DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-22 are presented for examination on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
3. 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
4. Claims 1-3, 8-10 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by VanderZanden (US 2019/0324446 A1).
As to claim 1, VanderZanden discloses in remotely controlling use of an on-demand electric vehicle having claimed:
a. a vehicle comprising: a motor to generate torques that are applied to one or more drive wheels to cause the one or more drive wheels to rotate and propel the vehicle read on ¶ 0029, (aspects of the vehicle that may need be controlled herein include without limitation any type of: lights, speakers, wheels, steering apparatuses, brakes, motors, power systems, or any other system or component that is part of an electric vehicle system);
b. one or more sensors to provide a sensed input that indicates rotational motion of the one or more drive wheels; and processing circuitry to at least: receive an indication of unauthorized use of the vehicle; receive the sensed input from the one or more sensors; and based on the indication of unauthorized use of the vehicle read on ¶ 0186, (the lock is locked or unlocked automatically, semi-automatically, or completely manually by the user. In various embodiments, the lock automatically locks if a user ends a ride (e.g., wheel or steering mechanism lock), if it senses that it is near a structure it can be locked onto (e.g., based on geo-location, contact sensor, computer vision, RF tag on rack or pole), if it senses that it is being stolen (e.g., movement detected when vehicle is not in an authorized use state), etc. In some embodiments, the lock automatically unlocks if it senses that a rider is within a pre-defined GPS locational area);
c. command the motor to generate a torque that is opposite the indicated rotational motion of the one or more drive wheels, the generated torque applied to the one or more drive wheels to counteract the indicated rotational motion of the one or more drive wheels read on ¶ 0172, (the motor controller 1006 is configured when in the “locked” mode to use an opposite-acting motor to apply a torque in an opposite direction of rotation to the direction in which an unauthorized user is attempting to push or ride the vehicle).
As to claim 2, VanderZanden further discloses:
a. wherein the indicated rotational motion of the one or more drive wheels is caused by an external force that is applied to the vehicle and thereby the one or more drive wheels, and the generated torque is applied to the one or more drive wheels to counteract the external force read on ¶ 0172, ( the motor controller 1006 is configured when in the “locked” mode to use an opposite-acting motor to apply a torque in an opposite direction of rotation to the direction in which an unauthorized user is attempting to push or ride the vehicle).
As to claim 3, VanderZanden further discloses:
a. wherein the processing circuitry is to determine a direction of rotation of the one or more drive wheels from the sensed input, and the torque is generated based on the determined direction of rotation read on ¶ 0172, (the motor controller 1006 is configured when in the “locked” mode to use an opposite-acting motor to apply a torque in an opposite direction of rotation to the direction in which an unauthorized user is attempting to push or ride the vehicle).
As to claims 8 and 15, the claims are interpreted and rejected as to claim 1. VanderZanden further discloses an apparatus comprising: a memory to store computer-readable program code; and processing circuitry to access the memory, and execute the computer-readable program code to cause the apparatus read on ¶ 0025, (a computer program product embodied on a computer readable storage medium; and/or a processor, such as a processor configured to execute instructions stored on and/or provided by a memory coupled to the processor. In this specification, these implementations, or any other form that the invention may take, may be referred to as techniques. In general, the order of the steps of disclosed processes may be altered within the scope of the invention. Unless stated otherwise, a component such as a processor or a memory described as being configured to perform a task may be implemented as a general component that is temporarily configured to perform the task at a given time or a specific component that is manufactured to perform the task).
As to claims 9 and 16, the claims are interpreted and rejected as to claim 2.
As to claims 10 and 17, the claims are interpreted and rejected as to claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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 of this title, 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.
7. Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanderZanden in view of Hsu (EP 3492356 A1).
As to claim 4, VanderZanden does not explicitly recite wherein the processing circuitry is to determine a rotational speed of the one or more drive wheels from the sensed input, and wherein the processing circuitry is to determine a magnitude of force based on the determined rotational speed, and command the motor to generate the torque that is opposite the indicated rotational motion of the one or more drive wheels having the determined magnitude of force.
However, Hsu in security mechanisms and associated systems for electric motors cures this deficiency by teaching that it may be beneficial wherein the processing circuitry is to determine a rotational speed of the one or more drive wheels from the sensed input, and wherein the processing circuitry is to determine a magnitude of force based on the determined rotational speed, and command the motor to generate the torque that is opposite the indicated rotational motion of the one or more drive wheels having the determined magnitude of force read on Page 3, Para. 1, (when an unauthorized action creates a greater magnetic field change (e.g., to rotate the motor faster), the present system can respond with a greater induced force/torque to impede or restrain the unauthorized action. For example, when an unauthorized user slowly rotates a wheel driven by the electric motor of the present system, the unauthorized user may still be able to rotate the wheel; however, he/she can "feel" an induced torque, in a direction opposite the moving direction, generated by the present system to "slow" him/her down. When the unauthorized user increases the rotational speed, the induced force/torque can escalate accordingly, which makes the unauthorized rotation more and more difficult. As a result, the "coil-based" or "motor-based" security mechanism or system that can effectively prevent, or at least impede, unauthorized activities of an electric motor having multiple sets of coils and to prevent an unauthorized use).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was filed to incorporate the security mechanisms for electric motors and associated systems of Hsu into VanderZanden in order to provide a coil-based security mechanism or system that can generate a countering torque in response to unauthorized user actions.
As to claims 11 and 18, the claims are interpreted and rejected as to claim 4.
8. Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanderZanden in view of Yates (US 20230249644 A1).
As to claim 5, VanderZanden does not explicitly recite wherein the processing circuitry is to wait an amount of time after the sensed input is received.
However, Yates cures this deficiency by teaching that it may be beneficial wherein the processing circuitry is to wait an amount of time after the sensed input is received read on ¶ 0018, (directed to a method of responding to an unauthorized possession of a vehicle configured to transport at least one person. The device includes apparatus for: obtaining the vehicle with an associated safety system, the safety system configured to at least one of: a) generate at least one form of detectable signal; b) generate an electronic signal transmittable to a device; and c) generate at least one image of a person in/on the vehicle; and generating an input to cause the system to generate at least one of: i) the at least one form of detectable signal that can be sensed by persons in the vicinity of the vehicle; ii) the electronic signal may be delayed for a period after activation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was filed to incorporate the vehicle equipped with safety system and method of responding to an unauthorized possession of a vehicle of Yates into VanderZanden in order to provides some level of tempering of a victim's reaction with the understanding that an immediate confrontation is not necessary to recover the vehicle and/or its contents, as might trigger a violent or deadly reaction on the part of the carjacker(s).
As to claim 6, Yates further teaches:
a. wherein the processing circuitry is to randomly select the amount of time from within a defined time frame read on ¶ 0066, (the delay feature 20 may be such that the time interval is a predetermined fixed time interval. Alternatively, the safety system 10′″ may incorporate the ability to set a time interval through the delay feature 20 at different lengths).
As to claims 12 and 19, the claims are interpreted and rejected as to claim 5.
As to claims 13 and 20, the claims are interpreted and rejected as to claim 6.
9. Claim 7, 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanderZanden in view of 三瓶 喜生 (hereinafter Sānpíng xǐ shēng JP 4091296 B2).
VanderZanden does not explicitly recite the motor is to cease generation of the torque after the amount of time.
However, Sānpíng xǐ shēng cures this deficiency by teaching that it may be beneficial wherein the processing circuitry is to command the motor to generate the torque for an amount of time, and the motor is to cease generation of the torque after the amount of time read on ¶ 0013, (unauthorized movement of the operation unit is prevented and the operation unit is stably held at a position where the hand is released. Therefore, the operation unit can be held at a required position without adding means such as a touch sensor. For example, when the operation unit is used as a channel selection knob of a radio, the operation unit is specified with a specific operation direction. It is possible to cope with the case where it is necessary to stop at the position. Similarly, in a haptic controller that automatically stops the operation unit at a predetermined position after releasing the hand, such as a center return type haptic controller, the operation unit is moved to a predetermined position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was filed to incorporate the haptic controller of Sānpíng xǐ shēng into VanderZanden in order to provide an actuator in the direction opposite to the moving direction of the operating unit, so that excessive force output to the operating unit is suppressed. As a result, undesired movement such as vibration is prevented, and the operation unit can be quickly stopped at a required stop position.
As to claims 14 and 21, the claims are interpreted and rejected as to claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. However, an updated search will need to be performed after the next response from Applicant.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 are maintained.
I. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2)
Claims 1–3, 8–10, and 15–17 — VanderZanden
Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15
Applicant argues that VanderZanden fails to disclose (i) sensors indicating rotational motion of the drive wheels and (ii) commanding the motor to generate torque opposite the indicated rotational motion using the same motor. These arguments are unpersuasive.
A. Sensors Indicating Rotational Motion
Applicant asserts that VanderZanden’s disclosure of onboard sensors (e.g., accelerometers, gyroscopes) does not teach sensing “rotational motion of the one or more drive wheels.”
This argument is not persuasive because VanderZanden expressly teaches detecting unauthorized movement of the vehicle, including wheel movement, using onboard sensors. See VanderZanden ¶¶ 133–143, 179–186. Accelerometers and gyroscopes inherently detect rotational and translational motion of the vehicle, which necessarily includes rotational motion of the drive wheels when the vehicle is pushed or ridden. The claims do not require a wheel-mounted rotational encoder or a sensor that measures rotation directly at the axle.
Nothing in claim 1 limits the “one or more sensors” to a particular sensor type or mounting location. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, sensing rotational motion of the drive wheels encompasses sensing vehicle motion caused by wheel rotation. VanderZanden’s onboard motion sensors therefore reasonably meet this limitation.
Applicant’s argument improperly imports a narrower interpretation that is not supported by the claim language.
VanderZanden explicitly discloses onboard sensors, including accelerometers and gyroscopes, used to detect vehicle movement and motion states (¶¶ 140–143). Such sensors inherently detect motion indicative of wheel rotation when the vehicle is being pushed or ridden. The claims do not require that the sensor directly measure wheel rotation (e.g., via an encoder), only that the sensed input indicates rotational motion of the drive wheels. Detecting vehicle movement caused by wheel rotation reasonably meets this limitation.
It is well established that anticipation does not require ipsissimis verbis disclosure, but rather disclosure sufficient to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the claimed subject matter. See In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
B. Commanding the Motor to Apply Opposing Torque
Applicant further argues that VanderZanden relies on an “opposite-acting motor” distinct from the main electric motor. This argument is likewise unpersuasive. Claim 1 does not exclude the use of multiple motors, nor does it require that the same motor used for propulsion must be the only motor capable of generating counter-torque. The claim merely recites “a motor” configured to generate torque applied to the drive wheels and to generate torque opposite the indicated rotational motion. VanderZanden explicitly teaches applying torque in a direction opposite the unauthorized rotation to resist movement of the vehicle. See VanderZanden ¶ 172. Whether this torque is generated by a propulsion motor, a braking motor, or a motor configured to oppose rotation is immaterial, as the claim does not distinguish among such configurations.
Accordingly, VanderZanden discloses all limitations of independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
Dependent Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17
Applicant argues that these claims are patentable “at least by virtue of their respective dependencies.”
This argument is conclusory and does not specifically identify any claim limitation that is not disclosed by VanderZanden. As independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are anticipated, and Applicant has not separately argued the dependent claims, claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 fall with their respective independent claims.
II. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 — VanderZanden in view of Yates
Applicant argues that Yates is non-analogous art and that there is no motivation to combine. These arguments are not persuasive.
A. Analogous Art
Yates is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the claims, namely deterring or responding to unauthorized vehicle use. While Yates discusses carjacking scenarios, it broadly addresses vehicle security systems that delay system responses to achieve a desired safety or deterrence effect. The field of endeavor is vehicle security and unauthorized use mitigation, which overlaps with the claimed subject matter.
The test for analogous art does not require that the reference address the identical vehicle type or threat scenario. Yates’ disclosure of delayed system responses to unauthorized use is reasonably pertinent to Applicant’s problem of controlling system behavior in response to unauthorized vehicle movement.
B. Motivation to Combine
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Yates’ delayed response technique into VanderZanden’s system to control the timing of counter-torque application, thereby tuning deterrence behavior, reducing false positives, or managing system stability.
The motivation need not be identical to Yates’ stated purpose of tempering a victim’s reaction. The delay feature itself is a known control strategy applicable across vehicle security systems. Adapting such timing control to VanderZanden’s counter-torque system represents a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites waiting an amount of time after the sensed input is received before commanding the motor to generate counter-torque.
Yates expressly teaches delaying system actions after activation. See Yates ¶ 18. Applying this delay to VanderZanden’s torque-based deterrence system would have been an obvious design choice.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites randomly selecting the amount of time from within a defined time frame.
Yates teaches adjustable and variable delay intervals. See Yates ¶ 66. Selecting a delay value randomly within a defined range is an obvious variation of selecting among different delay values, particularly to increase unpredictability in a deterrence system.
Applicant’s argument that Yates does not expressly disclose randomness is unpersuasive, as random selection is a well-known technique for varying system responses and represents an obvious implementation choice.
Claims 12, 13, 19, and 20
These claims recite limitations analogous to claims 5 and 6 and are rejected for the same reasons.
III. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 7, 14, and 21 — VanderZanden in view of Sheng
Applicant argues that Sheng is non-analogous art and fails to teach ceasing torque generation after an amount of time.
These arguments are not persuasive.
A. Analogous Art
Sheng is reasonably pertinent to the problem of controlling motor-generated resistive forces applied to moving components to achieve stable stopping behavior. While Sheng is described in the context of automotive haptic controllers, it teaches general principles of applying and ceasing opposing forces to counteract motion.
The claimed invention is not limited to a particular vehicle size or environment, and the problem of managing counter-torque behavior is shared between Sheng and VanderZanden.
B. Claim 7
Claim 7 recites that the motor ceases generation of torque after the amount of time.
Sheng teaches applying an opposing force during motion and stopping force application once the desired condition is met. See Sheng ¶ 13. Although Sheng discusses stopping based on position, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that time-based cessation of force is an obvious alternative control strategy. Adapting Sheng’s teaching to cease counter-torque after a predetermined duration in VanderZanden’s system would have been a predictable and obvious modification.
Claims 14 and 21
Claims 14 and 21 depend from claims rejected for similar reasons and are unpatentable for at least the same reasons as claim 7.
Conclusion
12. For the reasons set forth above:
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) of claims 1–3, 8–10, and 15–17 are maintained.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 4–7, 11–14, and 18–21 are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but do not overcome the outstanding rejections.
Citation of pertinent Prior Arts
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Conclusion
14. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fekadeselassie Girma whose telephone number is (571)270-5886. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am - 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta W. Goins can be reached on (571) 272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Fekadeselassie Girma/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2689