DETAILED ACTION
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 Claims
This Office Action is a Non-Final Office Action. Claims 1-16 are currently pending and addressed below; claims 1 and 9 have been amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/11/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s amendments, Examiner withdraws the previous § 103 rejections; and adds the below § 103 rejections necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 9 under Napier et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0270082 to Ghannam et al., necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 11-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 6,516,925 to Napier et al. (previously of record) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0270082 to Ghannam et al. (previously of record).
Regarding claim 1, Napier et al. discloses:
A connected driving control method of controlling connected driving of a first mobility device and a second mobility device, the method comprising:
connecting communicatively the first mobility device and the second mobility device (Figure 1, Ref. No. 44 communication bus between the first and second mobility devices), wherein the first mobility device (Figure 1, Ref. No. 12) comprising a plurality of first wheels (Figure 1, Ref. No. 40), a first high-voltage battery supplying power (Figure 1, Ref. No. 36), and a first pivot mechanism (Figure 1, Ref. No. 49; Col. 3, ll. 61-63 describing the physical connection between the two vehicles as a conventional trailer hitch), and the second mobility device (Figure 1, Ref. No. 10) comprising a second left wheel (Figure 1, Ref. No. 42), a second right wheel (Figure 1, Ref. No. 42), a second high-voltage battery supplying power (Figure 1, Ref. No. 38), and a second pivot mechanism configured to be mechanically connected to the first pivot mechanism (Figure 1, Ref. No. 49; Col. 3, ll. 61-63 describing the physical connection between the two vehicles as a conventional trailer hitch, which includes pivot mechanisms on both the first and second vehicles);
determining whether to switch to a braking mode for the second mobility device; and in the braking mode, applying a braking torque determined according to a deceleration state of the second mobility device to the at least one second drive motor (Col. 5, ll. 9-25 describing determining whether to wake the braking controller in the second device, determines deceleration of the vehicle, and calculates the braking force to apply based on the deceleration).
Napier et al. further discloses another embodiment where the second vehicle, or the towed vehicle, is determining the regenerative braking torque to apply to the axle assembly to provide regenerative power to the battery (Col. 6, ll. 4-30 describing the regenerative braking functionality of the Napier et al.’s invention).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Napier et al.’s embodiment of the braking determination of the second vehicle to incorporate the embodiment describing regenerative braking with a reasonable expectation of success in utilizing the braking to recharge the high-voltage and low-voltage batteries (Napier et al. at Col. 6, ll. 20-30). Furthermore, Napier et al. states that the regenerative breaking aspect can be implemented on any trailers, vehicles, and conveyances, which would necessarily include the embodiment described with respect to Figures 1-4 (Napier et al. at Col. 5, ll. 60-63).
Napier et al. does not expressly disclose a first drive motor providing a driving force or a second motor providing a driving force to the second left wheel and second right wheel when traveling forward.
Ghannam et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches a first driving motor providing a driving force for a first mobility device (¶ [0022] describing the first vehicle having an internal combustion engine that drive the vehicle) and a second driving motor providing a driving force to the wheels of the second mobility device (¶ [0023] describing the second vehicle, or trailer, moving on its own via drive motor; see also Figure 2, Ref. No. 234 Trailer Wheel Drive Motor).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Napier et al.’s invention to incorporate a first driving motor and a second driving motor, at taught by Ghannam et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in providing the ability to deactivate the trailer wheel drive motor in circumstances like traveling on a downgraded road, and to engage in regenerative braking mode to harvest kinetic energy while traveling on the downgraded road (Ghannam et al. at ¶ [0017]).
Regarding claim 9, Napier et al. discloses:
An add-on mobility device (Figure 1, Ref. No. 14), mechanically connected to and capable of traveling together with a front mobility device which comprises a plurality of first wheels (Figure 1, Ref. No. 42), at least one first drive motor providing a driving force to the plurality of first wheels (Figure 1, Ref. No. 20), a first high-voltage battery supplying power to the at least one first drive motor (Figure 1, Ref. No. 36), a first controller controlling the first drive motor (Figure 1, Ref. No. 32), and a first pivot mechanism (Figure 1, Ref. No. 49; Col. 3, ll. 61-63 describing the physical connection between the two vehicles as a conventional trailer hitch), the add-on mobility device comprising:
a frame comprising a second pivot mechanism mechanically connected to the first pivot mechanism (Figure 1, Ref. No. 14 frame, and 49 conventional hitch; Col. 3, ll. 61-63 describing the physical connection between the two vehicles as a conventional trailer hitch);
a second left wheel mounted on a left side of the frame (Figure 1, Ref. No. 42 on the left side);
a second right wheel mounted on a right side of the frame (Figure 1, Ref. No. 42 on the right side);
at least one second drive motor configured to provide a driving force to the second left wheel and the second right wheel (Figure 1, Ref. No. 22);
a second high-voltage battery configured to supply power to the second drive motor (Figure 1, Ref. No. 38); and
a second controller configured to control the second drive motor (Figure 1, Ref. No. 34),
wherein the second controller comprises a non-transitory storage medium storing a computer program for driving control for the add-on mobility device; and a processor configured to execute the computer program (Col. 6, ll. 30-34 describing the processors, integrated circuits, and chips that cooperatively control the operation of the system);
wherein the driving control for the add-on mobility device comprises:
connecting communicatively to the front mobility device, wherein the front mobility device comprises a plurality of first wheels (Figure 1, Ref. No. 42), a first high-voltage battery supplying power (Figure 1, Ref. No. 36), a first controller (Figure 1, Ref. No. 32), and a first pivot mechanism (Figure 1, Ref. No. 49; Col. 3, ll. 61-63 describing the physical connection between the two vehicles as a conventional trailer hitch);
determining whether to switch to the braking mode for the add-on mobility device; and in the braking mode, applying a braking torque determined according to a deceleration state of the add-on mobility device (Col. 5, ll. 9-25 describing determining whether to wake the braking controller in the second device, determines deceleration of the vehicle, and calculates the braking force to apply based on the deceleration).
Napier et al. further discloses another embodiment where the second vehicle, or the towed vehicle, is determining the regenerative braking torque to apply to the axle assembly to provide regenerative power to the battery (Col. 6, ll. 4-30 describing the regenerative braking functionality of the Napier et al.’s invention).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Napier et al.’s embodiment of the braking determination of the second vehicle to incorporate the embodiment describing regenerative braking with a reasonable expectation of success in utilizing the braking to recharge the high-voltage and low-voltage batteries (Napier et al. at Col. 6, ll. 20-30). Furthermore, Napier et al. states that the regenerative breaking aspect can be implemented on any trailers, vehicles, and conveyances, which would necessarily include the embodiment described with respect to Figures 1-4 (Napier et al. at Col. 5, ll. 60-63).
Napier et al. does not expressly disclose a first drive motor providing a driving force or a second motor providing a driving force to the second left wheel and second right wheel when traveling forward.
Ghannam et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches a first driving motor providing a driving force for a first mobility device (¶ [0022] describing the first vehicle having an internal combustion engine that drive the vehicle) and a second driving motor providing a driving force to the wheels of the second mobility device (¶ [0023] describing the second vehicle, or trailer, moving on its own via drive motor; see also Figure 2, Ref. No. 234 Trailer Wheel Drive Motor).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Napier et al.’s invention to incorporate a first driving motor and a second driving motor, at taught by Ghannam et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in providing the ability to deactivate the trailer wheel drive motor in circumstances like traveling on a downgraded road, and to engage in regenerative braking mode to harvest kinetic energy while traveling on the downgraded road (Ghannam et al. at ¶ [0017]).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, the combination of Napier et al. and Ghannam et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claims 1 and 9. Napier et al., as modified, further discloses:
wherein determining whether to switch to the regenerative braking mode comprises:
receiving a brake signal of the first mobility device to perform the determining (Col. 5, ll. 9-25 describing receiving the “wake” signal from the first vehicle to begin the braking mode).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, the combination of Napier et al. and Ghannam et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claims 3 and 11. Napier et al., as modified, further discloses:
wherein determining whether to switch to the regenerative braking mode further comprises:
receiving an acceleration sensor signal of the second mobility device to perform the determining (Col. 5, ll. 9-25 describing receiving acceleration data of the second vehicle via a conventional accelerometer).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, the combination of Napier et al. and Ghannam et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claims 4 and 12. Napier et al., as modified, further discloses:
wherein determining whether to switch to the regenerative braking mode further comprises:
when it is determined that the first mobility device is in a braking state from the brake signal and the second mobility device is in the deceleration state from the acceleration sensor signal, determining to switch to the regenerative braking mode (Col. 5, ll. 9-25 describing receiving a braking signal from the first vehicle, determining the deceleration state of the second vehicle, and determining to switch to braking).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, the combination of Napier et al. and Ghannam et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claims 1 and 9. Napier et al., as modified, further discloses:
wherein the at least one second drive motor comprises:
a second left drive motor that provides a driving force to the second left wheel, and a second right drive motor that provides a driving force to the second right wheel (Figure 5 depicting a left motor and a right motor of the second vehicle, or towed vehicle).
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Napier et al. and Ghannam et al., as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0152330 to Lee et al. (previously of record).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, the combination of Napier et al. and Ghannam et al. renders all limitations of claims 1 and 9 obvious. Napier et al., as modified, further discloses:
wherein the first mobility device further comprises a first controller (Figure 1, Ref. No. 32), and wherein the second mobility device further comprises a third connector electrically and removably connected to the first connector and connected to the second high-voltage battery (Figure 1, Ref. Nos. 44, 48).
Napier et al. does not expressly disclose at least one electric device that operates at a low voltage, a low-voltage battery that supplies power to the at least one electric device, a first direct current (DC) to DC (DC/DC) converter connected between the first high-voltage battery and the low-voltage battery, a second DC/DC converter connected to the first high-voltage battery, and a first connector connected to the second DC/DC converter, wherein the first controller is configured to control the second DC/DC converter according to a state of the first high-voltage battery and a state of the second high-voltage battery to charge the first high-voltage battery with the power of the second high-voltage battery.
Lee et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches use of a low-voltage battery to supply power to low voltage devices and a bidirectional DC/DC converter between the high-voltage battery and the low-voltage battery (¶ [0036] describing the use of DC/DC converters between the high-voltage battery and the low-voltage battery; see also Figure 1, AUX and low-voltage battery 10; ¶ [0033] describing powering the low-voltage devices from the low-voltage battery).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Napier et al.’s invention to incorporate at least one electric device that operates at a low voltage, a low-voltage battery that supplies power to the at least one electric device, a first direct current (DC) to DC (DC/DC) converter connected between the first high-voltage battery and the low-voltage battery, a second DC/DC converter connected to the first high-voltage battery, and a first connector connected to the second DC/DC converter, at taught by Lee et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in redirecting power from the high-voltage battery, which requires conversion to low-voltage, to power axillary devices and/or power a second motor, and to allow the low-voltage battery to drive the motor based on the state of the high-voltage battery (Lee et al. at ¶¶ [0008] – [0011).
Ghannam et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first controller is configured to control the second DC/DC converter according to a state of the first high-voltage battery and a state of the second high-voltage battery to charge the first high-voltage battery with the power of the second high-voltage battery (¶ [0083] describing transferring power from the trailer battery to the vehicle battery when the SoC of the vehicle battery is below a threshold).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Napier et al.’s invention to incorporate charging the first battery with power from the second battery, at taught by Ghannam et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in utilizing the trailer battery as a power source when the charge of the first battery drops below a threshold or when the user directs the power to be transferred from the second battery to the first battery (Ghannam et al. at ¶¶ [0031], [0083]).
Claims 6, 7, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Napier et al. and Ghannam et al., as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0162868 to Hsu. (previously of record).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, the combination of Napier et al. and Ghannam et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claims 1 and 9.
Naper et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the deceleration state comprises a plurality of phases, and wherein the regenerative braking torque is determined according to each of the plurality of phases.
Hsu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining the regenerative braking torque based on a plurality of phases (¶¶ [0019] – [0023] describing the different phases of acceleration/deceleration via the PWM duty cycle and how the charge from regenerative braking is determined based on the phases; see also Figures 1 and 2, First Stage and Second Stage).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Napier et al.’s invention to incorporate determining the regenerative braking torque in a plurality of phases, at taught by Hsu, with a reasonable expectation of success in converting the recharge current to heat energy when during a phase in which the battery is fully charged and the motor does not require current, which prevents the battery pack from being burnt by excessive recharge current (Hsu at ¶ [0025]).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, the combination of Napier et al., Ghannam et al., and Hsu renders obvious all the limitations of claims 6 and 14. Hsu further discloses:
wherein the plurality of phases is divided by a set deceleration rate (¶¶ [0019] – [0023] describing the different phases of acceleration/deceleration via the PWM duty cycle and how the charge from regenerative braking is determined based on the phases, which includes specific deceleration rates that are correlated to the PWM duty cycle; see also Figures 1 and 2, First Stage and Second Stage).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Napier et al.’s invention to incorporate determining the regenerative braking torque in a plurality of phases divided by set deceleration rates, at taught by Hsu, with a reasonable expectation of success in converting the recharge current to heat energy when during a phase in which the battery is fully charged and the motor does not require current, which prevents the battery pack from being burnt by excessive recharge current (Hsu at ¶ [0025]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0377094 to Rabbiosi et al. discloses an add-on mobility device that comprises a motor for providing acceleration, i.e., driving force, of the device as well as regenerative braking while being towed behind a leading mobility device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D HOLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-4pm ET.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/JDH/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666