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 § 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 14-16 rejections are overcome.
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, 4-6, 8-10, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Sakurada reference (US Patent Publication No. 2020/0017112) in view of the Hokelek reference (US Patent Publication 2017/0022967).
Regarding claim 1, the Sakurada reference discloses:
a control system (FIG. 3) for a vehicle: the control system (FIG. 3) comprising a force determination controller (204) adapted to determine external load characteristics of external loads that currently act or are predicted to act on the vehicle [Paragraph 0120—atmospheric pressure];
the control system (FIG. 3) being adapted to determine a resulting force vector (FIG. 6, Fx, Fy, M) to be acting on the vehicle, using the external load characteristics (Fx), in order to obtain a requested vehicle operation behavior;
the control system (FIG. 3) further being adapted to issue control information to one or more motion support devices (204A, 204B, . . .) of the vehicle in order to control the one or more motion support devices so as to generate the resulting force vector (Fx, Fy, M) on the vehicle;
wherein the control system (FIG. 1) comprises a feedforward controller (FIG. 1) adapted to receive wind information representative of a wind currently acting or predicted to be acting on the vehicle, the feedforward controller (FIG. 1) being in communication with the force determination controller (204) whereby the force determination controller is adapted to use wind load information, indicative of the wind load imparted on the vehicle and determined on the
basis of the wind information, for determining at least a portion of the external load characteristics (FIGS. 7-11, S17);
wherein the wind information is indicative of a wind speed, relative to the vehicle, of the wind currently acting on the vehicle (FIG. 11, S17),
wherein the wind information is indicative of a wind heading, relative to the vehicle, of the wind currently acting on the vehicle (S17);
wherein the control system is further adapted to:
receive operation request information indicative of the requested vehicle operation behavior (S11, S12A, S12B).
use the operation request information and the wind information in order to determine a predicted future wind information (FIG. 11) (S15).
The Sakurada discloses the invention as essentially claimed. However, the Sakurada reference fails to disclose the apparent wind being the sum of the wind speed that the vehicle would experience in still air plus the velocity of the true wind; and to use the operation request information for determining at least a predicted future speed of the vehicle; to use the predicted future speed of the vehicle, the wind speed and the wind heading for determining a predicted future wind speed and a predicted future wind heading of a future apparent wind acting on the vehicle.
This is an example of the use of a known technique (modeling future expectations using well known parameters) to improve similar devices (control systems) in the same way (well known modification of control systems). Using apparent wind is well known it the art as evidence by Hokelek reference in Paragraph 0010 which discusses that apparent wind velocity is a common parameter using in the airflow arts and certainly one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of apparent wind velocity and would incorporate into modeling control systems and modifying said control systems based on their utility.
Regarding claim 4, the Sakurada reference further discloses:
wherein the control system (FIG. 1) is adapted to use at least the following entities for determining the wind load information:
the wind information (S17); a drag coefficient (front air resistance coefficient), a side force coefficient (CDF), and/or a lift coefficient associated with the vehicle; and a reference area associated with the vehicle [Paragraph 0117-0131]. Regarding claim 5, the Sakurada reference further discloses:
wherein the feedforward controller is adapted to determine the wind load information (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 6, the Sakurada reference further discloses:
wherein the wind load information comprises information relating to the magnitude and preferably also the direction of the wind load acting on the vehicle (S17).
Regarding claim 8, the Sakurada reference further discloses: wherein the control system is adapted to determine the resulting force vector (F) using the external load characteristics and the operation request information (FIG. 11).
Regarding claim 9, the Sakurada reference further discloses,
wherein the operation request information comprises information indicative of at
least one of the following:
a requested acceleration of the vehicle;
a requested speed of the vehicle;
a requested rate of acceleration of the vehicle; and
a requested total force acting on the vehicle (FIG. 11) (S12A) (S12B) (S12C).
Regarding claim 10, the Sakurada reference further discloses:
wherein the resulting force vector comprises a component extending in the intended direction of travel of the vehicle (FIG. 6 & 9).
Regarding claim 13, the Sakurada reference further discloses:
a vehicle comprising one or more motion support devices (204A, 204B, 204C) for creating the resulting force vector on the vehicle the vehicle further comprising the control system of claim 1 (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 14, the Sakurada reference further discloses:
wherein at least a first motion support device comprises an electric machine (implicit), and wherein preferably each one of a plurality of motion support devices comprises an electric machine.
Regarding claim 15, the Sakurada reference further discloses:
wherein at least a second motion support device comprises a service brake (204C), and wherein preferably each one of a plurality of motion support devices comprises a service brake.
Regarding claim 16, the Sakurada reference further discloses:
wherein the vehicle comprises an operation request controller adapted to issue the operation request information to the control system, and wherein preferably the operation request controller is adapted to issue the operation request information to the control system in response to input received from an operator of the vehicle (FIG. 11) (S12B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant amends to define “apparent wind.” This is helpful, however, as noted with the additional reference cited the definition provided in the claim is a well known definition in this field of art. Furthermore, there is motivation to combine these references because of the same field of art and they solve the same problem of how the wind affects an object under different conditions. Accordingly, all claims are rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES J BRAUCH whose telephone number is (313)446-6511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM to 6 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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/CHARLES JOSEPH BRAUCH/
Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/LONG T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights