0044, 0048-0049).
Regarding claim 28, Huett further teaches wherein the power management protocol is configured to provide independent torque commands to each unique electric motor based on a route parameter (see paras. 0048-0049).
With reference to claim 29, Huett further teaches wherein the power management protocol is configured to provide independent torque commands to each unique electric motor based on a positional relationship parameter between the towable habitat and the towing vehicle (see para. 0044).
Referring to claim 30, Huett further teaches wherein the power management protocol is configured to provide independent torque commands to each unique electric motor based on a residual power at destination requirement (see para. 0049, 100% equivalent to residual).
With regards to claim 32, Huett further discloses wherein the at least one sensor includes geo-positional data (see para. 0041) and the power management protocol is configured to provide independent torque commands to each unique electric motor based on an elevation gain or loss over a prescribed travel route as determined by the geo-positional data (see para. 0049).
For claim 34, Huett further discloses wherein the power management protocol is configured to provide independent torque commands to each unique electric motor based on sensor data indicative of a towable habitat inclination and a towable habitat weight (see paras. 0037, 0039).
Regarding claim 35, Huett further teaches wherein the at least one sensor is an optical sensor (see para. 0044) and wherein the sensor data provides relative positional data between the towable habitat and a towing vehicle (see paras. 0039, 0044).
With reference to claim 36, Huett further discloses wherein the at least one sensor is a datum movement sensor (see para. 0039) and wherein the sensor data are relative deviations measurements of movement between the towable habitat and a towing vehicle (see para. 0039).
Referring to claim 37, Huett further discloses wherein the power management protocol is configured to provide independent torque commands to each unique electric motor based on sensor data indicative of a change in towable habitat angular momentum (see paras. 0037, 0039).
With regards to claim 38, Huett further teaches wherein the power management protocol is configured to provide independent torque commands to each unique electric motor based on sensor data indicative of a towable habitat inclination and a towable habitat weight (see para. 0037).
For claim 39, Huett further teaches wherein the power management protocol is configured to modify each unique electric motor to a regenerative mode based on a residual power at destination requirement (see para. 0049).
With reference to claim 40, Huett further teaches wherein the at least one sensor includes geo-positional data (see para. 0041) and the power management protocol is configured to modify each unique electric motor between a torque generation mode and a regenerative mode (see para. 0049) and based on an elevation gain or loss over a prescribed travel route as determined by the geo-positional data and a residual power at destination requirement (see para. 0049).
Claim 41 defines substantially similar elements and subject matter as is defined in claim 25. Accordingly, claim 41 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 25.
Claim 42 defines substantially similar elements and subject matter as is defined in claim 26. Accordingly, claim 42 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 26.
Claim 43 defines substantially similar elements and subject matter as is defined in claim 28. Accordingly, claim 43 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 28.
Claim 44 defines substantially similar elements and subject matter as is defined in claim 26. Accordingly, claim 44 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 26.
Claim 45 defines substantially similar elements and subject matter as is defined in claim 29. Accordingly, claim 45 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 29.
Claim 46 defines substantially similar elements and subject matter as is defined in claim 30. Accordingly, claim 46 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 30.
Claim 48 defines substantially similar elements and subject matter as is defined in claim 32. Accordingly, claim 48 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 32.
Claim 49 defines substantially similar elements and subject matter as is defined in claim 34. Accordingly, claim 49 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 34.
Claim 49 defines substantially similar elements and subject matter as is defined in claim 34. Accordingly, claim 49 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 34.
Claim 50 defines substantially similar elements and subject matter as is defined in claim 36. Accordingly, claim 50 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 36.
Claim 51 defines substantially similar elements and subject matter as is defined in claim 38. Accordingly, claim 51 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 38.
Claim 53 defines substantially similar elements and subject matter as is defined in claim 40. Accordingly, claim 53 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 40.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 31, 33, 47 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huett, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0254883).
With reference to claim 31, Huett does not explicitly disclose a user designated power level. However, Huett teaches that the power level after a trip is completed may be 100% (see para. 0049). One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that a user would designate the power level to be 100%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Huett to include a user designated power level based on the motivation to improve a system and method of operation of a towed RV that enables energy to be harvested, stored and used to better benefit the RV user (see para. 0009).
For claim 33, Huett does not explicitly disclose operating the wheel motors based on torque limits. However, when designing the system, one of ordinary skill in the art would be knowledgeable that operating motors beyond their predetermined limits would make the motors prone to failure and a short lifespan. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Huett to operate the motors according to predetermined torque limits based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve a system and method of operation of a towed RV that enables energy to be harvested, stored and used to better benefit the RV user (see para. 0009).
Claim 47 defines substantially similar elements and subject matter as is defined in claim 31. Accordingly, claim 47 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 31.
Referring to claim 52, Huett does not explicitly disclose operating the system based on the rate of power drain. However, Huett discloses monitoring and predicting the power level during and prior to a trip so that a power level be achieved at the end of the trip (see para. 0049). One of ordinary skill in the art would have the knowledge that reaching the power level at the end of the trip requires data on the real-time current level and rate of change of the power on the route. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that the current trip required the rate of power change to reach the desired power level at the end of the current trip based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve a system and method of operation of a towed RV that enables energy to be harvested, stored and used to better benefit the RV user (see para. 0009).
Conclusion
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire cited reference, as well as any secondary teaching reference(s), are considered to provide relevant disclosure relating to the claimed invention. Applicant is herein considered to have implicit knowledge of all teachings of the prior art of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663