Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-5, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada (US Patent Publication 2014/0379190) in view of Kurokawa (US Patent Publication 2019/0190423)
Regarding claim 1, Sawada discloses a control system for a mobile object in which a motor is mounted as a drive source for traveling, the system comprising: (¶36)
a first torque command value setting unit that sets an instructed torque command value, which is a target value of torque to be output from the motor based on a driver's operation on the mobile object; (¶53, 57)
a second torque command value setting unit that sets a stop torque command value, which is a target value of the torque to be output from the motor to maintain the stopped state of the mobile object when the mobile object has been stopped; (¶58)
a waveform setting unit that sets a torque waveform defining a time variation of a target value of an output torque of the motor; (Fig 11; ¶131)
a motion control unit that executes a first torque control when a travelling speed of the mobile object exceeds a predetermined speed and executes a second torque control when the traveling speed of the mobile object is equal to or below the predetermined speed, the first torque control being controlling the output torque of the motor based on the instructed torque command value and the second torque control being a control to change the output torque of the motor from the instructed torque command value to the stop torque command value along the torque waveform progressively; (Fig 5, 11; ¶56-58, 64-65)
Sawada appears to be silent as to a stopping failsafe control unit that determines whether an abnormality has occurred in the motor based on a comparison of the output torque of the motor when the second torque control is executed and a predetermined abnormality determination value, and when determining that the abnormality has occurred, executes a first failsafe control of the motor.
Kurokawa however teaches a stopping failsafe control unit that determines whether an abnormality has occurred in the motor based on a comparison of the output torque of the motor when the second torque control is executed and a predetermined abnormality determination value, and when determining that the abnormality has occurred, executes a first failsafe control of the motor. (¶30, 34, 70)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Sawada with a stopping failsafe control unit that determines whether an abnormality has occurred in the motor based on a comparison of the output torque of the motor when the second torque control is executed and a predetermined abnormality determination value, and when determining that the abnormality has occurred, executes a first failsafe control of the motor as taught by Kurokawa with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 2, Kurokawa however further teaches wherein, the abnormality determination value includes an upper limit determination value that defines the upper limit of a convergence value of the motor's output torque, and the stopping failsafe control unit determines that an abnormality has occurred in the motor based on the convergence value of the motor's output torque exceeding the upper limit determination value. (¶30, 34, 70)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Sawada with wherein, the abnormality determination value includes an upper limit determination value that defines the upper limit of a convergence value of the motor's output torque, and the stopping failsafe control unit determines that an abnormality has occurred in the motor based on the convergence value of the motor's output torque exceeding the upper limit determination value as taught by Kurokawa with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 3, Kurokawa however further teaches wherein, the abnormality determination value includes a lower limit determination value that defines the lower limit of a convergence value of the output torque of the motor, and the stopping failsafe control unit determines that an abnormality has occurred in the motor based on the convergence value of the output torque of the motor being less than the lower limit determination value. (¶30, 34, 70)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Sawada with wherein, the abnormality determination value includes a lower limit determination value that defines the lower limit of a convergence value of the output torque of the motor, and the stopping failsafe control unit determines that an abnormality has occurred in the motor based on the convergence value of the output torque of the motor being less than the lower limit determination value as taught by Kurokawa with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 4, Kurokawa however further teaches wherein, the stopping failsafe control unit prohibits the second torque control or prohibits the control of the motor as the first failsafe control. (¶70)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Sawada with wherein, the stopping failsafe control unit prohibits the second torque control or prohibits the control of the motor as the first failsafe control as taught by Kurokawa with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 6, Sawada further discloses a motor control unit that controls the motor; a brake control unit that controls a brake device of the mobile object; wherein, the motor control unit comprises: the first torque command value setting unit; the second torque command value setting unit; the waveform setting unit, the motion control unit,
Sawada appears to be silent as to and the stopping failsafe control unit a driving failsafe control unit that determines, when a traveling speed of the mobile object exceeds a predetermined speed, whether an abnormality has occurred in the motor by comparing an actual output torque of the motor with the regenerative torque command value and executes a second failsafe control based on the determination that the abnormality has occurred in the motor.
Kurokawa however teaches and the stopping failsafe control unit a driving failsafe control unit that determines, when a traveling speed of the mobile object exceeds a predetermined speed, whether an abnormality has occurred in the motor by comparing an actual output torque of the motor with the regenerative torque command value and executes a second failsafe control based on the determination that the abnormality has occurred in the motor. (¶30, 34, 70)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Sawada with and the stopping failsafe control unit a driving failsafe control unit that determines, when a traveling speed of the mobile object exceeds a predetermined speed, whether an abnormality has occurred in the motor by comparing an actual output torque of the motor with the regenerative torque command value and executes a second failsafe control based on the determination that the abnormality has occurred in the motor as taught by Kurokawa with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 7, Sawada further discloses a gradient estimation unit that calculates an estimated value of the gradient of the road surface on which the mobile object stops, and wherein the stopping failsafe control unit sets the abnormality determination value variably based on the estimated value of the gradient of the road surface. (¶59, 61)
Regarding claim 8, Sawada further discloses a motor control unit that controls the motor; and a brake control unit that controls a brake device of the mobile object, wherein, the gradient estimation unit calculates the estimated value of the gradient of the road surface based on a calculated gradient of the road surface calculated by the motor control unit and a calculated gradient of the road surface calculated by the brake control unit. (¶59, 61)
Regarding claim 9, Sawada discloses a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a program, the program causing at least one processing unit to: (¶36)
set an instructed torque command value, which is a target value of torque to be output from the motor based on a driver's operation on the mobile object; (¶53, 57)
set a stop torque command value, which is a target value of the torque to be output from the motor to maintain the stopped state of the mobile object when the mobile object has been stopped; (¶58)
set a torque waveform defining a time variation of a target value of an output torque of the motor; (Fig 11; ¶131)
execute a first torque control when a travelling speed of the mobile object exceeds a predetermined speed and executes a second torque control when the traveling speed of the mobile object is equal to or below the predetermined speed, the first torque control being controlling the output torque of the motor based on the instructed torque command value and the second torque control being a control to change the output torque of the motor from the instructed torque command value to the stop torque command value along the torque waveform progressively; (Fig 5, 11; ¶56-58, 64-65)
Sawada appears to be silent as to determine whether an abnormality has occurred in the motor based on a comparison of the output torque of the motor when the second torque control is executed and a predetermined abnormality determination value, and when determining that the abnormality has occurred, execute a first failsafe control of the motor.
Kurokawa however teaches determine whether an abnormality has occurred in the motor based on a comparison of the output torque of the motor when the second torque control is executed and a predetermined abnormality determination value, and when determining that the abnormality has occurred, execute a first failsafe control of the motor. (¶30, 34, 70)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Sawada with determine whether an abnormality has occurred in the motor based on a comparison of the output torque of the motor when the second torque control is executed and a predetermined abnormality determination value, and when determining that the abnormality has occurred, execute a first failsafe control of the motor as taught by Kurokawa with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada in view of Kurokawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kamino (Japanese Patent JP 2020-014327)
Regarding claim 5, Kamino however teaches wherein, the stopping failsafe control unit counts the number of times that an abnormality is determined to have occurred in the motor and executes the first failsafe control based on the number of times exceeding a predetermined threshold value. (¶30)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Sawada with wherein, the stopping failsafe control unit counts the number of times that an abnormality is determined to have occurred in the motor and executes the first failsafe control based on the number of times exceeding a predetermined threshold value as taught by Kamino with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN D HUTCHINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8413. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5 Mon-Thur.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALAN D HUTCHINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669