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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bonny (US 11,014,549).
Claim 8
Bonny discloses a method for operating a powertrain (e.g., the motors 177 and gear reduction 178) of a vehicle, the vehicle including a transmission, comprising:
determining that a power take-off is supplying power (when the PTO is engaged and equation 3 is used to control the motor) to a device (“PTO devices” which is listed by way of example as mower cutting blades) external to the transmission and that the vehicle is traveling with rotating wheels (“while the vehicle is in a state of motion”), and in response, operating the powertrain (177 and 178) in a speed control mode where a speed of the vehicle is controlled to a requested vehicle speed via a controller (see claim 17 disclosing that the generator controller determines a maximum speed based on the power of the PTO; see also column 5, lines 14-34).
Claim 9
Bonny discloses that the power speed is controlled as noted in the rejection of claim 8. There is no disclosure that the torque of the powertrain (177, 178) is controlled and therefore with any changing conditions such as driving conditions, slope changes, motor variations, etc. the torque of the motors will vary while speed alone is controlled. As such, Bonny discloses where the speed control mode includes adjusting the speed of the vehicle to the requested vehicle speed while torque supplied via the powertrain is varied.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dingenen (US 2021/0364065) in view of Morselli (US 2024/0300326).
Claim 1
Van Dingenen discloses a powertrain of a vehicle, comprising:
a transmission (see FIG. 2 or 3, e.g., 212, 218, 216, 226, 232, 290, 318) including a power take-off (212 or 318) and an output shaft (290 or 288; or equivalent shaft in FIG. 3) that delivers torque to vehicle wheels (wheels on axle 286, illustrated in FIG. 1), where the power take-off (212 or 318) is coupled to the output shaft via a planetary gear set (232 and/or 226; or 306 and/or 304); and
a controller (152) including executable instructions that cause the controller to operate the powertrain in a first speed control mode (clutches 284 and 228 engaged and one of 240 and 272 engaged while the other of 240 and 272 disengaged), in which an output shaft rotational speed is controlled via the controller (see e.g., paragraphs [0002], [0011], [0040], [0043], [0045], [0059], [0066]).
Van Dingenen discloses that does not disclose where in the first speed control mode, the output shaft rotational speed being controlled is “in response to the vehicle traveling with rotating wheels while delivering power to the power take-off.”
However, Morselli discloses that the controls for powering the vehicle is performed while (in response to) the vehicle traveling with rotating wheels while delivering power to the power take-off (see paragraph [0108], disclosing that the motors are controlled to propel the vehicle and also to power the power takeoff).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Dingenen to have included delivering power to the power take off while the wheels are also being powered in order to provide power for auxiliary systems such as pumps, air conditioning, tool implements, etc. while the vehicle is moving.
Claim 2
Van Dingenen as modified by Morselli to include controlling the speed to power the power takeoff where the controller includes executable instructions that cause the controller to operate the power take-off in a second speed control mode while operating the powertrain in the first speed control mode. The vehicle speed control of Van Dingenen is the first speed control mode and the motor speed control to power the power take-off of Morselli incorporated into Van Dingenen is the second speed control mode.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonny in view of Hans et al. (WO 2019/110259A2; hereinafter "Hans").
Claim 10
Bonny does not disclose torque supplied via the powertrain in response to a difference between the requested vehicle speed and the vehicle speed. However, Hans discloses torque supplied via the powertrain in response to a difference between the requested output speed and the actual output speed of the drivetrain (see e.g., Abstract) which is directly related to the actual and desired output speeds of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Bonny to include supplying torque through the powertrain in response to a difference between the requested drivetrain/vehicle speed and the drivetrain/vehicle speed in order to determine how far off from the desired speed the vehicle was and correct any misalignments between the desired versus actual speeds, i.e., to provide more accurate speeds relative to the desired speed.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonny in view of Hans, and further in view of Wilson (US 2022/0251936).
Claim 11
Bonny does not disclose where the controller is a proportional, integral, derivative controller, but does disclose controlling the two motors. However, Wilson discloses that a controller can include a motor controller that is a proportional, integral, derivative controller (see paragraph [0033]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Bonny to include as part of the controller proportional, integral, derivative controller for each of the motors in order to provide high accuracy and/or low error.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonny in view of McMillan (US 2012/0083173).
Claim 14
Bonny does not disclose where operating the powertrain in the speed control mode includes adjusting a wheel torque output of the powertrain, and further comprising: confining the wheel torque output to be between a first threshold torque and a second threshold torque.
However, maintaining an output within a particular range of torques, i.e., between two thresholds, is well known. For example, McMillan discloses that an output of a transmission/drive system is controlled to be within a range of a desired speed (see paragraph [0047]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Van Dingenen SO that the controller also regulates the output torque to be maintained within a certain range, i.e., between upper and lower thresholds, in order to achieve the desired output torque.
Claim 15
Bonny as modified discloses where the first threshold torque and the
second threshold torque vary with the vehicle speed since as the desired output speed
changes so too does the output shaft speed range discussed in McMillan and
incorporated into Bonny.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 12, and 13 are 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.
With reference to claim 3, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious a powertrain comprising the combination of features as recited including "where a first speed controller of the controller controls the output shaft rotational speed in the first speed control mode, and where a second speed controller of the controller controls a power take-off rotational speed in the second speed control mode."
With reference to claim 7, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious a powertrain comprising the combination of features as recited including "where a second speed controller adjusts torque of an electric machine in response to a difference between a requested power take-off speed and an actual power take-off speed."
With reference to claim 12, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious a method for operating a powertrain comprising the combination of features as recited including "operating the power take-off in a second speed control mode via a second controller." The prior art does not disclose the combination of controlling the vehicle to a requested speed in response to the PTO and vehicle travel as these are recited and also controlling the speed of the power take-off.
Claims 16, 19, and 20 are allowed.
With reference to claim 16, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious a method for operating a powertrain comprising the combination of features as recited including "additional instructions to control the vehicle speed in response to a requested vehicle speed, and where the requested vehicle speed is based on a position of a driver demand pedal."
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2014/0187381 discloses the vehicle speed is controlled independent of the engine speed so that the PTO can be operated at a constant speed (paragraph [0047]). US 2006/0252597 discloses that vehicle speed may be reduced to allow for more power to be available for the PTO. US 2024/0262206 discloses the PTO speed can be controlled to be fixed and the vehicle speed can be controlled independently (see paragraph [0078]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STACEY A FLUHART whose telephone number is (571)270-1851. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-7PM.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
/STACEY A FLUHART/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights