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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 4/4/2024. Claim(s) 1-20 are presently pending and are examined in this first action on the merits (FAOM).
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority based on Provisional Application 63/262,678 filed 10/18/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 4/10/2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daneil Dreyer et. al US20200231208 A1 (“Dreyer”) in view of Ji Won Oh et. al. US 20190366855 A1 (“Oh”).
As per Claim 1, 12 and 20,
Dreyer discloses,
receiving, by an electronic system (see at least [0014] The control system may be integrated into existing control systems of the dual path agricultural machine)
a throttle input for operating a drive system of an agricultural dual-path machine, (see at least [0013] The user drive input mechanisms allow the driver to provide user drive inputs and include a steering wheel and a forward-neutral-reverse lever. Alternatively, the drive input mechanisms may include handlebars, an acceleration pedal, a brake pedal, a yoke, a joystick, an analog or virtual control panel, and other inputs.
the drive system comprising: a left-side drive system comprising a left drive pump and a left motor; and a right-side drive system comprising a right drive pump and a right motor; (see at least [0004] a drive system, left and right drive wheels, left and right caster wheels, left and right rear-steer mechanisms, a harvesting component, and a number of user drive input mechanisms, and [0018] drive train transfers power from the engine to the drive wheels and may include drive shafts, drive belts, gear boxes, hydraulic or pneumatic lines and valves, and the like.)
determining, by the electronic system, adjustment factors for adjusting setpoints for operating the drive system, based on feedback from sensors of the agricultural dual- path machine ((see at least 0023] The controller receives the signal from the output sensors and determines a difference between the actual drive output and the desired drive output. This difference may include any combination of a difference in wheel speed, drive system speed, dual path agricultural machine location, change of location, heading, or change of heading, [0069] The controller 50 may also control the drive system 18 according to calculated setpoints plus error compensation factors with the error compensation factors not exceeding a fixed percentage of the user drive input. The error compensation factors may include feedback from the output sensors 48 and feedback from machine geometry calculations, and [0070] the stability control mode also eliminates or reduces the effects of overcorrection from human operators. Operating according to the compensation factors guarantees that a sensor failure does not immobilize the dual path agricultural machine 10 but instead only disables the stability control. The stability control mode also improves safety by responding to user drive inputs in a more predictable manner. Existing dual path agricultural machines can also be fitted with the above-described control system 30 to improve their performance).
Dreyer does not disclose,
and controlling, by the electronic system, an augmenting control system to control operations of the drive system based on the received throttle input, the setpoints, and the adjustment factors
Oh teaches,
and controlling, by the electronic system, an augmenting control system to control operations of the drive system based on the received throttle input, the setpoints, and the adjustment factors (see at least Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, [0057] Figs. 5 and 6 are views illustrating a feedback control method using a driving torque command generated according to embodiments of the present disclosure, and FIG. 7 is a block diagram illustrating a configuration of a driving torque command generating apparatus according to embodiments of the present disclosure).
Thus, Dreyer discloses a control system for a drive system in a dual path machine and Oh teaches a control system using feedback and feedforward control to manage driving torque.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Dreyer with use of a control method as taught by Oh, with a reasonable expectation of success, to obtain rapid reaction and response of a vehicle to a driving input of a driver (0017).
As per Claim 2,
Dryer discloses,
The method of claim 1, wherein the agricultural dual-path machine is a self-propelled windrower (see at least [0004] an embodiment of the control system is configured for use with a windrower having a chassis, an engine compartment, a cab, a drive system, left and right drive wheels, left and right caster wheels, left and right rear-steer mechanisms, a harvesting component, and a number of user drive input mechanisms).
As per Claim 3 and 13,
Dryer does not disclose,
wherein the setpoints comprise torque- to-speed ratios.
Oh teaches,
wherein the setpoints comprise torque- to-speed ratios (see at least Fig. 3, Fig. 4, [0057] obtaining torsional state observation value information regarding torsional state observation values, i.e., values obtained by observing the torsional state of the vehicle drive system, using information regarding the motor speed and the wheel speed detected and input using the motor speed sensor 104 and the wheel speed sensor 105, and generating a motor torque command based on the driving input values input by the driving input sensor 101 and the torsional state observation value information, [0127] Described with reference to the above formulas, the torsion observer 113 uses the drive system torsional stiffness or damping characteristics as the feedforward of the output torque to obtain the output torque necessary in Formula 2, thereby applying an output torque change rate for the feedforward term, [0128] In addition, an observed speed change rate is corrected by multiplying the difference between an observed speed and a measured speed with a feedback gain, as expressed in the above formula, using measured speeds of the drive system, such as the motor, wheels, and engine, in order to prevent the divergence of the observed speed, and [0129] In addition, the change rate of the output torque is applied as a combination obtained by multiplying the feedforward term and the gain of the feedback term in order to obtain the output torque necessary to the torsion observer).
Thus, Dreyer discloses a control system for a windrower and Oh teaches use of torque to speed ratios as target or setpoints in the control system.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Dreyer with use of torque to speed ratio as taught by Oh, with a reasonable expectation of success, to obtain rapid reaction and response of a vehicle to a driving input of a driver (0017).
As per Claim 5 and 15,
Dryer discloses,
comprising disabling, by the electronic system, the augmenting control system to control operations of the drive system based only on the throttle input and the setpoints when an adjustment factor of the adjustment factors exceeds a corresponding adjustment factor threshold (see at least Fig 3, Fig 4, [0028] The controller compares the status from the one or more sensors against a criterion such as a minimum threshold ground speed. Other criteria may include a maximum threshold ground speed, a minimum or maximum turn angle of the steering wheel or one of the caster wheels, or any other suitable criteria. It may also compare previous values and/or derived values. Hysteresis, smoothing, dampening, or other additional conditioning may be included in the criteria logic, [0073] The controller 50 may compare the status against a criterion, as shown in block 206. The status equates to or is within a threshold criterion if the status is equal to or above a minimum threshold or equal to or below a maximum threshold, and [0073] Other criteria may include a minimum or maximum threshold ground speed, a minimum or maximum turn angle of the steering wheel 40 or one of the caster wheels 22, or any other suitable criteria. Sensor fusion may be used for more complex criteria).
As per Claim 6 and 16,
Dryer does not disclose,
The method of claim 1, comprising limiting, by the electronic system, the augmenting control system to control operations of the drive system based on the received throttle input, the setpoints, and a subset of the adjustment factors, when an adjustment factor of the adjustment factors exceeds a corresponding adjustment factor threshold.
Oh teaches,
The method of claim 1, comprising limiting, by the electronic system, the augmenting control system to control operations of the drive system based on the received throttle input, the setpoints, and a subset of the adjustment factors, when an adjustment factor of the adjustment factors exceeds a corresponding adjustment factor threshold (see at least [0045] Referring next to FIG. 4, a controller 10 controls the vehicle in response to user inputs made by manipulating an accelerator pedal or a brake pedal (e.g., an APS value and a BPS value). More particularly, when a target torque for controlling a motor torque output, a rate limiter in the controller 10 limits the gradient of the motor torque command, depending on variables, such as a gear stage, a motor torque (or a torque command), a wheel speed, a mode, a shift class/phase, and a motor charge/discharge status, and [0065] the rate limiter is not limited to any limiter using a specific method to limit and control the torque gradient as long as the rate limiter can control the torque gradient depending on variables to some extent. A known rate limiter or a modified rate limiter, in which variables or the like are simplified in consideration of conditions of the vehicle or conditions of the controller, may be applied).
Thus, Dreyer discloses a control system for a windrower and Oh teaches limiting the control system depending on variables.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Dreyer with rate limiter as taught by Oh, with a reasonable expectation of success, to deliver an improvement in efficiency (0022) since a torque command suitable for a specific point in time can be generated in real-time.
As per Claim 7 and 17,
Dryer does not disclose
The method of claim 6, wherein the subset of the adjustment factors excludes the adjustment factor that exceeded its corresponding adjustment factor threshold
Oh teaches,
The method of claim 6, wherein the subset of the adjustment factors excludes the adjustment factor that exceeded its corresponding adjustment factor threshold (see at least [0051] experimentally discovering an optimum torque gradient value and an optimum filter constant to apply the torque gradient control and the filter has been required. At this time, the entirety of variables, such as a gear stage, a motor torque (or a torque command), a wheel speed, a mode, a shift class/phase, and a motor charge/discharge status, must be considered, and [0065] the rate limiter is not limited to any limiter using a specific method to limit and control the torque gradient as long as the rate limiter can control the torque gradient depending on variables to some extent. A known rate limiter or a modified rate limiter, in which variables or the like are simplified in consideration of conditions of the vehicle or conditions of the controller, may be applied
Thus, Dreyer discloses a control system for a windrower and Oh teaches limiting the control system using a filter and modified rate limiter.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Dreyer with modified rate limiter as taught by Oh, with a reasonable expectation of success, to deliver an improvement in efficiency (0022) since a torque command suitable for a specific point in time can be generated in real-time.
As per Claim 8 and 18,
Dryer discloses,
comprising retrieving, by the electronic system, a safety input upon receiving the throttle input; overriding, by the electronic system, the throttle input when the retrieved safety input comprises a safety violation signal; (see at least Fig. 4 - steps 206, 208, 216, and [0028] The controller compares the status from the one or more sensors against a criterion such as a minimum threshold ground speed. Other criteria may include a maximum threshold ground speed, a minimum or maximum turn angle of the steering wheel or one of the caster wheels, or any other suitable criteria. It may also compare previous values and/or derived values. Hysteresis, smoothing, dampening, or other additional conditioning may be included in the criteria logic.)
accepting, by the electronic system, the throttle input when the retrieved safety input comprises an acceptable safety signal (see at least [0066] The status equates to or is within a threshold criterion if the status is equal to or above a minimum threshold or equal to or below a maximum threshold. The status equates to or is within a range criterion if the status is equal to or within upper and lower bounds of a given range. The status equates to a state criterion if the status renders the state criterion true).
As per Claim 9,
Dryer discloses,
method of claim 8, comprising disabling, by the electronic system, the augmenting control system to control operations of the drive system based only on the throttle input and the setpoints when an adjustment factor of the adjustment factors exceeds a corresponding adjustment factor threshold (see at least Fig 3, Fig 4, [0028] The controller compares the status from the one or more sensors against a criterion such as a minimum threshold ground speed. Other criteria may include a maximum threshold ground speed, a minimum or maximum turn angle of the steering wheel or one of the caster wheels, or any other suitable criteria. It may also compare previous values and/or derived values. Hysteresis, smoothing, dampening, or other additional conditioning may be included in the criteria logic, [0073] The controller 50 may compare the status against a criterion, as shown in block 206. The status equates to or is within a threshold criterion if the status is equal to or above a minimum threshold or equal to or below a maximum threshold, and [0073] Other criteria may include a minimum or maximum threshold ground speed, a minimum or maximum turn angle of the steering wheel 40 or one of the caster wheels 22, or any other suitable criteria. Sensor fusion may be used for more complex criteria).
As per Claim 10 and 19,
Dryer does not disclose,
method of claim 8, comprising limiting, by the electronic system, the augmenting control system to control operations of the drive system based on the received throttle input, the setpoints, and a subset of the adjustment factors, when an adjustment factor of the adjustment factors exceeds a corresponding adjustment factor threshold.
Oh teaches,
method of claim 8, comprising limiting, by the electronic system, the augmenting control system to control operations of the drive system based on the received throttle input, the setpoints, and a subset of the adjustment factors, when an adjustment factor of the adjustment factors exceeds a corresponding adjustment factor threshold (see at least [0045] Referring next to FIG. 4, a controller 10 controls the vehicle in response to user inputs made by manipulating an accelerator pedal or a brake pedal (e.g., an APS value and a BPS value). More particularly, when a target torque for controlling a motor torque output, a rate limiter in the controller 10 limits the gradient of the motor torque command, depending on variables, such as a gear stage, a motor torque (or a torque command), a wheel speed, a mode, a shift class/phase, and a motor charge/discharge status, [0051] experimentally discovering an optimum torque gradient value and an optimum filter constant to apply the torque gradient control and the filter has been required. At this time, the entirety of variables, such as a gear stage, a motor torque (or a torque command), a wheel speed, a mode, a shift class/phase, and a motor charge/discharge status, must be considered, and [0065] the rate limiter is not limited to any limiter using a specific method to limit and control the torque gradient as long as the rate limiter can control the torque gradient depending on variables to some extent. A known rate limiter or a modified rate limiter, in which variables or the like are simplified in consideration of conditions of the vehicle or conditions of the controller, may be applied).
Thus, Dreyer discloses a control system for a windrower and Oh teaches limiting the control system depending on variables.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Dreyer with rate limiter as taught by Oh, with a reasonable expectation of success, to deliver an improvement in efficiency (0022) since a torque command suitable for a specific point in time can be generated in real-time.
As per Claim 11,
Dryer does not disclose,
The method of claim 10, wherein the subset of the adjustment factors excludes the adjustment factor that exceeded its corresponding adjustment factor threshold
Oh teaches,
The method of claim 6, wherein the subset of the adjustment factors excludes the adjustment factor that exceeded its corresponding adjustment factor threshold (see at least [0051] experimentally discovering an optimum torque gradient value and an optimum filter constant to apply the torque gradient control and the filter has been required. At this time, the entirety of variables, such as a gear stage, a motor torque (or a torque command), a wheel speed, a mode, a shift class/phase, and a motor charge/discharge status, must be considered, and [0065] the rate limiter is not limited to any limiter using a specific method to limit and control the torque gradient as long as the rate limiter can control the torque gradient depending on variables to some extent. A known rate limiter or a modified rate limiter, in which variables or the like are simplified in consideration of conditions of the vehicle or conditions of the controller, may be applied
Thus, Dreyer discloses a control system for a windrower and Oh teaches limiting the control system using a filter and modified rate limiter.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Dreyer with modified rate limiter as taught by Oh, with a reasonable expectation of success, to deliver an improvement in efficiency (0022) since a torque command suitable for a specific point in time can be generated in real-time.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreyer in view of Oh as per claim 1 and further in view of Alan R Coutant et. al US5582007BE (“Coutant”).
As per Claim 4 and 14,
Dreyer does not disclose,
The method of claim 3, wherein the left drive pump and the right drive pump are variable-displacement pumps, and wherein the left motor and the right motor are variable-displacement motors.
Coutant teaches,
The method of claim 3, wherein the left drive pump and the right drive pump are variable-displacement pumps, and wherein the left motor and the right motor are variable-displacement motors (See at least [Col. 1, line 44-55] The method includes steps of sensing the speed of the variable displacement pump, sensing the speed of the variable displacement motor, calculating the instant displacement of the respective variable displacement pump or the variable displacement motor being changed based on the sensed speeds thereof and its known maximum volumetric displacements, and reducing the rate of change to substantially zero of the variable displacement pump or the variable displacement motor being changed and simultaneously initiating a predetermined rate of change to the displacement of the other variable displacement pump or variable displacement motor.
Thus, Dreyer discloses a windrower and Coutant teaches the use of variable displacement pump and motors.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Dreyer with use of variable displacement pump and motors taught by Coutant, with a reasonable expectation of success, to offsets any undesirable "pause" or "jerk" of the machine and provides an efficient operating system (Col. 1, line 60-62).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants should take note of the prior art in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHUTOSH PANDE whose telephone number is (571)272-6269. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00am -5:00 PM EST.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 5712721516. 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.
/A.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668