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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Response dated 3/2/2026. Applicant has not requested domestic benefit nor foreign priority and thus this filing date is the effective filing date. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 12/15/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, see pages 1-2 of 5, filed 3/2/2026, with respect to specification objections, claim objections, and 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification objections, claim objections, and 112(b) rejections of record have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 2-3 of 5, filed 3/2/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has argued against the rejection of claim 1, however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the Applicant believes primary reference Nahrwold does not adjust torque levels based on the speed of the machine as well as the rotational speed of the ground engaging mechanism (wheels/tires/tracks) and that slippage is only determined based on weather. The Examiner notes that primary reference Nahrwold discloses wheel speed sensors and adjustments of torque according to such. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that slippage (as disclosed by primary reference Nahrwold) indicates a delta between wheel speed and vehicle speed, and thus addresses the claim limitations as presented, although vehicle speed detection is not explicitly disclosed.
Applicant's arguments, see page 3 of 5, filed 3/2/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has argued against the rejection of claim 2, however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the Applicant believes primary reference Nahrwold does not set a maximum value for torque. The Examiner notes that the curve presented in Figure 2 of primary reference Nahrwold is indicative of an amount, of which a maximum torque is achieved upon full depression of an acceleration pedal; at 100% accelerator pedal position, 1,500 Nm of wheel torque is achieved.
Applicant's arguments, see page 3 of 5, filed 3/2/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has argued against the rejection of claim 7, however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the Applicant believes primary reference Nahrwold does not set a maximum value for torque at a specific location. The Examiner notes that primary reference Nahrwold discloses the detection of slippage at a specific location, of which adjustments (similar to those detailed above with respect to claim 2) are repeated when the vehicle traverses the location at a future point.
Applicant's arguments, see page 3 of 5, filed 3/2/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has argued against the rejection of claim 12, however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the Applicant believes secondary reference Fairgrieve does not adjust a torque by an amount lesser than the first amount. The Examiner notes cited paragraph [0139] details the recurrent evaluation of wheel slip and corresponding incremental adjustment of wheel speed (via torque control), which would require a torque amount being different than a previous torque amount to result in notable intended changes.
A detailed rejection follows below.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes the broadness of claims 12-14, in that “increasing/decreasing” by “an amount lesser than [another] amount” could result in any possible result, depending on the value of the amount and sign of the amount (braking indicative of a negative torque).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“…a ground engaging mechanism configured to rotate to move the work machine along a ground surface…” in claim 1.
“…a ground engaging mechanism configured to rotate to move the work machine along a ground surface…” in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Support for these limitations are as follows:
ground engaging mechanism:
[0021] “...In the illustrative embodiment, the ground engaging mechanisms 31, 32 include a first set of wheels (e.g., tires) coupled to a front portion 21 of the chassis 20 and a second set of wheels (e.g., tires) coupled to a rear portion 23 of the chassis 20. In other embodiments, the ground engaging mechanisms 31, 32 may include tracks, for example...”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
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 the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 11, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nahrwold et al. (US-2021/0252983; hereinafter Nahrwold; already of record) in view of Fairgrieve et al. (US-2015/0217769; hereinafter Fairgrieve; already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Nahrwold discloses a work machine for loading material in a worksite, comprising:
a power source configured to provide a torque (see Nahrwold at least [0012] "...In one example, propulsion sources 105a and 105b may be electric machines that may operate as motors or generators…");
a ground engaging mechanism configured to rotate to move the work machine along a ground surface (see Nahrwold at least [0013] "…Vehicle propulsion system 199 further includes front wheels 102 and rear wheels 103. Front wheels 102 may be selectively driven via propulsion source 105a and rear wheels 103 may be selectively drive via propulsion source 105b. Thus, propulsion system 199 may operate in a four wheel drive mode or a two wheel drive mode.");
a drivetrain coupled to the power source and to the ground engaging mechanism, the drivetrain configured to deliver the torque from the power source to the ground engaging mechanism to drive rotation of the ground engaging mechanism (see Nahrwold at least [0019] "Propulsion source 105a may transfer mechanical power to or receive mechanical power from gearbox 107a. As such, gearbox 107a may be a two speed gearbox that may shift between gears when commanded via transmission control unit 116a. Gearbox 107a may transfer mechanical power to or receive mechanical power from differential 106a. Differential 106a may transfer mechanical power to or receive mechanical power from wheels 102 via right half shaft 101a and left half shaft 101b...");
…
a wheel speed sensor configured to measure a rotational speed of the ground engaging mechanism (see Nahrwold at least Fig 1 and [0025] "...Wheel position or speed sensors 173 may provide wheel speed data to brake controller 170.");
a controller operatively coupled to the wheel speed sensor … and configured to receive … a second signal from the wheel speed sensor indicative of the rotational speed of the ground engaging mechanism (see Nahrwold at least [0025] "...Wheel position or speed sensors 173 may provide wheel speed data to brake controller 170.");
wherein the controller is configured to adjust the torque delivered to the ground engaging mechanism based on … the second signal by sending a signal to the power source and/or drivetrain (see Nahrwold at least Fig 2, [0038] "...Curve 208 represents a relationship between the snow or rain modification to driver demand wheel torque and accelerator pedal position. Curve 208 reaches a maximum value of 1 when the accelerator pedal is fully applied. Curve 208 may reduce driver demand wheel torque for lower accelerator pedal positions so that the vehicle's driver may have additional resolution to control driver demand wheel torque at lower accelerator pedal positions so that the possibility of inducing wheel slip may be reduced." and [0071] “Method 500 may also monitor the front wheels and rear wheels for wheel slip when braking power or positive wheel torque is requested. If wheel slip or wheel lock (e.g., rotation of a wheel is less than a threshold speed when vehicle speed is greater than a threshold speed) is detected, method 500 may store the vehicle's location and rain/snow conditions in controller RAM so that wheel torque/power and braking power may be adjusted if the vehicle travels over the same road location in the future, thereby preempting the wheel slip/lock in an effort to prevent the same.”).
However, while Nahrwold also discusses vehicle speeds and comparisons to thresholds to detect slip, it is not explicit that Nahrwold discloses the following:
…a work machine speed sensor configured to measure a speed of the work machine moving along the ground surface…
…a first signal from the work machine speed sensor indicative of the speed of the work machine moving along the ground surface…
…adjust the torque…based on the first signal…by sending a signal to the power source and/or drivetrain.
Fairgrieve, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…a work machine speed sensor configured to measure a speed of the work machine moving along the ground surface (see Fairgrieve at least [0131] "The sensors (not shown) on the vehicle include, but are not limited to, sensors which provide continuous sensor outputs to the VCU 10, including … a vehicle speed sensor, …")…
…a first signal from the work machine speed sensor indicative of the speed of the work machine moving along the ground surface (see Fairgrieve at least [0127] "A further embodiment of the invention (not shown) is one in which the vehicle is provided with a wheel slip signal 48 derived not just from a comparison of wheel speeds, but further refined using sensor data indicative of the vehicle's speed over ground. Such speed over ground determination may be made via global positioning (GPS) data, or via a vehicle mounted radar or laser based system arranged to determine the relative movement of the vehicle and the ground over which it is travelling...")…
…adjust the torque…based on the first signal (see Fairgrieve at least [0139] "In some embodiments, if slip of one or more wheels above a predetermined threshold continues after wheel speed is reduced, the speed of the one or more wheels is actively managed by controlling the net torque such that, wheel slip falls to a value within the prescribed range described above.")…by sending a signal to the power source and/or drivetrain (see Fairgrieve at least Fig 5 and [0123]-[0124] "…A vehicle speed sensor 34 associated with the powertrain 129 (shown in FIG. 1) provides a signal 36 Indicative of vehicle speed to the LSP control system 12. The LSP control system 12 includes a comparator 28 which compares the set-speed (also referred to as a `target speed` 38) selected by the user with the measured speed 36 and provides an output signal 30 indicative of the comparison. The output signal 30 is provided to an evaluator unit 40 of the VCU 10 which interprets the output signal 30 as either a demand for additional torque to foe applied to the vehicle wheels, or for a reduction in torque to be applied to the vehicle wheels, depending on whether the vehicle speed needs to be increased or decreased to maintain the speed that has been selected by the user... An output 42 from the evaluator unit 40 is provided to the powertrain controller 11 and brake controller 13 which in turn control a net torque applied to the vehicle wheels 111-115. The net torque may be increased or decreased depending on whether there is a positive or negative demand for torque from the evaluator unit 40… In some embodiments, the powertrain controller 11 may be operable to control an amount of torque applied to one or more wheels by controlling a driveline component such as a rear drive unit, front drive unit, differential or any other suitable component...").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detection of slip such as disclosed by Nahrwold with additional sensor data indicative of slip such as taught by Fairgrieve with a reasonable expectation of success for the sake of accurately detecting wheel slip and addressing it to maintain stable vehicle controls (see Fairgrieve at least [0004]-[0006] and [0011]).
Regarding claim 2, Nahrwold in view of Fairgrieve teach the work machine of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to set a maximum value for the torque delivered to the ground engaging mechanism based on the first signal (Fairgrieve; first signal) and the second signal (see Nahrwold at least Fig 2 and [0038] "The fourth plot from the top of FIG. 2 shows an example relationship between a snow or rain modification to driver demand wheel torque and accelerator pedal position. The vertical axis represents the snow or rain modification to driver demand wheel torque and the modification value increases in the direction of the vertical axis arrow. In this example, the modification range is from 0.75 to 1. Consequently, when the driver demand torque that is a function of accelerator pedal position is multiplied by the snow or rain modification to driver demand wheel torque, the result is a reduced driver demand torque, except at higher accelerator pedal positions where the driver demand wheel torque is unchanged. The horizontal axis represents accelerator pedal position and the accelerator pedal position increases (e.g., is applied further) in the direction of the horizontal arrow. Curve 208 represents a relationship between the snow or rain modification to driver demand wheel torque and accelerator pedal position. Curve 208 reaches a maximum value of 1 when the accelerator pedal is fully applied. Curve 208 may reduce driver demand wheel torque for lower accelerator pedal positions so that the vehicle's driver may have additional resolution to control driver demand wheel torque at lower accelerator pedal positions so that the possibility of inducing wheel slip may be reduced.").
Regarding claim 5, Nahrwold in view of Fairgrieve teach the work machine of claim 1, further comprising:
a location sensor operatively coupled to the controller (see Nahrwold at least [0020] "Vehicle 10 includes a vehicle control unit (VCU) controller 152 (as also shown in FIG. 1) that may communicate with inverter 115a, inverter 115b, transmission controller 116a, transmission controller 116b, friction or foundation brake controller 170, global positioning system (GPS) 188, and dashboard 130 and components included therein via controller area network (CAN) 120...");
wherein the location sensor is configured to send one or more third signals to the controller indicative of a location of the work machine in the worksite (see Nahrwold at least [0022] "Vehicle propulsion system 199 is shown with a global position determining system 188 that receives timing and position data from one or more GPS satellites 189. Global positioning system may also include geographical maps in ROM for determining the position of vehicle 10 and features of roads that vehicle 10 may travel on.").
Regarding claim 6, Nahrwold in view of Fairgrieve teach the work machine of claim 5, wherein the controller is configured to adjust the torque delivered to the ground engaging mechanism based on the one or more third signals (see Nahrwold at least [0033] "The system of FIG. 1 provides for a vehicle system, comprising: a first electric machine coupled to an axle; a global position detecting system; and a controller including executable instructions stored in non-transitory memory that cause the controller to adjust an amount of wheel torque that is provided to a vehicle as a function of accelerator pedal position in response to a vehicle being at a geographical location where wheel slip or wheel locking of the axle occurred at a time in the past...").
Regarding claim 11, Nahrwold in view of Fairgrieve teach the work machine of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to decrease the torque delivered to the ground engaging mechanism based on the first signal (Fairgrieve; first signal) and the second signal ((see Nahrwold at least [0038] "...Curve 208 represents a relationship between the snow or rain modification to driver demand wheel torque and accelerator pedal position. Curve 208 reaches a maximum value of 1 when the accelerator pedal is fully applied. Curve 208 may reduce driver demand wheel torque for lower accelerator pedal positions so that the vehicle's driver may have additional resolution to control driver demand wheel torque at lower accelerator pedal positions so that the possibility of inducing wheel slip may be reduced.") and (see Fairgrieve at least [0139] "In some embodiments, if slip of one or more wheels above a predetermined threshold continues after wheel speed is reduced, the speed of the one or more wheels is actively managed by controlling the net torque such that, wheel slip falls to a value within the prescribed range described above.")).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the detection of slip such as disclosed by Nahrwold with additional sensor data indicative of slip such as further taught by Fairgrieve with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Nahrwold in view of Fairgrieve teach the analogous material of that as in claim 1 and claim 2 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 19, Nahrwold in view of Fairgrieve teach the analogous material of that as in claim 1 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 20, Nahrwold in view of Fairgrieve teach the analogous material of that as in claim 5 and claim 6 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 3-4, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nahrwold in view of Fairgrieve, and further in view of Barron et al. (US-2004/0015279; hereinafter Barron; already of record).
Regarding claim 3, Nahrwold in view of Fairgrieve teach the work machine of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to compare [a measured overall vehicle speed against an expected overall vehicle speed] (see Fairgrieve at least [0126] "...During a slip event, the LSP control system 12 continues to compare the measured vehicle speed with the desired vehicle speed as input by the user, and continues to control automatically the torque applied across the vehicle wheels so as to maintain vehicle speed at the selected value...") …
wherein if …[a measured overall vehicle speed compared to an expected overall vehicle speed exceeds a limit]… the controller is configured to set a maximum value for the torque delivered to the ground engaging mechanism (see Nahrwold at least Fig 2 and [0038] "The fourth plot from the top of FIG. 2 shows an example relationship between a snow or rain modification to driver demand wheel torque and accelerator pedal position. The vertical axis represents the snow or rain modification to driver demand wheel torque and the modification value increases in the direction of the vertical axis arrow. In this example, the modification range is from 0.75 to 1. Consequently, when the driver demand torque that is a function of accelerator pedal position is multiplied by the snow or rain modification to driver demand wheel torque, the result is a reduced driver demand torque, except at higher accelerator pedal positions where the driver demand wheel torque is unchanged. The horizontal axis represents accelerator pedal position and the accelerator pedal position increases (e.g., is applied further) in the direction of the horizontal arrow. Curve 208 represents a relationship between the snow or rain modification to driver demand wheel torque and accelerator pedal position. Curve 208 reaches a maximum value of 1 when the accelerator pedal is fully applied. Curve 208 may reduce driver demand wheel torque for lower accelerator pedal positions so that the vehicle's driver may have additional resolution to control driver demand wheel torque at lower accelerator pedal positions so that the possibility of inducing wheel slip may be reduced.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the detection of slip such as disclosed by Nahrwold with additional sensor data indicative of slip such as further taught by Fairgrieve with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 1.
However, while both Nahrwold discusses the detection of slip, and Fairgrieve details the detection of slip by comparing a measured vehicle speed against an expected vehicle speed, neither Nahrwold nor Fairgrieve explicitly disclose or teach the following:
…the controller is configured to compare a sensed ratio, which is comprised of the first signal relative to the second signal, to an expected ratio…
…wherein if a difference between the expected ratio and the sensed ratio exceeds an established value…
Barron, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…the controller is configured to compare [a measured rotational speed against an expected rotational speed] (see Barron at least [0003] "A basic function of active braking systems is to detect wheel slip (e.g., skidding or loss of traction) and actuate the brakes (or reduce torque from the engine) in a manner to reduce or control wheel slip. An individual wheel speed is measured and wheel slip is detected by comparing the individual wheel speed to a target speed determined for that wheel...")…
…wherein if …[a measured rotational speed compared to an expected rotational speed exceeds a limit] (see Barron at least [0003] "A basic function of active braking systems is to detect wheel slip (e.g., skidding or loss of traction) and actuate the brakes (or reduce torque from the engine) in a manner to reduce or control wheel slip... For example, activation of the active control (e.g., abs or TC) to being to control slip does not occur until the difference between actual wheel speed and target wheel speed exceeds a slip threshold. A base threshold is chosen that achieves best overall performance for all conditions.")…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detection of slip as taught by Nahrwold in view of Fairgrieve with additional sensor data indicative of slip such as taught by Barron with a reasonable expectation of success for the sake of accurately detecting wheel slip and addressing it to maintain stable vehicle controls (see Barron at least [0003]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 4, Nahrwold in view of Fairgrieve and Barron teach the work machine of claim 3, wherein the maximum value for the torque delivered to the ground engaging mechanism is less than the torque being delivered to the ground engaging mechanism when the difference between the expected ratio and the sensed ratio exceeds the established value (see Nahrwold at least Fig 2).
Regarding claim 7, Nahrwold in view of Fairgrieve teach the work machine of claim 5, wherein the controller is configured to compare [a measured overall vehicle speed against an expected overall vehicle speed] (see Fairgrieve at least [0126] "...During a slip event, the LSP control system 12 continues to compare the measured vehicle speed with the desired vehicle speed as input by the user, and continues to control automatically the torque applied across the vehicle wheels so as to maintain vehicle speed at the selected value...") …
wherein if …[a measured overall vehicle speed compared to an expected overall vehicle speed exceeds a limit]… the controller is configured to set, for the location of the work machine in the worksite, a maximum value for the torque delivered to the ground engaging mechanism (see Nahrwold at least Fig 2 and [0038] "The fourth plot from the top of FIG. 2 shows an example relationship between a snow or rain modification to driver demand wheel torque and accelerator pedal position. The vertical axis represents the snow or rain modification to driver demand wheel torque and the modification value increases in the direction of the vertical axis arrow. In this example, the modification range is from 0.75 to 1. Consequently, when the driver demand torque that is a function of accelerator pedal position is multiplied by the snow or rain modification to driver demand wheel torque, the result is a reduced driver demand torque, except at higher accelerator pedal positions where the driver demand wheel torque is unchanged. The horizontal axis represents accelerator pedal position and the accelerator pedal position increases (e.g., is applied further) in the direction of the horizontal arrow. Curve 208 represents a relationship between the snow or rain modification to driver demand wheel torque and accelerator pedal position. Curve 208 reaches a maximum value of 1 when the accelerator pedal is fully applied. Curve 208 may reduce driver demand wheel torque for lower accelerator pedal positions so that the vehicle's driver may have additional resolution to control driver demand wheel torque at lower accelerator pedal positions so that the possibility of inducing wheel slip may be reduced.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the detection of slip such as disclosed by Nahrwold with additional sensor data indicative of slip such as further taught by Fairgrieve with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 1.
However, while both Nahrwold discusses the detection of slip, and Fairgrieve details the detection of slip by comparing a measured vehicle speed against an expected vehicle speed, neither Nahrwold nor Fairgrieve explicitly disclose or teach the following:
…the controller is configured to compare a sensed ratio, which is comprised of the first signal relative to the second signal, to an expected ratio…
…wherein if a difference between the expected ratio and the sensed ratio exceeds an established value…
Barron, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…the controller is configured to compare [a measured rotational speed against an expected rotational speed] (see Barron at least [0003] "A basic function of active braking systems is to detect wheel slip (e.g., skidding or loss of traction) and actuate the brakes (or reduce torque from the engine) in a manner to reduce or control wheel slip. An individual wheel speed is measured and wheel slip is detected by comparing the individual wheel speed to a target speed determined for that wheel...")…
…wherein if …[a measured rotational speed compared to an expected rotational speed exceeds a limit] (see Barron at least [0003] "A basic function of active braking systems is to detect wheel slip (e.g., skidding or loss of traction) and actuate the brakes (or reduce torque from the engine) in a manner to reduce or control wheel slip... For example, activation of the active control (e.g., abs or TC) to being to control slip does not occur until the difference between actual wheel speed and target wheel speed exceeds a slip threshold. A base threshold is chosen that achieves best overall performance for all conditions.")…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detection of slip as taught by Nahrwold in view of Fairgrieve with additional sensor data indicative of slip such as taught by Barron with a reasonable expectation of success for the sake of accurately detecting wheel slip and addressing it to maintain stable vehicle controls (see Barron at least [0003]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 8, Nahrwold in view of Fairgrieve teach the work machine of claim 5, wherein the controller is configured to compare [a measured overall vehicle speed against an expected overall vehicle speed] (see Fairgrieve at least [0126] "...During a slip event, the LSP control system 12 continues to compare the measured vehicle speed with the desired vehicle speed as input by the user, and continues to control automatically the torque applied across the vehicle wheels so as to maintain vehicle speed at the selected value...") …
wherein if …[a measured overall vehicle speed compared to an expected overall vehicle speed exceeds a limit]… the controller is configured to designate, as a slip zone, the location of the work machine in the worksite (see Nahrwold at least [0033] "The system of FIG. 1 provides for a vehicle system, comprising: a first electric machine coupled to an axle; a global position detecting system; and a controller including executable instructions stored in non-transitory memory that cause the controller to adjust an amount of wheel torque that is provided to a vehicle as a function of accelerator pedal position in response to a vehicle being at a geographical location where wheel slip or wheel locking of the axle occurred at a time in the past. The vehicle system includes where the geographical location is determined via the global position detecting system...").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the detection of slip such as disclosed by Nahrwold with additional sensor data indicative of slip such as further taught by Fairgrieve with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 1.
However, while both Nahrwold discusses the detection of slip, and Fairgrieve details the detection of slip by comparing a measured vehicle speed against an expected vehicle speed, neither Nahrwold nor Fairgrieve explicitly disclose or teach the following:
…the controller is configured to compare a sensed ratio, which is comprised of the first signal relative to the second signal, to an expected ratio…
…wherein if a difference between the expected ratio and the sensed ratio exceeds an established value…
Barron, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…the controller is configured to compare [a measured rotational speed against an expected rotational speed] (see Barron at least [0003] "A basic function of active braking systems is to detect wheel slip (e.g., skidding or loss of traction) and actuate the brakes (or reduce torque from the engine) in a manner to reduce or control wheel slip. An individual wheel speed is measured and wheel slip is detected by comparing the individual wheel speed to a target speed determined for that wheel...")…
…wherein if …[a measured rotational speed compared to an expected rotational speed exceeds a limit] (see Barron at least [0003] "A basic function of active braking systems is to detect wheel slip (e.g., skidding or loss of traction) and actuate the brakes (or reduce torque from the engine) in a manner to reduce or control wheel slip... For example, activation of the active control (e.g., abs or TC) to being to control slip does not occur until the difference between actual wheel speed and target wheel speed exceeds a slip threshold. A base threshold is chosen that achieves best overall performance for all conditions.")…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detection of slip as taught by Nahrwold in view of Fairgrieve with additional sensor data indicative of slip such as taught by Barron with a reasonable expectation of success for the sake of accurately detecting wheel slip and addressing it to maintain stable vehicle controls (see Barron at least [0003]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 9, Nahrwold in view of Fairgrieve and Barron teach the work machine of claim 8, wherein the controller is configured to compare the location of the work machine to the slip zone to determine when the work machine is in the slip zone (see Nahrwold at least [0033] "The system of FIG. 1 provides for a vehicle system, comprising: a first electric machine coupled to an axle; a global position detecting system; and a controller including executable instructions stored in non-transitory memory that cause the controller to adjust an amount of wheel torque that is provided to a vehicle as a function of accelerator pedal position in response to a vehicle being at a geographical location where wheel slip or wheel locking of the axle occurred at a time in the past. The vehicle system includes where the geographical location is determined via the global position detecting system..."); and
wherein the controller is configured to adjust the torque delivered to the ground engaging mechanism in response to determining that the work machine is in the slip zone (see Nahrwold at least [0068] "...If the vehicle is within a predetermined distance of a location where wheel slip has previously been detected in the past, method 500 may adjust the requested or desired wheel torque/power to reduce the possibility of wheel slip…").
Regarding claim 10, Nahrwold in view of Fairgrieve and Barron teach the work machine of claim 9, wherein the controller is configured to decrease the torque delivered to the ground engaging mechanism in response to determining that the work machine is in the slip zone (see Nahrwold at least [0033] "The system of FIG. 1 provides for a vehicle system, comprising: a first electric machine coupled to an axle; a global position detecting system; and a controller including executable instructions stored in non-transitory memory that cause the controller to adjust an amount of wheel torque that is provided to a vehicle as a function of accelerator pedal position in response to a vehicle being at a geographical location where wheel slip or wheel locking of the axle occurred at a time in the past. The vehicle system includes where the geographical location is determined via the global position detecting system..." and [0038] "...Curve 208 represents a relationship between the snow or rain modification to driver demand wheel torque and accelerator pedal position. Curve 208 reaches a maximum value of 1 when the accelerator pedal is fully applied. Curve 208 may reduce driver demand wheel torque for lower accelerator pedal positions so that the vehicle's driver may have additional resolution to control driver demand wheel torque at lower accelerator pedal positions so that the possibility of inducing wheel slip may be reduced.").
Regarding claim 12, Nahrwold in view of Fairgrieve and Barron teach the work machine of claim 9, wherein the controller is configured to adjust the torque delivered to the ground engaging mechanism by a first amount in response to determining that the work machine is in the slip zone (see Nahrwold at least [0068] "At 520, method 500 adjusts the requested or demand wheel torque according to the vehicle's present position. Method 500 may record geographical locations to controller RAM where the vehicle has encountered wheel slip in the past. If the vehicle is within a predetermined distance of a location where wheel slip has previously been detected in the past, method 500 may adjust the requested or desired wheel torque/power to reduce the possibility of wheel slip. In one example, method 500 may reduce the requested wheel torque by a predetermined amount (e.g., 5% of requested wheel torque). Similarly, if the vehicle is within a predetermined distance of a location where wheel locking has previously been detected in the past, method 500 may adjust the requested or desired braking power to reduce the possibility of wheel locking. In one example, method 500 may reduce the requested braking torque by a predetermined amount (e.g., 5% of requested braking torque). Method 500 proceeds to 522.");
wherein the controller is configured to determine that the work machine is in the slip zone an additional time based on the one or more third signals (see Nahrwold at least [0054] "At 504, method 500 determines the vehicle's present position. The vehicle's present position may be determined via a GPS that determines vehicle position from satellite data and geographical maps stored in the GPS..." [0068] "At 520, method 500 adjusts the requested or demand wheel torque according to the vehicle's present position. Method 500 may record geographical locations to controller RAM where the vehicle has encountered wheel slip in the past. If the vehicle is within a predetermined distance of a location where wheel slip has previously been detected in the past, method 500 may adjust the requested or desired wheel torque/power to reduce the possibility of wheel slip..." [0069] "At 522, method 500 generates the requested or demanded wheel torque/power." [0078] "...One or more of the illustrated actions, operations and/or functions may be repeatedly performed depending on the particular strategy being used..."); and
wherein the controller is configured to adjust the torque delivered to the ground engaging mechanism by an amount lesser than the first amount in response to determining that the work machine is in the slip zone the additional time (see Fairgrieve at least [0123] "...The output signal 30 is provided to an evaluator unit 40 of the VCU 10 which interprets the output signal 30 as either a demand for additional torque to foe applied to the vehicle wheels, or for a reduction in torque to be applied to the vehicle wheels, depending on whether the vehicle speed needs to be increased or decreased to maintain the speed that has been selected by the user..." [0139] "In some embodiments, if slip of one or more wheels above a predetermined threshold continues after wheel speed is reduced, the speed of the one or more wheels is actively managed by controlling the net torque such that, wheel slip falls to a value within the prescribed range described above." [0158] "Embodiments of the present invention have the advantage that a risk that a vehicle suffers repeated slip events whilst accelerating from one set-speed to a higher set-speed is reduced. Repeated slip events can cause degradation of a driving surface and render the surface more difficult for vehicles subsequently to negotiate. For example if a convoy of vehicles is traversing slippery terrain and a lead vehicle degrades the surface of the terrain due to repeated wheel slip events, a following vehicle may find it more difficult to negotiate the terrain due to the change to the terrain caused by the lead vehicle. By limiting a rate of increase of powertrain torque following a slip event whilst accelerating the vehicle to a new set-speed, a risk that repeated slip events occur may be reduced.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work machine as disclosed by Nahrwold with additional real-time updates to torque adjustments such as further taught by Fairgrieve with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Nahrwold in view of Fairgrieve and Barron teach the work machine of claim 12, wherein, in response to determining that the work machine is in the slip zone the additional time (see Nahrwold at least [0054] "At 504, method 500 determines the vehicle's present position. The vehicle's present position may be determined via a GPS that determines vehicle position from satellite data and geographical maps stored in the GPS..." [0068] "At 520, method 500 adjusts the requested or demand wheel torque according to the vehicle's present position. Method 500 may record geographical locations to controller RAM where the vehicle has encountered wheel slip in the past. If the vehicle is within a predetermined distance of a location where wheel slip has previously been detected in the past, method 500 may adjust the requested or desired wheel torque/power to reduce the possibility of wheel slip..." [0069] "At 522, method 500 generates the requested or demanded wheel torque/power." [0078] "...One or more of the illustrated actions, operations and/or functions may be repeatedly performed depending on the particular strategy being used..."), the controller is configured to decrease the torque delivered to the ground engaging mechanism to adjust the torque delivered to the ground engaging mechanism by the amount lesser than the first amount (see Fairgrieve at least [0123] "...The output signal 30 is provided to an evaluator unit 40 of the VCU 10 which interprets the output signal 30 as either a demand for additional torque to foe applied to the vehicle wheels, or for a reduction in torque to be applied to the vehicle wheels, depending on whether the vehicle speed needs to be increased or decreased to maintain the speed that has been selected by the user..." [0139] "In some embodiments, if slip of one or more wheels above a predetermined threshold continues after wheel speed is reduced, the speed of the one or more wheels is actively managed by controlling the net torque such that, wheel slip falls to a value within the prescribed range described above." [0158] "Embodiments of the present invention have the advantage that a risk that a vehicle suffers repeated slip events whilst accelerating from one set-speed to a higher set-speed is reduced. Repeated slip events can cause degradation of a driving surface and render the surface more difficult for vehicles subsequently to negotiate. For example if a convoy of vehicles is traversing slippery terrain and a lead vehicle degrades the surface of the terrain due to repeated wheel slip events, a following vehicle may find it more difficult to negotiate the terrain due to the change to the terrain caused by the lead vehicle. By limiting a rate of increase of powertrain torque following a slip event whilst accelerating the vehicle to a new set-speed, a risk that repeated slip events occur may be reduced.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the work machine as disclosed by Nahrwold with additional real-time updates to torque adjustments such as further taught by Fairgrieve with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Nahrwold in view of Fairgrieve and Barron teach the work machine of claim 12, wherein, in response to determining that the work machine is in the slip zone the additional time (see Nahrwold at least [0054] "At 504, method 500 determines the vehicle's present position. The vehicle's present position may be determined via a GPS that determines vehicle position from satellite data and geographical maps stored in the GPS..." [0068] "At 520, method 500 adjusts the requested or demand wheel torque according to the vehicle's present position. Method 500 may record geographical locations to controller RAM where the vehicle has encountered wheel slip in the past. If the vehicle is within a predetermined distance of a location where wheel slip has previously been detected in the past, method 500 may adjust the requested or desired wheel torque/power to reduce the possibility of wheel slip..." [0069] "At 522, method 500 generates the requested or demanded wheel torque/power." [0078] "...One or more of the illustrated actions, operations and/or functions may be repeatedly performed depending on the particular strategy being used..."), the controller is configured to increase the torque delivered to the ground engaging mechanism to adjust the torque delivered to the ground engaging mechanism by the amount lesser than the first amount (see Fairgrieve at least [0123] "...The output signal 30 is provided to an evaluator unit 40 of the VCU 10 which interprets the output signal 30 as either a demand for additional torque to foe applied to the vehicle wheels, or for a reduction in torque to be applied to the vehicle wheels, depending on whether the vehicle speed needs to be increased or decreased to maintain the speed that has been selected by the user..." [0139] "In some embodiments, if slip of one or more wheels above a predetermined threshold continues after wheel speed is reduced, the speed of the one or more wheels is actively managed by controlling the net torque such that, wheel slip falls to a value within the prescribed range described above." [0158] "Embodiments of the present invention have the advantage that a risk that a vehicle suffers repeated slip events whilst accelerating from one set-speed to a higher set-speed is reduced. Repeated slip events can cause degradation of a driving surface and render the surface more difficult for vehicles subsequently to negotiate. For example if a convoy of vehicles is traversing slippery terrain and a lead vehicle degrades the surface of the terrain due to repeated wheel slip events, a following vehicle may find it more difficult to negotiate the terrain due to the change to the terrain caused by the lead vehicle. By limiting a rate of increase of powertrain torque following a slip event whilst accelerating the vehicle to a new set-speed, a risk that repeated slip events occur may be reduced.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the work machine as disclosed by Nahrwold with additional real-time updates to torque adjustments such as further taught by Fairgrieve with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Nahrwold in view of Fairgrieve teach the work machine of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to compare [a measured overall vehicle speed against an expected overall vehicle speed] (see Fairgrieve at least [0126] "...During a slip event, the LSP control system 12 continues to compare the measured vehicle speed with the desired vehicle speed as input by the user, and continues to control automatically the torque applied across the vehicle wheels so as to maintain vehicle speed at the selected value...") …
wherein, if [a measured overall vehicle speed compared to an expected overall vehicle speed exceeds a limit]… the controller is configured to designate, as a slip zone, the location of the work machine in the worksite (see Nahrwold at least [0033] "The system of FIG. 1 provides for a vehicle system, comprising: a first electric machine coupled to an axle; a global position detecting system; and a controller including executable instructions stored in non-transitory memory that cause the controller to adjust an amount of wheel torque that is provided to a vehicle as a function of accelerator pedal position in response to a vehicle being at a geographical location where wheel slip or wheel locking of the axle occurred at a time in the past. The vehicle system includes where the geographical location is determined via the global position detecting system...") …
wherein each additional time the work machine is in the slip zone, the controller is configured to compare the sensed ratio to the expected ratio ((see Nahrwold at least [0068] "At 520, method 500 adjusts the requested or demand wheel torque according to the vehicle's present position. Method 500 may record geographical locations to controller RAM where the vehicle has encountered wheel slip in the past. If the vehicle is within a predetermined distance of a location where wheel slip has previously been detected in the past, method 500 may adjust the requested or desired wheel torque/power to reduce the possibility of wheel slip. In one example, method 500 may reduce the requested wheel torque by a predetermined amount (e.g., 5% of requested wheel torque). Similarly, if the vehicle is within a predetermined distance of a location where wheel locking has previously been detected in the past, method 500 may adjust the requested or desired braking power to reduce the possibility of wheel locking. In one example, method 500 may reduce the requested braking torque by a predetermined amount (e.g., 5% of requested braking torque). Method 500 proceeds to 522."); also (see Nahrwold at least [0054] "At 504, method 500 determines the vehicle's present position. The vehicle's present position may be determined via a GPS that determines vehicle position from satellite data and geographical maps stored in the GPS..." [0068] "At 520, method 500 adjusts the requested or demand wheel torque according to the vehicle's present position. Method 500 may record geographical locations to controller RAM where the vehicle has encountered wheel slip in the past. If the vehicle is within a predetermined distance of a location where wheel slip has previously been detected in the past, method 500 may adjust the requested or desired wheel torque/power to reduce the possibility of wheel slip..." [0069] "At 522, method 500 generates the requested or demanded wheel torque/power." [0078] "...One or more of the illustrated actions, operations and/or functions may be repeatedly performed depending on the particular strategy being used...")).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the detection of slip such as disclosed by Nahrwold with additional sensor data indicative of slip such as further taught by Fairgrieve with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 1.
However, while both Nahrwold discusses the detection of slip, and Fairgrieve details the detection of slip by comparing a measured vehicle speed against an expected vehicle speed, neither Nahrwold nor Fairgrieve explicitly disclose or teach the following:
…the controller is configured to compare a sensed ratio, which comprises the speed of the work machine moving along the ground surface relative to the rotational speed of the ground engaging mechanism, to an expected ratio…
…wherein, if a difference between the expected ratio and the sensed ratio exceeds an established value…
Barron, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…the controller is configured to compare [the measured rotational speed against the expected rotational speed] (see Barron at least [0003] "A basic function of active braking systems is to detect wheel slip (e.g., skidding or loss of traction) and actuate the brakes (or reduce torque from the engine) in a manner to reduce or control wheel slip. An individual wheel speed is measured and wheel slip is detected by comparing the individual wheel speed to a target speed determined for that wheel...")…
…wherein, if …[the measured rotational speed compared to the expected rotational speed exceeds a limit] (see Barron at least [0003] "A basic function of active braking systems is to detect wheel slip (e.g., skidding or loss of traction) and actuate the brakes (or reduce torque from the engine) in a manner to reduce or control wheel slip... For example, activation of the active control (e.g., abs or TC) to being to control slip does not occur until the difference between actual wheel speed and target wheel speed exceeds a slip threshold. A base threshold is chosen that achieves best overall performance for all conditions.")…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detection of slip as taught by Nahrwold in view of Fairgrieve with additional sensor data indicative of slip such as taught by Barron with a reasonable expectation of success for the sake of accurately detecting wheel slip and addressing it to maintain stable vehicle controls (see Barron at least [0003]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 17, Nahrwold in view of Fairgrieve and Barron teach the analogous material of that as in claim 3 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 18, Nahrwold in view of Fairgrieve and Barron teach the analogous material of that as in claim 4 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Byers et al. (US-2014/0005899) teaches the reception of wheel speed signals and modulating power source parameters accordingly.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN REIDY whose telephone number is (571) 272-7660. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00 AM- 3:00 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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights