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 .
The current application related to Provisional Application No. 63/465933 filed on May 12, 2023.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 cites “Electronic safety equipment coupled with the vehicle …” is incomplete because it is missing an article “An” before the nouns (a subject). The claim is suggested to correct “An electronic safety equipment …”
Claims 16-19 have same issue above.
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) 1-4, 10-13, 16 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pritzer (20210197815) in view of Heller (20210179037).
With regard to claim 1, Pritzer discloses a remotely controlled vehicle, comprising: a vehicle propulsion system constructed and arranged to move the remotely controlled vehicle; a vehicle control computer coupled with the vehicle propulsion system, the vehicle control computer being constructed and arranged to operate the vehicle propulsion system; and electronic safety equipment coupled with the vehicle propulsion system (a vehicle 100 operates autonomous mode. The vehicle includes various subsystems such as propulsion system 102, sensor system 104, control system 106, power supply 110, and etc., see [0040]-[0041]+), the system perform:
receiving a set of speed signals indicating a current speed of the remotely controlled vehicle (sensor 502 positioned on a vehicle for measuring the vehicle’s speed, see [0081]-[0090]+),
performing a comparison operation which compares the current speed of the remotely controlled vehicle, as indicated by the set of speed signals, to a predefined maximum speed (determining by a processor a difference between the velocity determined for the vehicle and the expected wheel velocity, wherein the difference is compared to one or more threshold, see [0103]+), and
triggering an emergency vehicle stop in response to a result of the comparison operation indicating that the current speed of the remotely controlled vehicle exceeds the predefined maximum speed by a predefined amount (in responsive to the difference exceeding a threshold, cause the vehicle to perform a corrective action such as using a set of brakes of the vehicle slowly decelerating a speed of the vehicle until safety stopping, or a stability control action, see [0104]-[0105]+).
Pritzer is silent and electronic safety equipment coupled with the vehicle propulsion system. The electronic safety equipment triggers an emergency vehicle stop based on the comparison indicating that the current speed of the remotely controlled vehicle exceeds the predetermine maximum speed.
Heller discloses an emergency stop system for a vehicle (see the abstract). The emergency stop system triggers an emergency vehicle stop based on the comparison indicating that the current speed of the remotely controlled vehicle exceeds the predetermine maximum speed, see [0043]-[0046]+.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Pritze by including The emergency stop system triggers an emergency vehicle stop based on the comparison indicating that the current speed of the remotely controlled vehicle exceeds the predetermine maximum speed as taught by Heller for preventing accident occurred to the vehicle.
With regard to claim 2, Pritze teaches that the remotely controlled vehicle of claim 1 wherein the vehicle propulsion system includes: a set of electric motors constructed and arranged to move the remotely controlled vehicle in response to a set of drive signals;
wherein the vehicle control computer is constructed and arranged to provide the set of drive signals to the set of electric motors to move the remotely controlled vehicle (vehicle 100 includes motors 118, see [0042]-[0043]+);
wherein the remotely controlled vehicle further comprises a set of sensors; and wherein receiving the set of speed signals indicating the current speed of the remotely controlled vehicle includes: sensing the set of speed signals from the set of sensors while the vehicle control computer provides the set of drive signals to the set of electric motors to move the remotely controlled vehicle (sensor system 104, see [0046]+).
With regard to claim 3, Heller teaches that the remotely controlled vehicle of claim 2 wherein the vehicle propulsion system further includes: a set of ground engagement members, and a gear box which couples the set of electric motors with the set of ground engagement members; wherein the set of sensors includes a set of encoders disposed within the gear box; and wherein sensing the set of speed signals from the set of sensors includes: acquiring, as at least a portion of the set of speed signals, a set of encoder signals from the set of encoders (the actuator connected to and actuate parking brake or hand brake of the vehicle. The actuator consists of electric motor, gear, and etc., see [0029]-[0030]+).
With regard to claim 4, Pritze teaches that the remotely controlled vehicle of claim 3, further comprising: a set of brakes which couples with the set of ground engagement members; and wherein triggering the emergency vehicle stop includes: engaging the set of brakes to stop the remotely controlled vehicle (the brake unit 136 converts kinetic energy of wheels/tires (which Examiner interprets as “the set of ground engagement menbers”), see [0052]+).
With regard to claim 10, Heller teaches that the remotely controlled vehicle of claim 1 wherein the method further includes: prior to performing the comparison operation, receiving a maximum speed command which identifies the predefined maximum speed (the mode setting device set a speed limit in certain operating modes, see [0023]+).
With regard to claim 11, Heller teaches that the remotely controlled vehicle of claim 10 wherein receiving the maximum speed command includes: obtaining a switch signal from a multi-position switch, the switch signal identifying a first maximum speed when the multi-position switch is set to a first position, and a second maximum speed which is slower than the first maximum speed when the multi-position switch is set to a second position (the on-board actuating unit have four emergency stop switches, see [0026]+) .
With regard to claim 12, Heller teaches that the remotely controlled vehicle of claim 10 wherein receiving the maximum speed command includes: obtaining, as the maximum speed command, a wireless signal from a wireless device that is separate from the remotely controlled vehicle, the wireless signal identifying the predefined maximum speed (the emergency stop system wireless communicating with the vehicle, see [0037]+).
With regard to claim 13, Heller teaches that the remotely controlled vehicle of claim 2, further comprising: a set of batteries constructed and arranged to provide electric power to (i) the set of electric motors to move the remotely controlled vehicle and (ii) the electronic safety equipment to enable the electronic safety equipment to perform the method (See [0016]+).
With regard to claim 16, Pritzer discloses an electronic safety equipment to control a vehicle, the electronic safety equipment comprising: memory; and processing circuitry coupled with the memory, the memory storing instructions which, when carried out by the processing circuitry (a vehicle 100 operates autonomous mode. The vehicle includes various subsystems such as propulsion system 102, sensor system 104, control system 106, power supply 110, and etc., see [0040]-[0041]+), cause the processing circuitry to perform a method of:
receiving a set of speed signals indicating a current speed of the remotely controlled vehicle (sensor 502 positioned on a vehicle for measuring the vehicle’s speed, see [0081]-[0090]+),
performing a comparison operation which compares the current speed of the remotely controlled vehicle, as indicated by the set of speed signals, to a predefined maximum speed (determining by a processor a difference between the velocity determined for the vehicle and the expected wheel velocity, wherein the difference is compared to one or more threshold, see [0103]+), and
triggering an emergency vehicle stop in response to a result of the comparison operation indicating that the current speed of the remotely controlled vehicle exceeds the predefined maximum speed by a predefined amount (in responsive to the difference exceeding a threshold, cause the vehicle to perform a corrective action such as using a set of brakes of the vehicle slowly decelerating a speed of the vehicle until safety stopping, or a stability control action, see [0104]-[0105]+).
Pritzer is silent and electronic safety equipment coupled with the vehicle propulsion system. The electronic safety equipment triggers an emergency vehicle stop based on the comparison indicating that the current speed of the remotely controlled vehicle exceeds the predetermine maximum speed.
Heller discloses an emergency stop system for a vehicle (see the abstract). The emergency stop system triggers an emergency vehicle stop based on the comparison indicating that the current speed of the remotely controlled vehicle exceeds the predetermine maximum speed, see [0043]-[0046]+.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Pritze by including The emergency stop system triggers an emergency vehicle stop based on the comparison indicating that the current speed of the remotely controlled vehicle exceeds the predetermine maximum speed as taught by Heller for preventing accident occurred to the vehicle.
With regard to claim 20, Fritzer discloses a method of controlling a vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving a set of speed signals indicating a current speed of the remotely controlled vehicle (sensor 502 positioned on a vehicle for measuring the vehicle’s speed, see [0081]-[0090]+),
performing a comparison operation which compares the current speed of the remotely controlled vehicle, as indicated by the set of speed signals, to a predefined maximum speed (determining by a processor a difference between the velocity determined for the vehicle and the expected wheel velocity, wherein the difference is compared to one or more threshold, see [0103]+), and
triggering an emergency vehicle stop in response to a result of the comparison operation indicating that the current speed of the remotely controlled vehicle exceeds the predefined maximum speed by a predefined amount (in responsive to the difference exceeding a threshold, cause the vehicle to perform a corrective action such as using a set of brakes of the vehicle slowly decelerating a speed of the vehicle until safety stopping, or a stability control action, see [0104]-[0105]+).
Pritzer is silent about triggering an emergency vehicle stop.
Heller discloses an emergency stop system for a vehicle (see the abstract). The emergency stop system triggers an emergency vehicle stop based on the comparison indicating that the current speed of the remotely controlled vehicle exceeds the predetermine maximum speed, see [0043]-[0046]+.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Pritze by including The emergency stop system triggers an emergency vehicle stop based on the comparison indicating that the current speed of the remotely controlled vehicle exceeds the predetermine maximum speed as taught by Heller for preventing accident occurred to the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Pritze by including the emergency stop button on the remotely device as taught by Young for preventing accident occurred to the vehicle.
Prior Arts Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
LI (20240123954) discloses a vehicle’s system for improving safety with parking brake actuation. The system will allow or inhibit parking brake command based on an operation station of the vehicle (see the abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9, 14-15 & 17-19 would be allowable if rewritten in independent to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 and 35 USC 103, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGA X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5217. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30AM - 2:30PM.
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, JELANI SMITH can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
NGA X. NGUYEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/NGA X NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662