DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations with the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to the Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 06/25/2024 has/have been acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Objection to the Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds the 150-word requirement. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Status of Application
The preliminarily amended list of claims 16-30 is pending in this application. In the preliminarily amended claim set filed 06/25/2024:
Claim(s) 1-15 has/have been newly cancelled.
Claim(s) 16-30 has/have been newly added.
Claim(s) 16 and 30 is/are the independent claim(s) observed in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 17-29 is/are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
Claim(s) 17-29 contain(s) minor antecedent basis issues due to recitation of the term(s) “Construction machine according to claim…;” however, claim(s) 16, from which claim(s) 17-29 depend previously recites “A construction machine.” Therefore appropriate correction is required such that claim(s) 17-29 should instead recite: “The construction machine according to claim…”
Claim(s) 22 is/are further objected to due to the following minor antecedent basis issue due to recitation of the term “the lower propulsion current threshold.” However, claim(s) 22 does not previously recite “a lower propulsion current threshold.” Therefore appropriate correction is required such that claim(s) 22 should instead recite: “wherein a lower propulsion current threshold is lower than the upper propulsion current threshold”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 19 and 23 is/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.
With respect to claim 19, claim 19 recites the following indefinite claim construction: “wherein the propulsion reduction amount is between 30-60% of the propulsion variable and/or of the maximum propulsion variable.” In particular, the use of “and” in this instance renders the claim indefinite, as it is not possible for the “propulsion reduction amount” to be equal to two different values simultaneously namely “between 30-60% of the propulsion variable” and “between 30-60% of the maximum propulsion variable.” For the sake of compact prosecution, the cited limitation has been interpreted as instead reciting: “wherein the propulsion reduction amount is between 30-60% of the propulsion variable or of the maximum propulsion variable.”
With respect to claim 23, claim 23 recites the following indefinite claim construction: “wherein the propulsion increase amount is between 5-40% of the propulsion variable and/or of the maximum propulsion variable.” In particular, the use of “and” in this instance renders the claim indefinite, as it is not possible for the “propulsion increase amount” to be equal to two different values simultaneously namely “between 5-40% of the propulsion variable” and “between 5-40% of the maximum propulsion variable.” For the sake of compact prosecution, the cited limitation has been interpreted as instead reciting: “wherein the propulsion increase amount is between 5-40% of the propulsion variable or of the maximum propulsion variable.”
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) 16, 20, 24, 29 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Kaneko et al. (United States Patent Publication 2013/0317684 A1), referenced as Kaneko moving forward.
With respect to claim 16, Kaneko discloses:
“A construction machine having a body, and one or more movement elements, the construction machine further comprising: a propulsion electric motor adapted to drive the one or more movement elements” [Kaneko; "an aspect of the present invention provides a wheel loader comprising: an engine; a motor generator connected to an output shaft of the engine; a hydraulic pump connected to a rotational shaft of the motor generator; at least one hydraulic actuator driven by hydraulic fluid supplied from the hydraulic pump; wheels; a travel electric motor for driving the wheels; an electrical storage device connected to each of the motor generator and the travel electric motor via respective inverters; and a controller for calculating a hybrid output upper limit value that represents a sum of output upper limit values of the engine and the electrical storage device, a hydraulic requirement power value required by the hydraulic pump, and a travel requirement power value required by the travel electric motor;" ¶: 0009; See also: Fig. 1; ¶: 0002, 0022, 0023];
“one or more batteries adapted to power the propulsion electric motor” [Kaneko; "As described above, the hybrid system according to the embodiment of the present invention includes the engine 1 and the electrical storage device 11 as the power sources for driving the vehicle;" ¶: 0032; See also: Fig. 1 & 5; ¶: 0022, 0023, 0033];
“wherein, while operating the propulsion electric motor in accordance with the propulsion variable, the control circuit is further adapted to: receive a propulsion current signal indicative of an amount of current drawn by the propulsion electric motor” [Kaneko; "Based on the depression amounts of the accelerator pedal and the brake pedal and the operating amount of the control lever 56, the operation determining part 40 calculates the hydraulic requirement power value Pf and the travel requirement power value Prun (S101). In S102, the hybrid control unit 20, receiving inputs of the engine speed, and the terminal voltage and output current of the electrical storage device 11, calculates the engine output upper limit value Pe and the electrical storage device output upper limit value Pc;" Fig. 9; ¶: 0066; See also: Fig. 7 & 8; ¶: 0059-0065, 0067, 0068];
“and in accordance with the propulsion current signal satisfying propulsion reduction criteria, reduce the propulsion variable by a propulsion reduction amount such that the propulsion variable is below a maximum propulsion variable” [Kaneko; "In S103, the power limit setting part 41 compares the total requirement power value that is the sum of the hydraulic requirement power value Pf and the travel requirement power value Prun with the hybrid output upper limit value that is the sum of the engine output upper limit value Pe and the engine output upper limit value Pe. If the total requirement power value exceeds the hybrid output upper limit value, the process shifts to a power limiting mode and proceeds to S104;" Fig. 9; ¶: 0067;
"In S104, the operation determining part 40 determines whether the current specific operation of the vehicle falls into operation 1, operation 2, or operation 3 based on the signals applied thereto in S100. The specific operation is here determined based on the criteria shown in FIG. 8 described earlier. Specifically, the operation is determined based on the flowchart shown in FIG. 10;" Fig. 9; ¶: 0068;
"Referring back to FIG. 9, the specific type of power to be limited is determined in S105 based on the specific operation determined in S104. The determination is here made based on the combination shown in FIG. 8. When the specific type of power to be limited is determined in S105, a step is performed to limit the power in S106. The power limiting step to be here performed may include, for example, calculating a difference between the total requirement power value and the hybrid output upper limit value and subtracting the power equivalent to the thus-obtained difference from the specific type of power to be limited determined in S105;" Fig. 9; ¶: 0075; See also: Fig. 8 & 10; ¶: 0069-0074].
With respect to claim 20, Kaneko discloses: “Construction machine according to claim 16, wherein, while operating the propulsion electric motor in accordance with the propulsion variable and while the propulsion variable is below the maximum propulsion variable, the control circuit is further adapted to, in accordance with the propulsion current signal satisfying a propulsion increasing criteria, increase the propulsion variable by a propulsion increase amount” [Kaneko; "If it is determined in S103 that the hybrid output upper limit value exceeds the total requirement power value, the process is terminated as a normal mode and the steps of S100 and onward are repeated;" Fig. 9; ¶: 0075; See also: Fig. 8 & 10; ¶: 0067-0074].
With respect to claim 24, Kaneko discloses: “Construction machine according to claim 16 comprising a control panel comprising a propulsion controller operable between a lower propulsion controller limit and an upper propulsion controller limit, wherein the control circuit is adapted to receive a propulsion controller input indicative of a state of the propulsion controller between the lower propulsion controller limit and the upper propulsion controller limit, and wherein the propulsion variable is based on the propulsion controller input” [Kaneko; "A method for determining each of the basic three types of operations ( operations 1, 2, and 3) will be described. These three types of operations can be basically determined with an operating amount L of the control lever 56 and a depression amount A of the accelerator pedal. Now, threshold values are to be set for the operating amount L of the control lever 56 and the depression amount A of the accelerator pedal. Specifically, let L1 be a first operating amount and L2 be a second operating amount, the first operating amount L1 being greater than the second operating amount L2 (L1>L2) and the first operating amount L1 being close to a maximum operating amount. Let A1 be a first depression amount and A2 be a second depression amount, the first depression amount A1 being greater than the second depression amount A2 (A1>A2) and the first depression amount A1 being close to a maximum depression amount. Similarly, threshold values are to be set for a travel speed B of the wheel loader and a rotational speed R of the travel electric motor 9. Specifically, let V1 be a first travel speed and V2 be a second travel speed, the first travel speed V1 being greater than the second travel speed (V1>V2) and the second travel speed V2 being close to zero (stationary state). Let R1 be a first rotational speed and R2 be a second rotational speed, the first rotational speed R1 being greater than the second rotational speed R2 (R1>R2) and the second rotational speed R2 being close to zero (stationary state);" ¶: 0052].
With respect to claim 29, Kaneko discloses:
“Construction machine according to claim 16 comprising a functional component, such as a skip, movable between a first component position and a second component position” [Kaneko; "FIG. 1 is a system configuration diagram showing a hybrid wheel loader according to the embodiment of the present invention. The wheel loader shown in this figure includes an engine 1, a motor generator (motor/generator (M/G)) 6, an inverter 7, a hydraulic pump 4, a work implement 50, hydraulic actuators (a bucket cylinder 51, a lift cylinder 52, and a steering cylinder 53), a track structure 60, a travel electric motor 9, an inverter 10, an electrical storage device 11, operating devices (a control lever 56 and a steering wheel (not shown)), and a controller 200. Specifically, the motor generator 6 is connected to an output shaft of the engine 1. The inverter 7 controls the motor generator 6. The hydraulic pump 4 is connected to a rotational shaft of the motor generator 6. The work implement 50 includes a bucket and a lift arm (not shown) and is mounted forwardly of the vehicle;" Fig. 1; ¶: 0022];
“wherein the construction machine comprises a component electric motor adapted to move the functional component between the first component position and the second component position” [Kaneko; "FIG. 8 is a matrix showing correspondence among basic operations of the wheel loader according to the embodiment of the present invention, input information used when a specific basic operation is to be detected, and power requirement values (travel requirement power value Prun/hydraulic requirement power value Pf) limited in the basic operation. Types of basic operations cited in the embodiment are mainly:" Fig. 8; ¶: 0041;
"(Operation 1) Starting the vehicle and, at the same time, raising the lift arm (combined operation): Raising the lift arm, while starting the vehicle from a standstill position;" Fig. 8; ¶: 0042; See also: ¶: 0043-0050];
“the control circuit being adapted to operate the component electric motor in accordance with a component movement variable, wherein, while operating the component electric motor in accordance with the component movement variable, the control circuit is further adapted to: receive a component current signal indicative of an amount of current drawn by the component electric motor” [Kaneko; "Based on the depression amounts of the accelerator pedal and the brake pedal and the operating amount of the control lever 56, the operation determining part 40 calculates the hydraulic requirement power value Pf and the travel requirement power value Prun (S101). In S102, the hybrid control unit 20, receiving inputs of the engine speed, and the terminal voltage and output current of the electrical storage device 11, calculates the engine output upper limit value Pe and the electrical storage device output upper limit value Pc;" Fig. 9; ¶: 0066; See also: Fig. 7 & 8; ¶: 0059-0065, 0067, 0068];
“and in accordance with the component current signal satisfying component reduction criteria, reduce the component movement variable by a component reduction amount, such that the component movement variable is below a maximum component movement variable” [Kaneko; "In S103, the power limit setting part 41 compares the total requirement power value that is the sum of the hydraulic requirement power value Pf and the travel requirement power value Prun with the hybrid output upper limit value that is the sum of the engine output upper limit value Pe and the engine output upper limit value Pe. If the total requirement power value exceeds the hybrid output upper limit value, the process shifts to a power limiting mode and proceeds to S104;" Fig. 9; ¶: 0067;
"In S104, the operation determining part 40 determines whether the current specific operation of the vehicle falls into operation 1, operation 2, or operation 3 based on the signals applied thereto in S100. The specific operation is here determined based on the criteria shown in FIG. 8 described earlier. Specifically, the operation is determined based on the flowchart shown in FIG. 10;" Fig. 9; ¶: 0068;
"Referring back to FIG. 9, the specific type of power to be limited is determined in S105 based on the specific operation determined in S104. The determination is here made based on the combination shown in FIG. 8. When the specific type of power to be limited is determined in S105, a step is performed to limit the power in S106. The power limiting step to be here performed may include, for example, calculating a difference between the total requirement power value and the hybrid output upper limit value and subtracting the power equivalent to the thus-obtained difference from the specific type of power to be limited determined in S105;" Fig. 9; ¶: 0075; See also: Fig. 8 & 10; ¶: 0069-0074].
With respect to claim 30, Kaneko discloses:
“A construction machine having a body and a functional component movable between a first component position and a second component position” [Kaneko; "FIG. 1 is a system configuration diagram showing a hybrid wheel loader according to the embodiment of the present invention. The wheel loader shown in this figure includes an engine 1, a motor generator (motor/generator (M/G)) 6, an inverter 7, a hydraulic pump 4, a work implement 50, hydraulic actuators (a bucket cylinder 51, a lift cylinder 52, and a steering cylinder 53), a track structure 60, a travel electric motor 9, an inverter 10, an electrical storage device 11, operating devices (a control lever 56 and a steering wheel (not shown)), and a controller 200. Specifically, the motor generator 6 is connected to an output shaft of the engine 1. The inverter 7 controls the motor generator 6. The hydraulic pump 4 is connected to a rotational shaft of the motor generator 6. The work implement 50 includes a bucket and a lift arm (not shown) and is mounted forwardly of the vehicle;" Fig. 1; ¶: 0022; See also: Fig. 1; ¶: 0002, 0009, 0022, 0023];
“the construction machine further comprising: a component electric motor adapted to move the functional component between the first component position and the second component position” [Kaneko; "FIG. 8 is a matrix showing correspondence among basic operations of the wheel loader according to the embodiment of the present invention, input information used when a specific basic operation is to be detected, and power requirement values (travel requirement power value Prun/hydraulic requirement power value Pf) limited in the basic operation. Types of basic operations cited in the embodiment are mainly:" Fig. 8; ¶: 0041;
"(Operation 1) Starting the vehicle and, at the same time, raising the lift arm (combined operation): Raising the lift arm, while starting the vehicle from a standstill position;" Fig. 8; ¶: 0042; See also: ¶: 0043-0050];
“one or more batteries adapted to power the component electric motor” [Kaneko; "As described above, the hybrid system according to the embodiment of the present invention includes the engine 1 and the electrical storage device 11 as the power sources for driving the vehicle;" ¶: 0032; See also: Fig. 1 & 5; ¶: 0022, 0023, 0033];
“a control circuit adapted to operate the component electric motor in accordance with a component movement variable, the component movement variable being indicative of a wanted speed of the component electric motor” [Kaneko; "FIG. 7 is a diagram showing an input/output relation of the operation determining part 40 and the power limit setting part 41 in the embodiment of the present invention. A configuration of the operation determining part 40 will be first described below. The operation determining part 40 receives inputs of information on operations and work of the vehicle, specifically, the operating mount of the control lever 56, the depression amounts of the accelerator pedal and the brake pedal, the switch signal from the F/R switch 63, the speed of the travel electric motor 9, and the travel speed. The operation determining part 40 determines, based on these pieces of information input thereto, the specific detail of the current operation of the wheel loader;" Fig. 7; ¶: 0040; See also: ¶: 0052-0059];
“wherein, while operating the component electric motor in accordance with the component movement variable, the control circuit is further adapted to: receive a component current signal indicative of an amount of current drawn by the component electric motor” [Kaneko; "Based on the depression amounts of the accelerator pedal and the brake pedal and the operating amount of the control lever 56, the operation determining part 40 calculates the hydraulic requirement power value Pf and the travel requirement power value Prun (S101). In S102, the hybrid control unit 20, receiving inputs of the engine speed, and the terminal voltage and output current of the electrical storage device 11, calculates the engine output upper limit value Pe and the electrical storage device output upper limit value Pc;" Fig. 9; ¶: 0066; See also: Fig. 7 & 8; ¶: 0059-0065, 0067, 0068];
“and in accordance with the component current signal satisfying component reduction criteria, reduce the component movement variable by a component reduction amount such that the component movement variable is below a maximum component movement variable” [Kaneko; "In S103, the power limit setting part 41 compares the total requirement power value that is the sum of the hydraulic requirement power value Pf and the travel requirement power value Prun with the hybrid output upper limit value that is the sum of the engine output upper limit value Pe and the engine output upper limit value Pe. If the total requirement power value exceeds the hybrid output upper limit value, the process shifts to a power limiting mode and proceeds to S104;" Fig. 9; ¶: 0067;
"In S104, the operation determining part 40 determines whether the current specific operation of the vehicle falls into operation 1, operation 2, or operation 3 based on the signals applied thereto in S100. The specific operation is here determined based on the criteria shown in FIG. 8 described earlier. Specifically, the operation is determined based on the flowchart shown in FIG. 10;" Fig. 9; ¶: 0068;
"Referring back to FIG. 9, the specific type of power to be limited is determined in S105 based on the specific operation determined in S104. The determination is here made based on the combination shown in FIG. 8. When the specific type of power to be limited is determined in S105, a step is performed to limit the power in S106. The power limiting step to be here performed may include, for example, calculating a difference between the total requirement power value and the hybrid output upper limit value and subtracting the power equivalent to the thus-obtained difference from the specific type of power to be limited determined in S105;" Fig. 9; ¶: 0075; See also: Fig. 8 & 10; ¶: 0069-0074].
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim(s) 17, 18 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Ronan et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0410986 A1) referenced as Ronan moving forward.
With respect to claim 17, Kaneko does not specifically state: “wherein the propulsion reduction criteria include an upper propulsion current threshold and an upper propulsion threshold duration of time, and wherein, to satisfy the propulsion reduction criteria, the propulsion current signal is indicative of the propulsion electric motor having drawn an amount of current above the upper propulsion current threshold for a period of time longer than the upper propulsion threshold duration of time.”
Ronan, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for work vehicles, teaches: “wherein the propulsion reduction criteria include an upper propulsion current threshold and an upper propulsion threshold duration of time, and wherein, to satisfy the propulsion reduction criteria, the propulsion current signal is indicative of the propulsion electric motor having drawn an amount of current above the upper propulsion current threshold for a period of time longer than the upper propulsion threshold duration of time” [Ronan; "Tractor 104 also includes at least one drive motor 212 controlled by a drive circuit 214 to mechanically drive a plurality of wheels (not shown) to maneuver tractor 104. Drive circuit 214 includes a safety feature 215 that deactivates motion of tractor 104 when it detects that rotation of drive motor 212 is impeded (e.g., stalled) and that drive motor 212 is drawing a current of six-hundred amperes, or more, for a predetermined period (e.g., five seconds). Safety feature 215 may thereby prevent damage to tractor 104 and/or other objects around tractor 104 when tractor 104 is impeded by an object. Safety feature 215 is described above with respect to an electric tractor. It should be appreciated that a similar safety feature could be included for diesel-based tractors, such as reducing engine power when an RPM threshold goes above a pre-set threshold;" Fig. 2; ¶: 0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for limiting engine output based on the amount of power required to perform the desired operator input as disclosed by Kaneko to incorporate the teachings regarding measuring current output of a drive motor of a tractor over a period of time to determine if the drive motor is impeded as taught by Ronan with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for limiting engine output based on the amount of power required to perform the desired operator input that is more robust in its ability to prevent damage to a drive motor of a tractor and/or other objects around the tractor by preventing motor stalling [Ronan; ¶: 0007, 0034, 0049].
With respect to claim 18, Kaneko does not specifically state: “wherein the upper propulsion threshold duration of time is between 1 and 10 seconds.”
Ronan teaches: “wherein the upper propulsion threshold duration of time is between 1 and 10 seconds” [Ronan; "Tractor 104 also includes at least one drive motor 212 controlled by a drive circuit 214 to mechanically drive a plurality of wheels (not shown) to maneuver tractor 104. Drive circuit 214 includes a safety feature 215 that deactivates motion of tractor 104 when it detects that rotation of drive motor 212 is impeded (e.g., stalled) and that drive motor 212 is drawing a current of six-hundred amperes, or more, for a predetermined period (e.g., five seconds). Safety feature 215 may thereby prevent damage to tractor 104 and/or other objects around tractor 104 when tractor 104 is impeded by an object. Safety feature 215 is described above with respect to an electric tractor. It should be appreciated that a similar safety feature could be included for diesel-based tractors, such as reducing engine power when an RPM threshold goes above a pre-set threshold;" Fig. 2; ¶: 0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for limiting engine output based on the amount of power required to perform the desired operator input as disclosed by Kaneko to incorporate the teachings regarding measuring current output of a drive motor of a tractor over a period of time to determine if the drive motor is impeded as taught by Ronan with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for limiting engine output based on the amount of power required to perform the desired operator input that is more robust in its ability to prevent damage to a drive motor of a tractor and/or other objects around the tractor by preventing motor stalling [Ronan; ¶: 0007, 0034, 0049].
With respect to claim 23, Kaneko does not specifically state: “wherein the propulsion increase amount is between 5-40% of the propulsion variable and/or of the maximum propulsion variable.”
Ronan teaches: “wherein the propulsion increase amount is between 5-40% of the propulsion variable and/or of the maximum propulsion variable” [Ronan; "For example, stall recovery routine 750 may add 20% throttle to each retry attempt until a maximum throttle setting is attempted. That is, when stall detector 228 detects a motor stall on a retry attempt, the following retry attempt increases the throttle further. The increased throttle setting causes tractor 104 to move at a higher speed towards the object or problem causing the stall to overcome the obstacle or problem;" ¶: 0054].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for limiting engine output based on the amount of power required to perform the desired operator input as disclosed by Kaneko to incorporate the teachings regarding measuring current output of a drive motor of a tractor over a period of time to determine if the drive motor is impeded as taught by Ronan with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for limiting engine output based on the amount of power required to perform the desired operator input that is more robust in its ability to prevent damage to a drive motor of a tractor and/or other objects around the tractor by preventing motor stalling [Ronan; ¶: 0007, 0034, 0049].
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Vandenbussche (United States Patent Publication 2021/0086769 A1) referenced as Vandenbussche moving forward.
With respect to claim 19, Kaneko does not specifically state: “wherein the propulsion reduction amount is between 30-60% of the propulsion variable and/or of the maximum propulsion variable.”
Vandenbussche, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for limiting current/power draw in vehicles with electric power trains, teaches: “wherein the propulsion reduction amount is between 30-60% of the propulsion variable and/or of the maximum propulsion variable” [Vandenbussche; "As shown in FIG. 9, scaling of torque magnitude 906 determined using torque profile 914 may maintain an expected throttle response 916 when using the torque profile 914. Moreover, scaling torque by 50% may yield a resulting range of torque that is consistent for various torque profiles;" Fig. 9; ¶: 0054; See also: Fig. 8 & 10; ¶: 0053, 0055].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for limiting engine output based on the amount of power required to perform the desired operator input as disclosed by Kaneko to incorporate the teachings regarding scaling the torque output from an electric motor, selected by a user input to a vehicle throttle, based on the current drawn by the electric motor as taught by Vandenbussche with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for limiting engine output based on the amount of power required to perform the desired operator input that is more robust in its ability to make driving of vehicles smoother by predicting the amount of motor output torque needed to satisfy driver or cruise control demand and the precise combination of motor control input variables to obtain that result, without having to hunt for a solution by trial and error. This has the favorable outcome of reducing variation in driver experience due to variations in inclination and vehicle load while improving safety in operation of the automotive vehicle [Vandenbussche; ¶: 0016-0018, 0021].
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Coroban-Schramel (United States Patent Publication 2020/0343849 A1) referenced as Coroban-Schramel moving forward.
With respect to claim 22, Kaneko does not specifically state: “wherein the lower propulsion current threshold is lower than the upper propulsion current threshold and/or wherein the lower propulsion threshold duration of time is lower than the upper propulsion threshold duration of time and/or wherein the propulsion increase amount is less than the propulsion reduction amount.”
Coroban-Schramel, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for limiting current/power draw in vehicles with electric power trains, teaches: “wherein the lower propulsion current threshold is lower than the upper propulsion current threshold and/or wherein the lower propulsion threshold duration of time is lower than the upper propulsion threshold duration of time and/or wherein the propulsion increase amount is less than the propulsion reduction amount” [Coroban-Schramel; In at least Fig. 15, Coroban-Schramel discloses a threshold battery current limit of positive 80 Amps and a second threshold battery current limit of negative 20 Amps. One of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the relationship between these two thresholds as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's claim limitation reciting: "wherein the lower propulsion current threshold is lower than the upper propulsion current threshold;" See also: ¶: 0073, 0092-0094].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for limiting engine output based on the amount of power required to perform the desired operator input as disclosed by Kaneko to incorporate the teachings regarding maintaining the current drawn/generated by an electric motor between an upper bound and a lower bound based on the state-of-charge of the vehicle battery using a feedback control loop as taught by Coroban-Schramel with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for limiting engine output based on the amount of power required to perform the desired operator input that is more robust in its ability to drive torque demand limits to their optimum values thereby enabling the model to accommodate for even slight errors, which results in the desirable outcome that the response time of the feedback loop to be relatively high [Coroban-Schramel; ¶: 0021-0025].
Claim(s) 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko in view of FUNG et al. (United States Patent Publication 2023/0079946 A1) referenced as Fung moving forward.
With respect to claim 25, Kaneko does not specifically state: “wherein a maximum propulsion speed of the construction machine caused by the one or more movement elements is less than 50 km/h.”
Fung, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for work vehicles, teaches: “wherein a maximum propulsion speed of the construction machine caused by the one or more movement elements is less than 50 km/h” [Fung; "In one example, the first speed mode allows for vehicle 10 speeds ranging from zero to twenty miles per hour in either direction, the second speed mode allows for vehicle speeds ranging from zero to five miles per hour in either direction, and the third speed mode allows for vehicle speeds ranging from zero to two miles per hour in either direction. In another example, the first speed mode allows for vehicle 10 speeds ranging from zero to four miles per hour in either direction, the second speed mode allows for vehicle speeds ranging from zero to two miles per hour in either direction, and the third speed mode allows for vehicle speeds ranging from zero to less than one miles per hour in either direction;" ¶: 0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for limiting engine output based on the amount of power required to perform the desired operator input as disclosed by Kaneko to incorporate the teachings regarding limiting the propulsion speed of a work vehicle based on the observed grade of the road as taught by Fung with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for limiting engine output based on the amount of power required to perform the desired operator input that is more robust in its ability to reduce the speed of the work vehicle before a road grade gets too steep for the motor to control the vehicle’s speed, without requiring braking power near an upper limit [Fung; ¶: 0053-0055].
With respect to claim 26, Kaneko does not specifically state: “wherein the one or more batteries are lithium-ion batteries.”
Fung teaches: “wherein the one or more batteries are lithium-ion batteries” [Fung; "The traction battery 64 may be provided by one or more cells, may be a wet cell or a dry cell, and may be formed with a lead acid chemistry, lithium based chemistry, or another chemistry. The traction battery 64 may have an associated voltage limit, current limit, state of charge limit, or temperature limit. In one non-limiting example, the motor controller 66 has a voltage limit. In another example, and with a lithium chemistry battery, the battery 64 may have voltage and current limits, as well as operating temperature limitations. For example, the battery 64 may have limited charging when it is outside a temperature range, e.g., after a cold start at cold ambient temperatures, and the motor controller 66 and/or system controller 68 may limit charging of the battery in these conditions;" Fig. 3; ¶: 0028; See also: ¶: 0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for limiting engine output based on the amount of power required to perform the desired operator input as disclosed by Kaneko to incorporate the teachings regarding limiting the propulsion speed of a work vehicle based on the observed grade of the road as taught by Fung with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for limiting engine output based on the amount of power required to perform the desired operator input that is more robust in its ability to reduce the speed of the work vehicle before a road grade gets too steep for the motor to control the vehicle’s speed, without requiring braking power near an upper limit [Fung; ¶: 0053-0055].
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Cooke et al. (United States Patent 5,528,444 A) referenced as Cooke moving forward.
PNG
media_image1.png
238
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 27, Kaneko does not specifically state: “wherein a current limiter is arranged to limit current to the propulsion electric motor by a maximum current limit specific to the current limiter, and wherein the maximum current limit is more than the upper propulsion current threshold of the propulsion reduction criteria, such as more than 150% of the upper propulsion current threshold.”
Cooke, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for limiting current/power draw in vehicles with electric power trains, teaches: “wherein a current limiter is arranged to limit current to the propulsion electric motor by a maximum current limit specific to the current limiter, and wherein the maximum current limit is more than the upper propulsion current threshold of the propulsion reduction criteria, such as more than 150% of the upper propulsion current threshold” [Cooke; "In one application of the invention, peak short circuit current to a faulted motor has been limited to approximately 18,000 amperes in a propulsion system capable of supplying 60-70,000 amperes or more without this improved flashover protection means, and the electrical energy in the faulted motor circuit has been limited to about 25% of what it would otherwise be;" Col: 15, Lines: 65-67; Col: 16, Lines: 1-2; wherein Cooke further discloses that the current limiting operation is performed using a current feedback loop in the form a PNP transistor (denoted as 43 in Fig. 4, for example, which has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant’s broadly recited “current limiter;” Fig. 4; Col: 12, Lines: 1-21].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for limiting engine output based on the amount of power required to perform the desired operator input as disclosed by Kaneko to incorporate the teachings regarding incorporating a shorted diode protection system into an electric drive train as taught by Cooke with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for limiting engine output based on the amount of power required to perform the desired operator input that is more robust in its ability to detect fault current conditions and subsequently dissipating energy in a field winding accordingly to ultimately prevent further damage to the vehicle’s power system [Cooke; Col: 1, Lines: 8-16; Col: 5, Lines: 57-67; Col: 6, Lines: 1-28].
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko in view of LAINE et al. (United States Patent Publication 2024/0317069 A1) referenced as Laine moving forward.
With respect to claim 28, Kaneko does not specifically state: “wherein a rotor of the propulsion electric motor is connected to an axle of the one or more movement elements by a gear with a gear ratio, wherein the gear ratio may be between 2:1-20:1.”
Laine, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for work vehicles, teaches: “wherein a rotor of the propulsion electric motor is connected to an axle of the one or more movement elements by a gear with a gear ratio, wherein the gear ratio may be between 2:1-20:1” [Laine; "According to at least one exemplary embodiment, the first axle has a higher gear ratio than the second axle. By designing the first axle with a higher gear ratio, it may be suitable for use as a startability/power axle. For instance, the first axle may be a rear axle designed with close wheel electric machines (motors) with a fixed gear ratio. This allows the electric machines to apply direct positive and negative wheel torque on both sides. A good gear ratio could, for example, be 20:1-23:1 to keep the electric machines to perform the torque from zero to low speed range, e.g. up to 50-60 km/h. This is, of course, just an example, and it should be understood that other speed ranges are also possible, because the electric machine may have a property that allows high maximum rpm but with poorer electric efficiency for the complete operating speed range or the vehicle. Electric efficiency n is normally defined as the ratio between the output power Pout and the input power Pin. Thus, it is a measure of useable electric power, and the rest being losses;" ¶: 0044; See also: ¶: 0106].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for limiting engine output based on the amount of power required to perform the desired operator input as disclosed by Kaneko to incorporate the teachings regarding limiting the maximum torque of a steered axle based on a current state of a steered axle as taught by Laine with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for limiting engine output based on the amount of power required to perform the desired operator input that is more robust in its ability to limit the maximum allowable propulsion torque in dependence of the current steering angle, such that: “vehicle components such as universal joints may be spared from adverse effects, and their lifetime can be extended” [Laine; ¶: 0005-0007, 0101].
Claim Objections/Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 21 is/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. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Yoshida et al. (United States Patent Publication 2010/0026222 A1) discloses: A dynamo-electric machine control system including a dynamo-electric machine and an inverter that is interposed between a battery and the dynamo-electric machine and that controls a current flowing through the dynamo-electric machine, wherein a rotation speed and an output torque of the dynamo-electric machine are controlled by the inverter, the dynamo-electric machine control system includes a battery power deriving unit that derives a battery power to be supplied from the battery when the dynamo-electric machine is operated at the rotation speed and the output torque; a limit power determining unit that variably determines a limit power, which is a maximum allowable value of the battery power, in accordance with a battery voltage; and a torque limiting unit that limits the torque of the dynamo-electric machine such that the battery power derived by the battery power deriving unit does not exceed the limit power.
Kuittinen et al. (United States Patent Publication 2013/0214928 A1) discloses: A rock drilling rig, a method for transfer drive of the rock drilling rig, and a speed controller. The rock drilling rig includes combustion-engine-free drive equipment which includes a plurality of electric components for implementation of the transfer drive. The control unit of the rock drilling rig includes load monitoring which monitors the load of the components during the transfer drive. Load monitoring allows the electric driving system to be intentionally overloaded for a period of time limited in advance. A user interface of the control unit comprises a speed controller whose control element has a first control range, where operation takes place in the rated load range, and a second control range, where operation takes place in the overload range.
KANEKO et al. (United States Patent Publication 2016/0230369 A1) discloses: A hybrid wheel loader that includes a control device that estimates output power of an engine and an electricity storage device when the hybrid wheel loader is inferred on the basis of output values of detectors to be traveling towards an object of excavation in order to perform an excavating work, and then, if the output power is less than target power considered necessary for the excavating work, accelerates the engine to a target revolution speed while increasing the electric power supplied from the electricity storage device to a traveling motor. Accordingly, power necessary for excavation can be drawn from the engine even when the engine revolution speed is low and there is a fear of power deficiency occurring at the time of the excavating work.
Lin et al. (United States Patent Publication 2016/0355189 A1) discloses: A torque-speed curve or data of load that is used as a standard to determine an external condition in which an electric vehicle is operating such as incline or no incline, head wind or no headwind, high temperature or low temperature. The system compares samples of actual torque-speed of load data to the standard. Based on the comparison, the system determines the external condition (going up a hill, traveling into a headwind, operating at high temperature) or an abnormal operation of the vehicle powertrain, for example, low tire pressure, elevated friction, wheels out of alignment. Based on the determination, the system takes an action to govern a maximum torque output of the motor to control temperature of the vehicle battery; to raise a wind deflector; to govern maximum speed of the vehicle to reduce danger resulting from low tire pressure, elevated powertrain friction or out of alignment wheels; or to initiate an indication of abnormal conditions.
Siefken (United States Patent Publication 2020/0398679 A1) discloses: An alternator assembly that includes: an alternator having an alternator input; a variable transmission assembly including an input pulley, an output pulley coupled to the input pulley and the alternator input, and a solenoid configured to adjust a gear ratio between the input pulley and the output pulley; a rotation speed sensor coupled with at least one of the output pulley or the alternator input and configured to output a first signal; and a controller. The controller is configured to determine the rotation speed of the alternator input based on the first signal; compare the rotation speed of the alternator input to a set rotation speed; and output an adjustment signal if the rotation speed of the alternator input differs from the set rotation speed so the solenoid adjusts the gear ratio such that the rotation speed of the alternator input is equal to the set rotation speed.
Lombardo et al. (United States Patent Publication 2021/0276423 A1) discloses: A lift device that includes a base assembly, a turntable assembly, and a controller. The base assembly includes multiple base assembly batteries. The turntable assembly is rotatably coupled with the base assembly through a slip ring transmission. The turntable assembly includes multiple turntable assembly batteries. The controller is configured to operate the base assembly batteries to discharge electrical energy to the turntable batteries through the slip ring transmission. The slip ring transmission is configured to both (1) drive the turntable assembly to rotate relative to the base assembly and (2) to electrically and communicably couple electrical components of the base assembly with electrical components of the turntable assembly.
Kirchhoff et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0194542 A1) discloses: A method of controlling an electric marine propulsion system configured to propel a marine vessel including measuring at least one parameter of an electric motor in the electric marine propulsion system and determining that the parameter measurement indicates an abnormality in the electric marine propulsion system. A reduced operation limit is then determined based on the at least one parameter measurement, wherein the reduced operation limit includes at least one of a torque limit, an RPM limit, a current limit, and a power limit. The electric motor is then controlled such that the reduced operation limit is not exceeded.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI N BEDEWI whose telephone number is (571)272-5753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday - 6:00 am - 11:00 am & 12:00pm - 5:00 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, Scott A. Browne can be reached on (571-270-0151). 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.
/R.N.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666