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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 10-12 in the reply filed on 18 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant has added new claims 13-20. Claim 13 appears to be directed to a derivative of the elected invention represented in claims 10-12, and will therefore be examined with claims 10-12. However, newly submitted claims 14-20 appear to be directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claims 14-20 appear to be directed to limitations present in non-elected claims 1-9, that has been non-elected without traverse.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 14-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Status of the Application
Claims 10-13 have been examined in this application filed on or after March 16, 2013, and are being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. This communication is the First Office Action on the Merits.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary the by Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuki (US 20190315323 A1) herein Matsuki, in view of Hughes et al. (US 20030169002 A1) herein Hughes.
In regards to Claim 10, Matsuki discloses the following:
10. (Original) A system for a vehicle, (see at least [0008 “vehicle”) comprising:
an electric motor coupled to an energy storage device providing positive and negative torque to wheels of the vehicle; (see at least [0024] “electric motor 26 is operable to drive the wheel 20” and [0031] “In the driving operation of the electric motor 26, the motor driver 42 is controlled based on the control signals from the drive controller 40 and converts electric power supplied from the battery BAT to driving electric power” and “In the regenerative operation of the electric motor 26… regenerative electric power inputted from the electric motor 26 to the charging electric power and outputs such regenerative electric power to the battery BAT.)
a parking brake actuable to apply a varying range of negative torques to the wheels of the vehicle; (see at least [0022] “parking brake 22 is a general mechanical brake” and [0039] “parking torque Ptr corresponds to the braking torque Str of the electric motor 26 that maintains the wheel 20 stopped by controlling the electric motor 26 while the vehicle is parked” and [0040] “The braking force Fs is calculated based on the sum torque that is calculated by adding the flat road parking torque Pftr to the parking torque Ptr. The flat road parking torque Pftr corresponds to the braking torque that is necessary for the wheel 20 to maintain the wheel 20 stopped” and [0054] “At Step S160, the drive controller 40 calculates the parking torque Ptr based on the control amount of the electric motor 26 (the braking torque Str)”)
and a controller storing instructions in non-transitory memory (see at least Fig. 1 drive controller 40” and [0039] “stored in the drive controller 40”) that, when executed, cause the controller to:
in response to an indication of braking, (see at least [0023] “service brake 24 is connected to the drive controller 40 through a rotation angle detector such as potentiometer (not shown) mounted to the brake pedal, and generates voltage corresponding to the pedal stroke applied by the operator.”, see also Fig. 2 step S105 “yes” and step S110 “yes”) apply negative torque from each of the electric motor and the parking brake simultaneously. (see at least Fig. 2, step S150 and S160)
It is noted that while Matsuki discloses generating both electric motor negative torque and parking brake negative torque based on a brake operation flag (step S105) and control switch operation (step S110) Matsuki does not explicitly disclose performing this simultaneously.
However, this is more explicitly taught by Hughes. (see at least [0009] “regenerative braking system cooperates with a friction brake system”, [0040] “displacement of the handbrake lever 24 operates regenerative braking in parallel with a conventional drum or disc friction brake.” And “braking control module would use a duty factor map to blend regenerative and friction braking so that the implementation of regenerative braking would transparent to the rider.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Hughes with the invention of Matsuki, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing a braking system that is more energy efficient, and simpler, than that provided by only friction brakes, (Hughes, [0003]) and/or with the motivation of implementing regenerative braking such that the implementation would be transparent to the rider. (Hughes, [0040])
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuki in view of Hughes as applied, in further view of Stubner (US 20060196290 A1).
In regards to Claim 11, Matsuki discloses the following:
11. (Original) The system of claim 10, wherein the vehicle is a fork lift, (see at least [0035] “vehicle 1 shown in FIG. 4 is an electric vehicle driven by electric power, for example, a forklift truck”)
Matsuki is silent, but Stubner teaches the following:
and wherein the wheels of the vehicle (see abstract “lift truck”, [0002] “fork lift truck” and [0013] “controllable wheel of a lift truck”) are coupled to the electric motor via one or more gears, a speed of the vehicle directly proportional to a speed of the electric motor. (see at least [0007] “The transmission itself is of a two stage design, whereby the first stage is applied to the drive motor with a spur gear meshing, while the second stage regulates the controllable wheel with a bevel gear mesh. The two transmission stages are bound together by a drive shaft supported in the housing, while the controllable wheel is non-rotatable bound with the output drive side bevel gear and a controllable wheel gearset and/or the bevel gear”, see also [0003] “gearing includes a second ratio stage determined by a pinion shaft and a crown gear”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Stubner with the invention of Matsuki, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing a simpler system that takes up as small as possible space and to simplify mounting and disassembly of the wheel drive system. (Stubner, [0006])
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuki in view of Hughes as applied, in further view of Plamper et al. (EP 2226226 A2) herein Plamper.
In regards to Claim 12, Matsuki is silent, but Plamper teaches the following:
12. (Original) The system of claim 10, wherein applying negative torque from each of the electric motor and the parking brake simultaneously includes, between the indication of braking and the vehicle coming to a stop, applying at a constant level a first level of negative torque from the parking brake and a second level of negative torque from the electric motor, (see at least [0008] “applying a constant dynamic brake force to the motor axle with the reversible electric rotating machine, applying a complementary friction brake force to the motor axle with the motor axle friction brake means,” and [0009] “dynamic brake force is constant over the complete speed range of the rail vehicle”)
the first level of negative torque lower than a maximum possible negative torque applicable from the parking brake (see at least [0014] “constant dynamic brake force is chosen equal to or less than the force applied by the reversible electric rotating machine to the motor axle at the maximum speed of the rail vehicle such that the reversible rotating machine is always able to apply this force,”, see also [0016] “applying the complementary friction brake force to the motor axle with the motor axle friction brake means, applying an emergency braking force to the trailer axle with the trailer axle friction brake means, such that the sum of the constant dynamic brake force and the complementary friction brake force equals the emergency braking force”, inherently including a peak or maximum complementary friction brake force) and the second level of negative torque lower than another maximum possible negative torque applicable from the electric motor. (see at least [0014] “More preferably, the predetermined maximum dynamic force is equal to or less than the brake that the reversible electric rotating machine is able to apply”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Plamper with the invention of Matsuki, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of helping to minimize wear and to optimize energy regeneration. (Plamper, [0003])
In regards to Claim 13, Matsuki is silent, but Plamper teaches the following:
13. (New) The system of claim 10, wherein applying the negative torque from each of the electric motor and the parking brake simultaneously includes applying a constant negative torque from the electric motor and applying a further constant negative torque from the parking brake simultaneously. (see at least [0008] “applying a constant dynamic brake force to the motor axle with the reversible electric rotating machine, applying a complementary friction brake force to the motor axle with the motor axle friction brake means,” and [0009] “dynamic brake force is constant over the complete speed range of the rail vehicle”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Plamper with the invention of Matsuki, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of helping to minimize wear and to optimize energy regeneration. (Plamper, [0003])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
March 31, 2026
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669