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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 3/28/2024. Claims 1-8 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. All pending claims therefore have an effective filing date of 9/28/2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, however the request for foreign priority cannot yet be approved due to the lack of certified English copies, per requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d), specifically 35 U.S.C. 119 (b)(3), see below.
(3) The Director may require a certified copy of the original foreign application, specification, and drawings upon which it is based, a translation if not in the English language, and such other information as the Director considers necessary. Any such certification shall be made by the foreign intellectual property authority in which the foreign application was filed and show the date of the application and of the filing of the specification and other papers.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 3/28/2024 and 1/22/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“…a basic setting unit that sets a basic rotation speed…” in claim 1.
“…the basic setting unit sets the basic rotation speed…” in claim 3.
“…the basic setting unit changes the basic rotation speed…” in claim 4.
“…a basic setting unit that sets a basic rotation speed…” in claim 7.
“…a differential setting unit that sets a differential rotation speed…” in claim 1.
“…the differential setting unit sets the differential rotation speed…” in claim 5.
“…a differential setting unit that sets a differential rotation speed…” in claim 7.
“…an action control unit that controls an operation…” in claim 1.
“…an action control unit that controls an operation…” in claim 7.
“…a yaw rate setting unit that sets a target yaw rate…” in claim 5.
“…a first adjustment mechanism that … adjusts a current…” in claim 6.
“…a second adjustment mechanism that … adjusts a current…” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Support for these limitations are as follows:
a basic setting unit:
[0054] “The basic setting unit 110 is a part that performs processing that sets a basic rotation speed Ra... The control device 100 controls the operation of each of the first inverter 211 and the second inverter 221 such that the actual average rotation speed Rb matches the basic rotation speed Ra that has been set by the basic setting unit 110.”
No additional structure for the basic setting unit has been identified.
a differential setting unit:
[0055] “The differential setting unit 120 is a part that performs processing that sets a differential rotation speed... As a result of performing such a control, the difference between the first rotation speed Rb1 and the second rotation speed Rb2 matches the value of 2×ΔR, which is the differential rotation speed. As a result of the differential setting unit 120 appropriately setting the value of the differential rotation speed, the turning operations of the vehicle 10 are controlled.”
No additional structure for the differential setting unit has been identified.
an action control unit:
[0057] “The action control unit 130 is a part that performs processing that controls the operation of each of the first dynamo-electric machine 210 and the second dynamo-electric machine 220…”
No additional structure for the action control unit has been identified.
a yaw rate setting unit:
[0056] “The yaw rate setting unit 121 is a part that performs processing that sets a target yaw rate Ya…”
No additional structure for the yaw rate setting unit has been identified.
a first adjustment mechanism:
[0168] “...Such a first speed control unit 147 and first inverter 211 can be referred to as a “first adjustment mechanism” according to the present embodiment…”
No additional structure for the first adjustment mechanism has been identified.
a second adjustment mechanism:
[0169] “...Such a second speed control unit 149 and second inverter 221 can be referred to as a “second adjustment mechanism” according to the present embodiment…”
No additional structure for the second adjustment mechanism has been identified.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (and analogous claims 7-8) states “…an average value of the first rotation speed and the second rotation speed…” which the Examiner recommends updating to prevent potential misinterpretation of the claims, such as average of each wheel’s speed over a period of time, or alternatively, an instantaneous average of the two different wheels. For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the claim to refer to an average of the overall sum of motor rotation speeds.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, claim 7, and claim 8 recites the limitation "…the number of rotations…the number of rotations…". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 1-2 and claim 8, the claims all currently recite multiple instances of “an operation”. It is thus indefinite as to whether these are referring to the same operation (which in that case, only the first use should say “an operation” and all subsequent uses should say “the operation” for proper antecedent basis back to the original “operation”) or whether they are different “operations” (which in that case, they need to be properly distinguished from each other; for example, by using the terms “a first operation”, “a second operation”, etc., rather than simply saying “an operation” multiple times). Furthermore, if these are meant to be different “operations”, all subsequent uses of “the operations” currently in the claims lack proper antecedent basis because it is unclear as to which of the multiple “an operation” they are in fact referring. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting only the first “an operation” as “an operation” and all subsequent uses of “an operation” are being interpreted to instead be “the operation” (i.e. the Examiner is interpreting all uses of “an operation” and “the operation” to be referring to the same “operation”). Appropriate corrections are required.
Regarding claim 6, the claim currently states “…the first adjustment mechanism is provided with the first dynamo-electric machine in a wheel of the first drive wheel, and the second adjustment mechanism is provided with the second dynamo-electric machine in a wheel of the second drive wheel…” which is indefinite because the structure of the wheel is unclear to the Examiner. For sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the claim to instead state “…the first adjustment mechanism is provided with the first dynamo-electric machine in
Regarding claim 8, the claim currently states “…a program for a moving body, the moving body provided with…the program causing the control device to perform the steps of...” which the Examiner notes is indefinite because the claim is directed to the moving body itself, but also directed to the steps executed by the software of the moving body. It appears the claim is intended to be directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and will thus be interpreted as such, rather than detailing an apparatus.
Claim limitations “…a basic setting unit that sets a basic rotation speed…”; “…a differential setting unit that sets a differential rotation speed…”; “…an action control unit that controls an operation…”; “…a yaw rate setting unit that sets a target yaw rate…”; “…a first adjustment mechanism that … adjusts a current…”; “…a second adjustment mechanism that … adjusts a current…” (applicable to claims 1 and 3-7) each invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Neither the claims nor specification detail the structure of “a basic setting unit”; “a differential setting unit”; “an action control unit”; “a yaw rate setting unit”; “a first adjustment mechanism”; or “a second adjustment mechanism”. At best, the specification describes the units as being a part that performs processing, along with being depicted as being part of the control device, shown in Figure 4; and similarly, describes the mechanisms as being [optionally, “can be referred to”] associated with a speed control unit and inverter. In view of this information, the claimed units and mechanisms can be interpreted as part of a processor that carries out the function(s) listed, but is not limited to this assumption. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention is directed to a non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 8 is directed to “A program for a moving body...”. Functional descriptive material such as a computer program must be structurally and functionally interrelated with a medium to allow its intended uses to be realized. Accordingly, claims directed to software per se are not statutory subject matter. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1760 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP § 2106.01 for further guidance and discussion on computer-related nonstatutory subject matter.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii et al. (US-2009/0000839; hereinafter Ishii; already of record from IDS) in view of Kishi et al. (US-2019/0217860; hereinafter Kishi).
Regarding claim 1, Ishii discloses a moving body (see Ishii at least [0142] “FIG. 1 is a side view of a riding lawnmower 10, and FIG. 2 is an abbreviated top view that illustrates components on a main frame 12 in the riding lawnmower 10...”) comprising:
a first drive wheel disposed on a left side (see Ishii at least Fig 1-2 and [0143] "As shown in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, the riding lawnmower 10 is a self-propelled off-road vehicle suited to lawn mowing in which components such as left and right wheels 40 and 42 as main drive wheels, left and right caster wheels 44 and 46 as steering control wheels, a mower deck 20 provided with a lawnmower blade as a lawnmower rotary tool, and a seat 14 on which an operator sits and performs steering for lawn mowing work are attached to the main frame 12.");
a first dynamo-electric machine that imparts torque to the first drive wheel (see Ishii at least Fig 1-2 and [0145] "...Further, electric-motor axle rotating machines 50 and 52 that are driving sources of the left and right wheels 40 and 42, steering control wheel electric rotary machines 54 and 56 that are driving sources of the left and right caster wheels 44 and 46, steering actuators 60 and 62, a mower-related electric rotary machine 32 that is a driving source of a lawnmower blade of the mower deck 20, and a power transmission shaft mechanism 34 are each disposed on the bottom surface side of the main frame 12...");
a second drive wheel disposed on a right side (see Ishii at least Fig 1-2 and [0143] "As shown in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, the riding lawnmower 10 is a self-propelled off-road vehicle suited to lawn mowing in which components such as left and right wheels 40 and 42 as main drive wheels, left and right caster wheels 44 and 46 as steering control wheels, a mower deck 20 provided with a lawnmower blade as a lawnmower rotary tool, and a seat 14 on which an operator sits and performs steering for lawn mowing work are attached to the main frame 12.");
a second dynamo-electric machine that imparts torque to the second drive wheel (see Ishii at least Fig 1-2 and [0145] "...Further, electric-motor axle rotating machines 50 and 52 that are driving sources of the left and right wheels 40 and 42, steering control wheel electric rotary machines 54 and 56 that are driving sources of the left and right caster wheels 44 and 46, steering actuators 60 and 62, a mower-related electric rotary machine 32 that is a driving source of a lawnmower blade of the mower deck 20, and a power transmission shaft mechanism 34 are each disposed on the bottom surface side of the main frame 12...");
driven wheels that rotate due to a reaction force from a road surface, and which change a steering angle due to a reaction force from a road surface (see Ishii at least Fig 1-2 and [0143] "As shown in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, the riding lawnmower 10 is a self-propelled off-road vehicle suited to lawn mowing in which components such as left and right wheels 40 and 42 as main drive wheels, left and right caster wheels 44 and 46 as steering control wheels, a mower deck 20 provided with a lawnmower blade as a lawnmower rotary tool, and a seat 14 on which an operator sits and performs steering for lawn mowing work are attached to the main frame 12.");
… a first rotation speed, being the number of rotations the first drive wheel makes per unit time (see Ishii at least [0160] “When the steering wheel is rotated in the clockwise direction with the forward-travel side accelerator pedal kept in a state in which it is depressed by an appropriate amount, the rotational speed of the left wheel becomes higher than that of the right wheel and the riding lawnmower 10 can be made to turn right while traveling... When the steering wheel is rotated in the counter-clockwise direction, the rotational speed of the right wheel becomes higher than the rotational speed of the left wheel and the riding lawnmower 10 can be caused to turn left while traveling.” and [0286]-[0287] "…As feedback from the first electric motor 216, signals representing the number of revolutions per unit time, the rotational direction, and the current value and the like are sent to the controllers 244, 246 and 248…As feedback from the second electric motor 218, signals representing the rotational speed (number of revolutions per unit time), rotational direction, current value, and the like are sent to the controllers 244, 246 and 248...");
… a second rotation speed, being the number of rotations the second drive wheel makes per unit time (see Ishii at least [0160] “When the steering wheel is rotated in the clockwise direction with the forward-travel side accelerator pedal kept in a state in which it is depressed by an appropriate amount, the rotational speed of the left wheel becomes higher than that of the right wheel and the riding lawnmower 10 can be made to turn right while traveling... When the steering wheel is rotated in the counter-clockwise direction, the rotational speed of the right wheel becomes higher than the rotational speed of the left wheel and the riding lawnmower 10 can be caused to turn left while traveling.” and [0286]-[0287] "…As feedback from the first electric motor 216, signals representing the number of revolutions per unit time, the rotational direction, and the current value and the like are sent to the controllers 244, 246 and 248…As feedback from the second electric motor 218, signals representing the rotational speed (number of revolutions per unit time), rotational direction, current value, and the like are sent to the controllers 244, 246 and 248..."); and
a control device that controls an operation of the first dynamo-electric machine and the second dynamo-electric machine (see Ishii at least [0146] "Controllers 28, 29, and 30 that perform overall control of the operation of each component such as ... the electric-motor axle rotating machines 50 and 52... In such a case, a driver circuit such as an inverter circuit that is used for the electric-motor axle rotating machines 50 and 52 is principally disposed in the controllers 28 and 29 that are disposed at positions close to the electric-motor axle rotating machines 50 and 52, and a control logic circuit such as a CPU is principally disposed in the controller 30 that is disposed at a position close to the seat 14."),
wherein
the control device comprises:
a basic setting unit that sets a basic rotation speed, being a target value for an average value of the first rotation speed and the second rotation speed (see Ishii at least [0156] "The two lever-type operator 70 is an operator that has a function of regulating the rotational speeds of the left and right wheels 40 and 42 using two levers. For example, a left wheel axle control lever that regulates the number of revolutions per unit time of the left wheel 42 is disposed on the left side of the seat 14 and a right wheel axle control lever that regulates the number of revolutions per unit time of the right wheel 40 is disposed on the right side of the seat 14... The operation amount of each lever is transmitted to the controllers 28, 29, and 30 using a suitable sensor, to thereby control the operation of the electric-motor axle rotating machines 50 and 52 that are connected to the left and right wheels 40 and 42..." and [0176] "As the control of the electric-motor axle rotating machines 50 and 52 and the steering control wheel electric rotary machines 54 and 56, basically the rotational speed is controlled in order to achieve a target traveling speed..."),
a differential setting unit that sets a differential rotation speed, being a target value for a difference between the first rotation speed and the second rotation speed (see Ishii at least [0157]-[0158] "...Thus, the two lever-type operator 70 has a function that can independently regulate the respective rotational speed of the left and right electric-motor axle rotating machines 50 and 52 by operation of the two levers. In this connection, as described below, when also controlling the operations of the steering control wheel electric rotary machines 54 and 56 in combination with the operations of the electric-motor axle rotating machines 50 and 52, the two lever-type operator 70 has a function that, by operation of the two levers, can independently regulate the respective rotational speeds of the left and right electric-motor axle rotating machines 50 and 52, and regulate the rotational speeds of the steering control wheel electric rotary machines 54 and 56 in accordance with the rotational speeds of the electric-motor axle rotating machines 50 and 52... The operation amount of the steering wheel, that is, the steering position, is transmitted to the controllers 28, 29, and 30 using a suitable sensor, and, likewise, the depression amount of each accelerator pedal is transmitted to the controllers 28, 29, and 30 using a suitable sensor to thereby control the operations of the electric-motor axle rotating machines 50 and 52 that are connected to the left and right wheels 40 and 42. As described below, the operations of the steering control wheel electric rotary machines 54 and 56 can also be controlled in combination with the operations of the electric-motor axle rotating machines 50 and 52."), and
an action control unit that controls an operation of the first dynamo-electric machine and the second dynamo-electric machine (see Ishii at least [0146] "Controllers 28, 29, and 30 that perform overall control of the operation of each component such as ... the electric-motor axle rotating machines 50 and 52, ... In such a case, a driver circuit such as an inverter circuit that is used for the electric-motor axle rotating machines 50 and 52 is principally disposed in the controllers 28 and 29 that are disposed at positions close to the electric-motor axle rotating machines 50 and 52, and a control logic circuit such as a CPU is principally disposed in the controller 30 that is disposed at a position close to the seat 14.") such that an average value of the first rotation speed and the second rotation speed becomes the basic rotation speed (see Ishii at least [0176] "As the control of the electric-motor axle rotating machines 50 and 52 and the steering control wheel electric rotary machines 54 and 56, basically the rotational speed is controlled in order to achieve a target traveling speed. In particular, when turning, because the traveling speed is determined by the average rotational speed, which is the average values of the left and right wheels, as well as the turning radius and the like, are determined by the difference between the number of revolutions per unit time of the left and right wheels, control is performed with respect to mutually different rotational speed targets while correlating the operations of the respective electric rotary machines. In this case, during linear travel without turning, because the traveling speed is determined by the relationship with the ground load, torque control is performed with output torque as a target value..."), and a difference between the first rotation speed and the second rotation speed becomes the differential rotation speed (see Ishii at least [0160] "...When the rotation amount of the steering wheel is increased, the difference between the number of left wheel revolutions and the number of right wheel revolutions per unit time increases. Conversely, by decreasing the rotation amount of the steering wheel the difference between the number of left wheel revolutions and the number of right wheel revolutions per unit time can be reduced...").
However, while Ishii describes rotational speed, there is no explicit mention of the following:
…a first rotation speed acquisition unit…
…a second rotation speed acquisition unit…
Kishi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…a first rotation speed acquisition unit (see Kishi at least [0028] "The ECU 23 and the hydraulic device 42 can form an electric servo brake. The ECU 23 can control, for example, distribution of a braking force by the four brake devices 51 and a braking force by regenerative braking of the motor provided in the power plant 50. The ECU 23 can also implement an ABS function, traction control, and the posture control function of the vehicle V based on the detection results of a wheel speed sensor 38 provided on each of the four wheels, a yaw rate sensor (not shown), and a pressure sensor 35 that detects the pressure in the brake master cylinder BM.")…
…a second rotation speed acquisition unit (see Kishi at least [0028] "The ECU 23 and the hydraulic device 42 can form an electric servo brake. The ECU 23 can control, for example, distribution of a braking force by the four brake devices 51 and a braking force by regenerative braking of the motor provided in the power plant 50. The ECU 23 can also implement an ABS function, traction control, and the posture control function of the vehicle V based on the detection results of a wheel speed sensor 38 provided on each of the four wheels, a yaw rate sensor (not shown), and a pressure sensor 35 that detects the pressure in the brake master cylinder BM.")…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the moving body as disclosed by Ishii with multiple wheel speed sensors such as taught by Kishi with a reasonable expectation of success so as to implement various controls to the moving body which benefit from having accurate data representative of the moving body’s current state (see Kishi at least [0028]).
Regarding claim 2, Ishii in view of Kishi teach the moving body according to claim 1, further comprising
an operation unit, which is a part in which an operation by a user is performed (see Ishii at least [0147] "A two lever-type operator 70 for traveling and turning is disposed on the top surface side of the main frame 12, in addition to the seat 14..." and [0237] "...For example, a configuration can be adopted in which, for example, a "normal driving mode/deceleration driving mode" selection switch is provided in the vicinity of the seat 14, and when the normal driving mode is selected by the operator, the control section 100 acquires that selection signal and assumes that the normal control mode has been designated..."), wherein
setting of the basic rotation speed by the basic setting unit, and setting of the differential rotation speed by the differential setting unit are performed based on an operation performed with respect to the operation unit (see Ishii at least [0174] "The description will now return again to FIG. 3. In FIG. 3, the controllers 28, 29, and 30 are circuits having a function to perform overall control of the operations of the riding lawnmower 10. In particular, the controllers 28, 29, and 30 have a function that controls the operations of the electric-motor axle rotating machines 50 and 52, and the steering control wheel electric rotary machines 54 and 56 and the like in accordance with the state of the two lever-type operator 70 or the steering operator 72...").
Regarding claim 3, Ishii in view of Kishi teach the moving body according to claim 1, wherein
the basic setting unit sets the basic rotation speed within a predetermined first range (see Kishi at least [0071] "...In automatic cruise in which a vehicle follows a preceding vehicle while maintaining a constant following distance to the preceding vehicle or automatic cruise in which a vehicle travels while maintaining a vehicle speed within a predetermined range, the frequency of braking for vehicle speed adjustment may become high...").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotation speed as taught by Ishii in view of Kishi with a speed range such as further taught by Kishi with a reasonable expectation of success for the sake of accounting for various conditions within/on the road (see Kishi at least [0076]).
Regarding claim 6, Ishii in view of Kishi teach the moving body according to claim 1, further comprising
a first adjustment mechanism that receives a first command value, being a command value for the first rotation speed, and adjusts a current supplied to the first dynamo-electric machine based on the first command value (see Ishii at least [0175] "The controllers 28, 29, and 30 include a portion with a memory and a control logic circuit such as a CPU that processes vehicle state detection signals of the riding lawnmower 10 and creates control signals for the respective components, and a portion with a driver circuit the drives the electric-motor axle rotating machines 50 and 52, the steering control wheel electric rotary machines 54 and 56, the steering actuators 60 and 62, the mower-related electric rotary machine 32 and the like. The driver circuit in this example includes an inverter circuit. In FIG. 3, in conformity with the content of FIG. 2, a driver circuit for the electric-motor axle rotating machine 50 is exemplified as the controllers 28 and 29. As described above, the controllers 28, 29, and 30 can be configured with a plurality of circuit blocks. In particular, the control logic circuit such as a CPU and memory portion can be configured with a computer or the like suitable for vehicle mounting." and [0283] "...The controllers 244, 246, and 248 are connected to each other with a suitable signal cable or the like. In this case, driver circuits such as inverter circuits that are used for the first electric motor 216 and the second electric motor 218 are principally disposed in the controllers 246 and 244 that are disposed at positions close to the first electric motor 216 and the second electric motor 218, and a control logic circuit such as a CPU is principally disposed in the controller 248 that is disposed at a position close to the driver's seat 226. Here, the controllers 244, 246, and 248 can also be integrated at one or two positions."), and
a second adjustment mechanism that receives a second command value, being a command value for the second rotation speed, and adjusts a current supplied to the second dynamo-electric machine based on the second command value (see Ishii at least [0175] "The controllers 28, 29, and 30 include a portion with a memory and a control logic circuit such as a CPU that processes vehicle state detection signals of the riding lawnmower 10 and creates control signals for the respective components, and a portion with a driver circuit the drives the electric-motor axle rotating machines 50 and 52, the steering control wheel electric rotary machines 54 and 56, the steering actuators 60 and 62, the mower-related electric rotary machine 32 and the like. The driver circuit in this example includes an inverter circuit. In FIG. 3, in conformity with the content of FIG. 2, a driver circuit for the electric-motor axle rotating machine 50 is exemplified as the controllers 28 and 29. As described above, the controllers 28, 29, and 30 can be configured with a plurality of circuit blocks. In particular, the control logic circuit such as a CPU and memory portion can be configured with a computer or the like suitable for vehicle mounting." and [0283] "...The controllers 244, 246, and 248 are connected to each other with a suitable signal cable or the like. In this case, driver circuits such as inverter circuits that are used for the first electric motor 216 and the second electric motor 218 are principally disposed in the controllers 246 and 244 that are disposed at positions close to the first electric motor 216 and the second electric motor 218, and a control logic circuit such as a CPU is principally disposed in the controller 248 that is disposed at a position close to the driver's seat 226. Here, the controllers 244, 246, and 248 can also be integrated at one or two positions."),
wherein
the first adjustment mechanism is provided with the first dynamo-electric machine in a wheel of the first drive wheel (see Ishii at least [0283] "...The controllers 244, 246, and 248 are connected to each other with a suitable signal cable or the like. In this case, driver circuits such as inverter circuits that are used for the first electric motor 216 and the second electric motor 218 are principally disposed in the controllers 246 and 244 that are disposed at positions close to the first electric motor 216 and the second electric motor 218, and a control logic circuit such as a CPU is principally disposed in the controller 248 that is disposed at a position close to the driver's seat 226. Here, the controllers 244, 246, and 248 can also be integrated at one or two positions."), and
the second adjustment mechanism is provided with the second dynamo-electric machine in a wheel of the second drive wheel (see Ishii at least [0283] "...The controllers 244, 246, and 248 are connected to each other with a suitable signal cable or the like. In this case, driver circuits such as inverter circuits that are used for the first electric motor 216 and the second electric motor 218 are principally disposed in the controllers 246 and 244 that are disposed at positions close to the first electric motor 216 and the second electric motor 218, and a control logic circuit such as a CPU is principally disposed in the controller 248 that is disposed at a position close to the driver's seat 226. Here, the controllers 244, 246, and 248 can also be integrated at one or two positions.").
Regarding claim 7, Ishii in view of Kishi teach the analogous material of that in claim 1 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 8, Ishii in view of Kishi teach the analogous material of that in claim 1 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii in view of Kishi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Strandberg (US-2020/0247395).
Regarding claim 4, Ishii in view of Kishi teach the moving body according to claim 1. However, neither Ishii nor Kishi explicitly disclose or teach the following:
the basic setting unit changes the basic rotation speed such that an amount of change per unit time is within a predetermined second range.
Strandberg, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
the basic setting unit changes the basic rotation speed such that an amount of change per unit time is within a predetermined second range (see Strandberg at least [0039] "In previous examples, VCU 102 is configured to control one or more systems of vehicle 100 to keep the speed of vehicle 100 within a defined speed range. In other examples of the disclosure, VCU 102 may be configured to control one or more systems of vehicle 100 to keep the acceleration of vehicle 100 within a predefined acceleration range. VCU 102 may be configured to control for acceleration or may control for both acceleration and speed simultaneously. Like when controlling for speed, VCU 102 may control an electric motor of motors 110, an ICE of motors 110, and/or wheel brakes such that VCU 102 maintains an acceleration of vehicle between an upper acceleration threshold and a lower acceleration threshold...").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device as taught by Ishii in view of Kishi with a change of speed per time that is within a threshold such as taught by Strandberg with a reasonable expectation of success so as to dampen sudden changes in speed or acceleration (see Strandberg at least [0004]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii in view of Kishi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Komatsubara (US-2019/0299777).
Regarding claim 5, Ishii in view of Kishi teach the moving body according to claim 1, further comprising
a yaw rate sensor that measures a yaw rate (see Kishi at least [0028] "...The ECU 23 can also implement an ABS function, traction control, and the posture control function of the vehicle V based on the detection results of a wheel speed sensor 38 provided on each of the four wheels, a yaw rate sensor (not shown), and a pressure sensor 35 that detects the pressure in the brake master cylinder BM."),
…
the differential setting unit sets the differential rotation speed based on [information] (see Ishii at least [0160] "...When the rotation amount of the steering wheel is increased, the difference between the number of left wheel revolutions and the number of right wheel revolutions per unit time increases. Conversely, by decreasing the rotation amount of the steering wheel the difference between the number of left wheel revolutions and the number of right wheel revolutions per unit time can be reduced...") …
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the moving body as taught by Ishii in view of Kishi with a yaw rate sensor such as further taught by Kishi with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those as provided above in claim 1.
However, neither Ishii nor Kishi explicitly disclose or teach the following:
…the control device further comprises a yaw rate setting unit that sets a target yaw rate, which is a target value for the yaw rate…
…a difference between the target yaw rate and an actual yaw rate that has been measured by the yaw rate sensor…
Komatsubara, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…the control device further comprises a yaw rate setting unit that sets a target yaw rate, which is a target value for the yaw rate (see Komatsubara at least [0068] "FIG. 7 is a flow chart illustrating the torque suppression control by the yaw rate deviation ΔY when the vehicle 1 is turning running as shown in FIG. 6. In step ST1, the yaw rate deviation ΔY is calculated. The yaw rate deviation ΔY is calculated in the yaw rate deviation calculation section 521C on the basis of the normative yaw rate Y0, which is the target value of the yaw rate of the vehicle 1 calculated in the normative yaw rate calculation section 521B based on the vehicle speed V and the steering angle δ of the vehicle 1 and the actual yaw rate Y1 of the vehicle 1 detected by the yaw rate sensor S6.")…
…a difference between the target yaw rate and an actual yaw rate that has been measured by the yaw rate sensor (see Komatsubara at least [0068] "FIG. 7 is a flow chart illustrating the torque suppression control by the yaw rate deviation ΔY when the vehicle 1 is turning running as shown in FIG. 6. In step ST1, the yaw rate deviation ΔY is calculated. The yaw rate deviation ΔY is calculated … on the basis of … the target value of the yaw rate of the vehicle 1 … and the actual yaw rate Y1 of the vehicle 1 detected by the yaw rate sensor S6.")…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the differential rotation speed setting as taught by Ishii in view of Kishi with a target yaw rate which also accounts for an actual yaw rate such as taught by Komatsubara with a reasonable expectation of success so as to control the moving body according to a desired command (see Komatsubara at least [0072]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN REIDY whose telephone number is (571) 272-7660. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00 AM- 3:00 PM.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/S.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663