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 12 has been canceled.
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are pending
Drawings
The drawing objection is withdrawn in view of applicant’s cancelation of claim 12.
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 6 and 7 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.
In claims 6 and 7, applicant claims clutch control but fails to specify whether the control is while moving forward or rearward (the clutches are controlled oppositely depending on the direction of movement of the vehicle). Claims 6 and 7 depend from both claim 2 (describing forward movement) and claim 5 (describing rearward movement). Since applicant does not indicate whether the control of the clutches in claims 6 and 7 is during forward movement or rearward movement, it is not clear which operation applicant means to claim. Claims 18 and 19 have the same issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krajewski (USPN 10,214,869) in view of Basham et al. (USPN 5,044,043).
Regarding claim 1, Krajewski teaches a system for operating a motor-driven vehicle (snow thrower 10), the system comprising: a first clutch mechanism configured to control torque power provided to a first wheel of the motor-driven vehicle on a left side of the motor-driven vehicle; a second clutch mechanism configured to control torque power provided to a second wheel of the motor-driven vehicle on a right side of the motor-driven vehicle (col. 7, lines 33-48 of Krajewski: “ the user interface 30 and steering systems described herein are used with a snow thrower using an engine or using a single motor to power both of the drive wheels (e.g., via one or transmissions). In these embodiments, a clutch is provided for each wheel to connect and disconnect the wheel to a transmission drive shaft. To turn the snow thrower 10, one of the clutches is disengaged from the drive shaft. The ECU 52 can control operation of the wheel clutches in response to steering inputs provided by the user interface 30 to cause the drive wheels to execute turns to the left or right. For example, when the left lower handle portion 22 is pulled, the strain gauges 27, 29 sense the left turn and a clutch (e.g., slip differential) at the left wheel disengages so that the left wheel 23 freewheels and moves slower than the right wheel 13, thereby implementing a turn to the left”); a handlebar 30 (having left 22 and right 25 handles) for steering the motor-driven vehicle, the handlebar including a first handle 22 and a second handle 25, and configured to pivot about an axis (“the user interface 30 pivots as a unit”; Krajewski, col. 6, lines 32-34); and an electronic controller (ECU 52) configured to detect a pressure applied to the handlebar (“strain gauges 27, 29, described herein sense the relative movement (e.g., push, pull, rotation) of the left and right lower handle portions 22, 25”; Krajewski, col. 6, lines 34-37) relative to the axis, by an operator of the motor-driven vehicle; determine a desired turn direction of the motor-driven vehicle based on the pressure (“difference in the sensed strain between the left and right strain gauges will cause the snow thrower 10 to turn”; col. 6, lines 53-55); and control the first clutch mechanism and the second clutch mechanism based on the desired turn direction (“ECU 52 can control operation of the wheel clutches in response to steering inputs provided by the user interface 30 to cause the drive wheels to execute turns to the left or right; col. 7, lines 40-43).
Krajewski teaches strain gauges rather than rotational position contact sensors for determining pressure applied to the handlebar relative to the handlebar pivot axis.
Basham teaches a system for operating a walk-behind motor-driven vehicle 10 having a handlebar 34, 36, for steering that is configured to pivot about an axis. Pressure applied to rotate the handlebar about its axis at pivotal connection 56 is detected using proximity sensors in the form of contact sensors 52, 54, on opposite sides of the handlebar pivot axis (col. 3, lines 52-55, “mechanical switches requiring contact to operate then could be used”; col. 3, lines 64-68, “When the operator wishes to turn to the right or left, he pivots bracket 30 about its pivotal connection 56 to support 50 so as to move the front of the support bracket toward one or the other of the proximity switches 52 and 54, depending upon the desired direction of turn”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to detect pressure applied to turn the steering handlebar of Krajewski using contact sensors, in view of Basham, to reduce the cost and complexity of the sensor arrangement.
Regarding claim 2, the electronic controller 52 of Krajewski is further configured to: determine the desired turn direction of the motor-driven vehicle based on the pressure by determining whether the pressure is a left pressure or a right pressure (“strain gauges 27, 29 described herein sense the relative movement (e.g., push, pull, rotation) of the left and right lower handle portions 22, 25”; Krajewski, col. 6, lines 34-37), wherein the desired turn direction is to the right when the pressure is a left pressure and the desired turn direction is to the left when the pressure is a right pressure (“For example, when the right lower handle portion 25 is pulled [corresponding the when the left handle is pushed], the strain gauges 27, 29 sense the right turn and a clutch at the right wheel disengages so that the right wheel 13 freewheels and moves slower than the left wheel 23, thereby implementing a turn to the right”, col. 7, lines 48-53. Conversely, when the left handle is pulled or the right handle is pushed, the left clutch is disengaged to turn the vehicle to the left; col. 7, lines 43-48).
Regarding claim 3, the electronic controller 52 of Krajewski is further configured to: responsive to determining that the desired turn direction is to the right, control the first clutch mechanism and the second clutch mechanism by engaging the first clutch mechanism and disengaging the second clutch mechanism (col. 7, lines 48-53).
Regarding claim 4, the electronic controller 52 of Krajewski is further configured to: responsive to determining that the desired turn direction is to the left, control the first clutch mechanism and the second clutch mechanism by disengaging the first clutch mechanism and engaging the second clutch mechanism (col. 7, lines 40-48).
Regarding claim 5, the electronic controller of Krajewski is further configured to determine the desired turn direction based further on whether the motor-driven vehicle is driving in a reverse direction; wherein, when the motor-driven vehicle is driving in a reverse direction, the desired turn direction is to the left when the pressure is a left pressure and the desired turn direction is to the right when the pressure is a right pressure (Krajewski, col. 12, lines 5-15: “when moving in reverse, the snow thrower 10 may include reverse turning such that when a user turns the user interface 30 to the left (e.g., counter clockwise) when moving in reverse, the ECU 52 outputs a signal to operate the left wheel 23 at a higher speed than the right wheel 13, resulting in a counter clockwise turn of the snow thrower 10. Further, when a user turns the user interface 30 to the right (e.g., clockwise) when moving in reverse, the ECU 52 outputs a signal to operate the right wheel 13 at a higher speed than the left wheel 23, resulting in a clockwise turn of the snow thrower 10”).
Regarding claim 6, the controller of Krajewski is configured to: responsive to determining that the desired turn direction is to the right, control the first clutch mechanism and the second clutch mechanism by engaging the first clutch mechanism (clutch on the left side) and disengaging the second clutch mechanism (clutch on the right side) (see col. 7, lines 33-48).
Regarding claim 7, the electronic controller of Krajewski is further configured to: responsive to determining that the desired turn direction is to the left, control the first clutch mechanism and the second clutch mechanism by disengaging the first clutch mechanism and engaging the second clutch mechanism (see col. 7, lines 33-48).
Regarding claim 9, Krajewski is silent regarding a torsion controller coupled between the handlebar and a chassis of the vehicle, the torsion controller configured to bias the handlebar to a central position relative to the axis.
Basham teaches a torsion controller (rubber mountings 58; Figure 2; col. 3, lines 39-47: “Adjacent each of the proximity switches there is a rubber mounting 58 which provides a light resistance to pivotal movement of the hand grips. These center the control when no force is being applied and provide a "feel" to the steering”) is coupled between the handlebar 36 and a chassis 50 of the vehicle, the torsion controller configured to bias the handlebar to a central position relative to the axis of pivot at 56 of the handlebar (Figure 2).
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 handlebar of Krajewski with a torsion controller coupled between the handlebar and a chassis of the vehicle, the torsion controller configured to bias the handlebar to a central position relative to the axis, as taught by Basham, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to return the handlebar to a neutral, centered position automatically when pressure is released by the operator, for the ease and convenience of the operator.
Regarding claim 10, Krajewski teaches that the first handle and the second handle are configured to pivot about the same axis (in some embodiments, “user interface 30 pivots as a unit, such that when one handle portion is moved, the other handle portion moves as well”, col. 6, lines 32-34).
Regarding claim 11, the axis is either a horizontal axis or a vertical axis (Krajewski, Figure 8A).
Regarding claim 13, Krajewski teaches a method for operating a motor-driven vehicle, the method comprising: detecting a pressure applied to a handlebar (user interface 30 having handles 22, 25) of the motor-driven vehicle (steering sensors 21 that include torque, strain and force sensors to detect steering input (col. 5, lines 5-16), relative to an axis about which the handlebar is rotatable); determining a desired turn direction of the motor-driven vehicle based on the pressure (ECU determines desired turn direction and magnitude); and controlling a first clutch mechanism configured to control torque power provided to a left wheel of the motor-driven vehicle and a second clutch mechanism configured to control torque power provided to a right wheel of the motor-driven vehicle based on the desired turn direction (Krajewski, col. 7, lines 33-48).
Regarding claim 14, Krajewski teaches determining the desired turn direction of the motor-driven vehicle based on the pressure includes determining whether the pressure is a left pressure or a right pressure, and the desired turn direction is to the right when the pressure is a left pressure and the desired turn direction is to the left when the pressure is a right pressure ((col. 6, lines 22-37, col. 7, lines 32-48).
Regarding claim 15, when the desired turn direction is to the right, controlling the first clutch mechanism and the second clutch mechanism includes engaging the first clutch mechanism and disengaging the second clutch mechanism (Krajewski col. 7, lines 48-53).
Regarding claim 16, when the desired turn direction is to the left, controlling the first clutch mechanism and the second clutch mechanism includes disengaging the first clutch mechanism and engaging the second clutch mechanism (Krajewski col. 7, lines 43-48).
Regarding claim 17, Krajewski teaches determining the desired turn direction based further on whether the motor-driven vehicle is driving in a reverse direction (col. 12, lines 5-10); and when the motor-driven vehicle is driving in a reverse direction, determining that the desired turn direction is to the left when the pressure is a left pressure and the desired turn direction is to the right when the pressure is a right pressure (reversed relative to forward motion; col. 12, lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 18, Krajewski teaches, when the desired turn direction is to the right, controlling the first clutch mechanism and the second clutch mechanism includes engaging the first clutch mechanism and disengaging the second clutch mechanism (col. 7, lines 48-53).
Regarding claim 19, Krajewski teaches, when the desired turn direction is to the left, controlling the first clutch mechanism and the second clutch mechanism includes disengaging the first clutch mechanism and engaging the second clutch mechanism (col. 7, lines 42-48).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Krajewski does not explicitly teach a controller configured to, responsive to determining that the motor-driven vehicle is driving in a reverse direction, control a drive motor of the motor-driven vehicle to operate at a reduced speed. However, Krajewski teaches a maximum speed adjuster that sets a maximum motor speed moving forward and a different maximum motor speed for travel in reverse (col. 10, lines 20-44). It is also well understood that reverse travel of the snow thrower is more dangerous to the operator than forward travel because the operator walks behind the snow thrower and is in the way of rearward travel. The operator has more difficulty seeing what is behind when traveling in reverse than seeing what is forward of the vehicle when traveling forward. Also, Basham specifically teaches setting the reverse speed limit at a reduced value relative to the forward. In col. 4, lines 34-37, Basham teaches limiting the travel speed in the reverse direction. Col. 7, lines 50-54, of Basham teaches monitoring reverse drive and reducing the reverse speed “provides the operator will full maneuverability at slow reverse speeds, but prevents higher speeds where injury to the operator might occur. The predetermined set point value can be pre-set at the factory.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the reverse speed to a reduced speed (slower than the maximum forward speed), in view of Krajewski’s disclosure, the teaching of Basham, and what is well known in the art, in order to protect the user from fast-moving rearward movement of the vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 and 13-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that there is no confusion regarding whether the controls recited in claims 6 and 7 are for forward motion or rearward motion because claim 6 depends only from claim 5, which is directed to rearward movement control. The examiner disagrees. Claim 6 depends from claim 5, which describes rearward motion control. Claim 5 depends from claim 2, which describes forward movement control. Therefore, claim 6 depends from a combination of claims 2 and 5 and it is not clear in claim 6 if the control operation is directed to operation during forward or reverse motion.
Applicant argues that Krajewski lacks rotational position contact sensors for detecting pressure applied to the handlebar, as presently recited in claims 1 and 13. Prior art to Basham is now relied upon for that feature.
Applicant also argues that the prior art to Krajewski does not teach reduced speed when driving in reverse, as recited in claim 8. As indicated previously, Krajewski teaches setting the speed at a different value when traveling in reverse relative to the forward drive direction. The examiner also maintains that it would have been obvious to reduce the speed in the reverse direction relative to the forward direction, as discussed previously. Also, Basham specifically teaches setting the reverse speed limit at a reduced value relative to the forward. Col. 7, lines 50-54, of Basham, for example, teaches monitoring reverse drive and adjusting the reverse speed “provides the operator will full maneuverability at slow reverse speeds, but prevents higher speeds where injury to the operator might occur. The predetermined set point value can be pre-set at the factory.” Therefore, the rejection of claims 8 and 20 is being maintained.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anne Marie M. Boehler whose telephone number is (571)272-6641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8-5pm.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at 571-272-6265. 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.
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/amb/
Prosecution Insights