DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on June 28, 2024. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to ATA 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.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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, 8, 11, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0217787 (hereinafter, "Mattson") in view of GB 2443619 (hereinafter, "Armstrong").
Regarding claim 1, Mattson discloses an apparatus including at least one processor and at least one non-transitory memory including computer program code instructions, the computer program code instructions configured to, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to:
receive an indication to operate a vehicle in a winch mode (Fig. 12, #1246);
detect movement of the vehicle caused by a force from a winch pulling the vehicle (“verify, for example using encoder 1350, whether the stranded vehicle 1423 vehicle is moving at an appropriate rate in comparison to the winch speed of the recovery vehicle 1421, the system 1100 detects that the stranded vehicle 1423 is moving at a speed,” (para 0136) and “determining whether torque is detected on the winch spool” (para 0129));
determine a speed of movement of the vehicle caused by the force from the winch pulling the vehicle (“verify, for example using encoder 1350, whether the stranded vehicle 1423 vehicle is moving at an appropriate rate in comparison to the winch speed of the recovery vehicle 1421.” (para 0136)); and
However, Mattson does not explicitly teach
provide for control of at least one driven wheel of the vehicle to rotate at a speed corresponding to the speed of movement of the vehicle within a predefined degree of similarity.
Armstrong, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
provide for control of at least one driven wheel of the vehicle to rotate at a speed corresponding to the speed of movement of the vehicle within a predefined degree of similarity (“automatically controlling the movement of the vehicle so that the speed at which the vehicle is being driven is matched to the speed at which the winch is pulling it” (page 1, lines 12-15)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mattson with the teachings of Armstrong in order to assist the winch by the driver driving the car under its own power; see Armstrong at least at [page 1, lines 7-8].
Regarding claim 8, Mattson discloses and Armstrong teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Mattson does not explicitly teach wherein causing the apparatus to provide for control of at least one driven wheel of the vehicle to rotate at a speed corresponding to the speed of movement of the vehicle within a predefined degree of similarity comprises causing the apparatus to:
determine one or more drive wheels that have traction with terrain over which the vehicle is traveling; and
provide power to the one or more drive wheels that have traction with the terrain.
Armstrong, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
determine one or more drive wheels that have traction with terrain over which the vehicle is traveling (“allows the control module 15 to take into account, in its computations, the nature of and particularly the friction coefficient of the driving surface” (page 7, lines 3-5)); and
provide power to the one or more drive wheels that have traction with the terrain (“modify the powertrain control signal to take into account the frictional properties of the relevant terrain” (page 4, lines 12-14)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mattson with the teachings of Armstrong in order to modify the powertrain control signal to take into account the frictional properties of the relevant terrain; see Armstrong at least at [page 4, lines 12-14].
Regarding claim 11, Mattson discloses a method comprising:
receiving an indication to operate a vehicle in a winch mode (Fig. 12, #1246);
detecting movement of the vehicle caused by a force from a winch pulling the vehicle (“verify, for example using encoder 1350, whether the stranded vehicle 1423 vehicle is moving at an appropriate rate in comparison to the winch speed of the recovery vehicle 1421, the system 1100 detects that the stranded vehicle 1423 is moving at a speed,” (para 0136) and “determining whether torque is detected on the winch spool” (para 0129));
determining of a speed of movement of the vehicle caused by the force from the winch pulling the vehicle (“verify, for example using encoder 1350, whether the stranded vehicle 1423 vehicle is moving at an appropriate rate in comparison to the winch speed of the recovery vehicle 1421.” (para 0136)); and
However, Mattson does not explicitly teach
providing for control of at least one driven wheel of the vehicle to rotate at a speed corresponding to the speed of movement of the vehicle within a predefined degree of similarity.
Armstrong, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
providing for control of at least one driven wheel of the vehicle to rotate at a speed corresponding to the speed of movement of the vehicle within a predefined degree of similarity (“automatically controlling the movement of the vehicle so that the speed at which the vehicle is being driven is matched to the speed at which the winch is pulling it” (page 1, lines 12-15)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mattson with the teachings of Armstrong in order to assist the winch by the driver driving the car under its own power; see Armstrong at least at [page 1, lines 7-8].
Regarding claim 17, Mattson discloses and Armstrong teaches the method of claim 11. However, Mattson does not explicitly teach wherein providing for control of at least one driven wheel of the vehicle to rotate at a speed corresponding to the speed of movement of the vehicle within a predefined degree of similarity comprises:
determining one or more drive wheels that have traction with terrain over which the vehicle is traveling; and
providing power to the one or more drive wheels that have traction with the terrain.
Armstrong, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
determining one or more drive wheels that have traction with terrain over which the vehicle is traveling (“allows the control module 15 to take into account, in its computations, the nature of and particularly the friction coefficient of the driving surface” (page 7, lines 3-5)); and
providing power to the one or more drive wheels that have traction with the terrain (“modify the powertrain control signal to take into account the frictional properties of the relevant terrain” (page 4, lines 12-14)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mattson with the teachings of Armstrong in order to modify the powertrain control signal to take into account the frictional properties of the relevant terrain; see Armstrong at least at [page 4, lines 12-14].
Regarding claim 20, Mattson discloses a vehicle comprising:
a body (Fig. 1, #100);
a winch (Fig. 1, #112);
a powertrain (Fig. 9, #916); and
a controller (Fig. 8, #541) configured to:
receive an indication to operate the vehicle in a winch mode (Fig. 12, #1246);
detect movement of the vehicle caused by the winch pulling the vehicle (“verify, for example using encoder 1350, whether the stranded vehicle 1423 vehicle is moving at an appropriate rate in comparison to the winch speed of the recovery vehicle 1421, the system 1100 detects that the stranded vehicle 1423 is moving at a speed,” (para 0136) and “determining whether torque is detected on the winch spool” (para 0129));
determine a speed of movement of the vehicle caused by the winch pulling the vehicle (“verify, for example using encoder 1350, whether the stranded vehicle 1423 vehicle is moving at an appropriate rate in comparison to the winch speed of the recovery vehicle 1421.” (para 0136)); and
However, Mattson does not explicitly teach
provide for control of at least one driven wheel of the vehicle to rotate at a speed corresponding to the speed of movement of the vehicle within a predefined degree of similarity.
Armstrong, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
provide for control of at least one driven wheel of the vehicle to rotate at a speed corresponding to the speed of movement of the vehicle within a predefined degree of similarity (“automatically controlling the movement of the vehicle so that the speed at which the vehicle is being driven is matched to the speed at which the winch is pulling it” (page 1, lines 12-15)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mattson with the teachings of Armstrong in order to assist the winch by the driver driving the car under its own power; see Armstrong at least at [page 1, lines 7-8].
Claims 2-5 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0217787 (hereinafter, "Mattson") in view of GB 2443619 (hereinafter, "Armstrong") as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and in further view of DE 102015220097 (hereinafter, "Kretschmann").
Regarding claim 2, Mattson discloses and Armstrong teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Mattson does not explicitly teach wherein the speed of movement of the vehicle is determined based at least in part on a speed of rotation of at least one wheel not being driven by a powertrain of the vehicle.
Kretschmann, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the speed of movement of the vehicle is determined based at least in part on a speed of rotation of at least one wheel not being driven by a powertrain of the vehicle (“the determination of the vehicle speed of a motor vehicle from an average value of the wheel speeds of the non-driven wheels of the motor vehicle determined in each case by a wheel speed sensor.” (para 0004)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mattson with the teachings of Kretschmann in order to increase the reliability or accuracy; see Kretschmann at least at [0007].
Regarding claim 3, Mattson discloses and Armstrong teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Mattson does not explicitly teach wherein the speed of movement of the vehicle is determined based at least in part on a speed of rotation of at least one wheel and an outer diameter of a tire associated with the at least one wheel.
Kretschmann, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the speed of movement of the vehicle is determined based at least in part on a speed of rotation of at least one wheel and an outer diameter of a tire associated with the at least one wheel (“Calculating the vehicle speed based on the determined current wheel rotational speed and a wheel radius of the at least one vehicle wheel” (para 0001)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mattson with the teachings of Kretschmann in order to determine vehicle speed based on the determined wheel radius; see Kretschmann at least at [0001].
Regarding claim 4, Mattson discloses and Armstrong teaches the apparatus of claim 3. However, Mattson does not explicitly teach wherein the apparatus is further caused to:
determine a tire pressure of the tire associated with the at least one wheel; and
calculate an effective outer diameter of the tire associated with the at least one wheel based on a size of the tire associated with the at least one wheel and the tire pressure of the tire associated with the at least one wheel.
Kretschmann, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
determine a tire pressure of the tire associated with the at least one wheel (“Determining at least one tire operating parameter of the tire selected from the group consisting of a current tire pressure” (para 0028)); and
calculate an effective outer diameter of the tire associated with the at least one wheel based on a size of the tire associated with the at least one wheel and the tire pressure of the tire associated with the at least one wheel (“This change can be made according to a mathematical model z. B. linear approach, according to which a change in the tire load leads to a proportional change of the (effective) tire radius” (para 0041) and “calculate the tread depth of the tire from the difference between tire inner radius and tire outer radius” (para 0026)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mattson with the teachings of Kretschmann in order to determine change of the (effective) tire radius; see Kretschmann at least at [0041].
Regarding claim 5, Mattson discloses and Armstrong teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Mattson does not explicitly teach wherein the speed of movement of the vehicle is determined based at least in part on an average speed of rotation of at least two wheels of the vehicle.
Kretschmann, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the speed of movement of the vehicle is determined based at least in part on an average speed of rotation of at least two wheels of the vehicle (“calculate the vehicle speed approximately according to Formula 3 as an average of at least one "left" wheel and at least one "right" wheel” (para 0009)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mattson with the teachings of Kretschmann in order to increase the reliability or accuracy; see Kretschmann at least at [0007].
Regarding claim 12, Mattson discloses and Armstrong teaches the method of claim 11. However, Mattson does not explicitly teach wherein the speed of movement of the vehicle is determined based at least in part on a speed of rotation of at least one wheel not being driven by a powertrain of the vehicle.
Kretschmann, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the speed of movement of the vehicle is determined based at least in part on a speed of rotation of at least one wheel not being driven by a powertrain of the vehicle (“the determination of the vehicle speed of a motor vehicle from an average value of the wheel speeds of the non-driven wheels of the motor vehicle determined in each case by a wheel speed sensor.” (para 0004)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mattson with the teachings of Kretschmann in order to increase the reliability or accuracy; see Kretschmann at least at [0007].
Regarding claim 13, Mattson discloses and Armstrong teaches the method of claim 11. However, Mattson does not explicitly teach wherein the speed of movement of the vehicle is determined based at least in part on a speed of rotation of at least one wheel and an outer diameter of a tire associated with the at least one wheel.
Kretschmann, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the speed of movement of the vehicle is determined based at least in part on a speed of rotation of at least one wheel and an outer diameter of a tire associated with the at least one wheel (“Calculating the vehicle speed based on the determined current wheel rotational speed and a wheel radius of the at least one vehicle wheel” (para 0001)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mattson with the teachings of Kretschmann in order to determine vehicle speed based on the determined wheel radius and rotation speed; see Kretschmann at least at [0001].
Regarding claim 14, Mattson discloses and Armstrong teaches the method of claim 13. However, Mattson does not explicitly teach determining a tire pressure of the tire associated with the at least one wheel; and
calculating an effective outer diameter of the tire associated with the at least one wheel based on a size of the tire associated with the at least one wheel and the tire pressure of the tire associated with the at least one wheel.
Kretschmann, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
determining a tire pressure of the tire associated with the at least one wheel (“Determining at least one tire operating parameter of the tire selected from the group consisting of a current tire pressure” (para 0028)); and
calculating an effective outer diameter of the tire associated with the at least one wheel based on a size of the tire associated with the at least one wheel and the tire pressure of the tire associated with the at least one wheel (“This change can be made according to a mathematical model z. B. linear approach, according to which a change in the tire load leads to a proportional change of the (effective) tire radius” (para 0041) and “calculate the tread depth of the tire from the difference between tire inner radius and tire outer radius” (para 0026)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mattson with the teachings of Kretschmann in order to determine vehicle speed based on the determined wheel radius; see Kretschmann at least at [0001].
Regarding claim 15, Mattson discloses and Armstrong teaches the method of claim 11. However, Mattson does not explicitly teach wherein the speed of movement of the vehicle is determined based at least in part on an average speed of rotation of at least two wheels of the vehicle.
Kretschmann, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the speed of movement of the vehicle is determined based at least in part on an average speed of rotation of at least two wheels of the vehicle (“calculate the vehicle speed approximately according to Formula 3 as an average of at least one "left" wheel and at least one "right" wheel” (para 0009)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mattson with the teachings of Kretschmann in order to increase the reliability or accuracy; see Kretschmann at least at [0007].
Claims 6-7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0217787 (hereinafter, "Mattson") in view of GB 2443619 (hereinafter, "Armstrong") as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0126834 (hereinafter, "Schiffmann").
Regarding claim 6, Mattson discloses and Armstrong teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Mattson does not explicitly teach wherein causing the apparatus to determine the speed of movement of the vehicle caused by the force from the winch pulling the vehicle comprises causing the apparatus to:
determine the speed of movement of the vehicle based at least in part on detecting movement of the vehicle relative to a stationary object proximate the vehicle.
Schiffmann, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
determine the speed of movement of the vehicle based at least in part on detecting movement of the vehicle relative to a stationary object proximate the vehicle (“RADAR or LIDAR detectors provide range rate information indicating movement of a vehicle” (para 0027) and “the detectors 32 are RADAR detectors. In other embodiments, the detectors 32 are LIDAR detectors. The detectors 32 in such embodiments provide range rate information regarding relative movement between the vehicle 22 and one or more objects in a vicinity of the vehicle 22” (para 0031), “when the detectors 32 are RADAR detectors, the processor 36 receives indications from the detectors 32 regarding relative movement between corresponding portions of the vehicle 22 and nearby objects. When those objects are stationary” (para 0037)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mattson with the teachings of Schiffmann in order to provide range rate information regarding relative movement between the vehicle and one or more objects in a vicinity of the vehicle; see Schiffmann at least at [0031].
Regarding claim 7, Mattson discloses and Armstrong teaches the apparatus of claim 6. However, Mattson does not explicitly teach wherein causing the apparatus to determine the speed of movement of the vehicle based, at least in part on detecting movement of the vehicle relative to a stationary object proximate the vehicle comprises causing the apparatus to:
determine the speed of movement of the vehicle using a distance-measuring sensor.
Schiffmann, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
determine the speed of movement of the vehicle using a distance-measuring sensor (“RADAR or LIDAR detectors provide range rate information indicating movement of a vehicle” (para 0027) and “The range rate information provides information regarding the velocity of the portion of the vehicle”para 0031).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mattson with the teachings of Schiffmann in order to provide range rate information regarding relative movement between the vehicle and one or more objects in a vicinity of the vehicle; see Schiffmann at least at [0031].
Regarding claim 16, Mattson discloses and Armstrong teaches the method of claim 11. However, Mattson does not explicitly teach wherein determining the speed of movement of the vehicle caused by the force from the winch pulling the vehicle comprises:
determining the speed of movement of the vehicle based at least in part on detecting movement of the vehicle relative to a stationary object proximate the vehicle.
Schiffmann, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
determining the speed of movement of the vehicle based at least in part on detecting movement of the vehicle relative to a stationary object proximate the vehicle (“RADAR or LIDAR detectors provide range rate information indicating movement of a vehicle” (para 0027) and “the detectors 32 are RADAR detectors. In other embodiments, the detectors 32 are LIDAR detectors. The detectors 32 in such embodiments provide range rate information regarding relative movement between the vehicle 22 and one or more objects in a vicinity of the vehicle 22” (para 0031), “when the detectors 32 are RADAR detectors, the processor 36 receives indications from the detectors 32 regarding relative movement between corresponding portions of the vehicle 22 and nearby objects. When those objects are stationary” (para 0037)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mattson with the teachings of Schiffmann in order to provide range rate information regarding relative movement between the vehicle and one or more objects in a vicinity of the vehicle; see Schiffmann at least at [0031].
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0217787 (hereinafter, "Mattson") in view of GB 2443619 (hereinafter, "Armstrong") as applied to claims 8 and 17 above, in view of DE 102015220097 (hereinafter, "Kretschmann"), and in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0276289 (hereinafter, "Hirata").
Regarding claim 9, Mattson discloses and Armstrong teaches the apparatus of claim 8. However, Mattson does not explicitly teach wherein causing the apparatus to determine one or more drive wheels that have traction with terrain over which the vehicle is traveling comprises causing the apparatus to:
determine a torque force at the one or more drive wheels; and
determine the one or more drive wheels that have traction with the terrain based on the torque force of the one or more drive wheels satisfying a predetermined threshold.
Kretschmann, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
determine a torque force at the one or more drive wheels (“Determining at least one tire operating parameter of the tire selected from the group consisting of a current tire pressure, a current tire temperature, a current tire speed (be it rotational speed or translational speed), a current tire load” (para 0028)); and
Hirata, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
determine the one or more drive wheels that have traction with the terrain based on the torque force of the one or more drive wheels (“a driver induces a slip state of the drive wheels, the wheel speed starts to rapidly increase, i.e. the output shaft speed starts to rapidly increase, when the rotational speed of output shaft OUT increases, the rotational speed of second motor generator MG2 also rapidly increases as in FIG. 12B. Further, when the drive wheels are slipping due to an excessive driving torque”) satisfying a predetermined threshold (“detecting a slip state of each wheel of the hybrid electric vehicle by comparing the artificial vehicle speed and each wheel speed, an ABS controlling section (first wheel slip controller), and a TCS controlling section (second wheel slip controller). When a longitudinal slip velocity defined as the difference between the spin velocity of a driven or braked tire and the spin velocity of a straight free-rolling tire or a longitudinal slip defined as the ratio of the longitudinal slip velocity to the spin velocity of the straight free-rolling tire is beyond a predetermined threshold” (para 0052)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mattson with the teachings of Hirata in order to to detect a slip state of the drive wheel with respect to a road surface; see Hirata at least at [0006].
Regarding claim 18, Mattson discloses and Armstrong teaches the method of claim 17. However, Mattson does not explicitly teach wherein determining one or more drive wheels that have traction with terrain over which the vehicle is traveling comprises:
determining a torque force at the one or more drive wheels; and
determining the one or more drive wheels that have traction with the terrain based on the torque force of the one or more drive wheels satisfying a predetermined threshold.
Kretschmann, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
determining a torque force at the one or more drive wheels (“Determining at least one tire operating parameter of the tire selected from the group consisting of a current tire pressure, a current tire temperature, a current tire speed (be it rotational speed or translational speed), a current tire load” (para 0028)); and
Hirata, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
determining the one or more drive wheels that have traction with the terrain based on the torque force of the one or more drive wheels (“a driver induces a slip state of the drive wheels, the wheel speed starts to rapidly increase, i.e. the output shaft speed starts to rapidly increase, when the rotational speed of output shaft OUT increases, the rotational speed of second motor generator MG2 also rapidly increases as in FIG. 12B. Further, when the drive wheels are slipping due to an excessive driving torque”) satisfying a predetermined threshold (“detecting a slip state of each wheel of the hybrid electric vehicle by comparing the artificial vehicle speed and each wheel speed, an ABS controlling section (first wheel slip controller), and a TCS controlling section (second wheel slip controller). When a longitudinal slip velocity defined as the difference between the spin velocity of a driven or braked tire and the spin velocity of a straight free-rolling tire or a longitudinal slip defined as the ratio of the longitudinal slip velocity to the spin velocity of the straight free-rolling tire is beyond a predetermined threshold” (para 0052)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mattson with the teachings of Hirata in order to to detect a slip state of the drive wheel with respect to a road surface; see Hirata at least at [0006].
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0217787 (hereinafter, "Mattson") in view of GB 2443619 (hereinafter, "Armstrong") as applied to claims 8 and 17 above, and in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0276289 (hereinafter, "Hirata").
Regarding claim 10, Mattson discloses and Armstrong teaches the apparatus of claim 8. However, Mattson does not explicitly teach wherein causing the apparatus to determine the one or more drive wheels that have traction with terrain over which the vehicle is traveling comprises causing the apparatus to:
determine a power draw of at least one electric motor associated with at least one of the one or more drive wheels; and
determine the one or more drive wheels that have traction with the terrain based on the power draw at the at least one electric motor associated with at least one of the one or more drive wheels satisfying a predetermined threshold.
Hirata, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
determine a power draw of at least one electric motor associated with at least one of the one or more drive wheels (“receive a control signal indicative of a desired engine torque” (para 0048) and “the drive system of the hybrid electric vehicle comprises an engine E; a first motor generator (generator) MG1; a second motor generator (motor generator) MG2”(para 0034));
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mattson with the teachings of Armstrong in order to provide a source of motive power for the vehicle; see Armstrong at least at [page 3, lines 11-13]; and
determine the one or more drive wheels that have traction with the terrain based on the power draw at the at least one electric motor associated with at least one of the one or more drive wheels (“a driver induces a slip state of the drive wheels, the wheel speed starts to rapidly increase, i.e. the output shaft speed starts to rapidly increase, when the rotational speed of output shaft OUT increases, the rotational speed of second motor generator MG2 also rapidly increases as in FIG. 12B. Further, when the drive wheels are slipping due to an excessive driving torque”) satisfying a predetermined threshold (“detecting a slip state of each wheel of the hybrid electric vehicle by comparing the artificial vehicle speed and each wheel speed, an ABS controlling section (first wheel slip controller), and a TCS controlling section (second wheel slip controller). When a longitudinal slip velocity defined as the difference between the spin velocity of a driven or braked tire and the spin velocity of a straight free-rolling tire or a longitudinal slip defined as the ratio of the longitudinal slip velocity to the spin velocity of the straight free-rolling tire is beyond a predetermined threshold” (para 0052)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mattson with the teachings of Hirata in order to to detect a slip state of the drive wheel with respect to a road surface; see Hirata at least at [0006].
Regarding claim 19, Mattson discloses and Armstrong teaches the method of claim 17. However, Mattson does not explicitly teach wherein determining one or more drive wheels that have traction with terrain over which the vehicle is traveling comprises:
determining a power draw at an electric motor associated with each of the one or more drive wheels; and
determining the one or more drive wheels that have traction with the terrain based on the power draw at the electric motor associated with each of the one or more drive wheels satisfying a predetermined threshold.
Hirata, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
determining a power draw at an electric motor associated with each of the one or more drive wheels (“receive a control signal indicative of a desired engine torque” (para 0048) and “the drive system of the hybrid electric vehicle comprises an engine E; a first motor generator (generator) MG1; a second motor generator (motor generator) MG2”(para 0034)); and
determining the one or more drive wheels that have traction with the terrain based on the power draw at the electric motor associated with each of the one or more drive wheels (“a driver induces a slip state of the drive wheels, the wheel speed starts to rapidly increase, i.e. the output shaft speed starts to rapidly increase, when the rotational speed of output shaft OUT increases, the rotational speed of second motor generator MG2 also rapidly increases as in FIG. 12B. Further, when the drive wheels are slipping due to an excessive driving torque”) satisfying a predetermined threshold (“detecting a slip state of each wheel of the hybrid electric vehicle by comparing the artificial vehicle speed and each wheel speed, an ABS controlling section (first wheel slip controller), and a TCS controlling section (second wheel slip controller). When a longitudinal slip velocity defined as the difference between the spin velocity of a driven or braked tire and the spin velocity of a straight free-rolling tire or a longitudinal slip defined as the ratio of the longitudinal slip velocity to the spin velocity of the straight free-rolling tire is beyond a predetermined threshold” (para 0052)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mattson with the teachings of Hirata in order to to detect a slip state of the drive wheel with respect to a road surface; see Hirata at least at [0006].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ALHARBI whose telephone number is (313)446-6621. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11:00AM – 7:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/ADAM M ALHARBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663