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 07/19/2024. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 07/24/2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0249660) in view of Lee et. al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,305,747 B1) in further view of Brinkley et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0198989).
Regarding claim 1 and similarly with respect to claims 12 and 18
Zhang discloses “A golf vehicle comprising: a parking brake moveable between a braking position and a non-braking position,” (See Zhang Fig. 1, Char. 133 disclosing a brake unit. A brake unit may include braking to make a traveling-stopped vehicle stably parked in various road conditions, thus a parking brake, see Zhang [0003]. The vehicle may be a golf cart, see Zhang [0083].).
Zhang discloses “a first controller in communication with the parking brake;” (See Zhang Fig. 4, Char. 420 disclosing a first control unit in communication with a wheel brake.).
Zhang discloses “and a second controller in communication with the first controller and the parking brake;” (See Zhang Fig. 4, Char. 430 disclosing a second control unit in communication with a wheel brake and the first control unit.).
Zhang discloses “wherein the first controller is configured to selectively control movement of the parking brake between the braking position and the non-braking position” (See Zhang Fig. 4 Chars. 410 and 430 & [0106]-[0108] disclosing obtaining input information, including braking requirement information, which is transmitted to the first control unit for braking operation.).
Zhang discloses “and the second controller is configured to, upon detecting that the first controller is malfunctioning, perform a braking operation using the parking brake.” (See Zhang Fig. 5 Char. 502 disclosing taking control of braking with the second controller when it is determined that the first controller is malfunctioning.).
Zhang discloses all the elements of claim 1 and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except the concept of redundant control units specifically for performing parking brake control, and “the parking brake biased toward the braking position;” (Zhang discloses redundant wheel brake controllers, and discloses braking control units may be used form parking brake control, however the control system is not necessarily for parking brake control.).
Lee discloses redundant control units for parking brake control (See Lee Col. 5 L. 15-21 disclosing parking brake control with redundant controllers for mitigating controller failures.).
Zhang and Lee are analogous art, because they are reasonably pertinent to the specific problem the invention attempts to solve. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Lee to include redundant parking brake controllers for mitigating unsafe situations from occurring when vehicle brake controller is malfunctioning. Doing so provides a known method in the art to facilitate control of parking brakes under various failure situations, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as doing so advantageously prevents vehicle safety issues due to brake communication failures, see Lee Col. 1, L. 7-17 & L. 57-65.
Brinkley discloses “the parking brake biased toward the braking position;” (See Brinkley Abstract disclosing a parking brake including a fluid supply for disengaging the parking brake. When fluid is not received, the parking brake is engaged (biased toward the braking position).).
Zhang and Brinkley are analogous art, because they are reasonably pertinent to the specific problem the invention attempts to solve. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Brinkley to include a parking brake biased towards a braking position. Doing so provides a known method in the art to facilitate control of a parking brake, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as doing so advantageously provides automatic parking brake activation to ensure the vehicle remains stationary when parked and/or slows to a stop automatically during a failure of a component, see Brinkley [0018].
Regarding claim 2 and similarly with respect to claim 15
Zhang discloses “The golf vehicle of Claim 1, wherein the second controller is configured to determine that the first controller is malfunctioning based on a fault signal received by the second controller from the first controller.” (See Zhang [0108] disclosing the first control unit and the second control unit may transmit status information to each other, where the status information is used to indicate whether the control unit works normally.).
Regarding claim 3 and similarly with respect to claim 17
Zhang modified in view of Lee and Brinkley discloses “The golf vehicle of Claim 1,”, and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein the second controller is configured to determine that the first controller is malfunctioning based on the second controller detecting that the first controller has been disconnected from the second controller.”.
Lee discloses “wherein the second controller is configured to determine that the first controller is malfunctioning based on the second controller detecting that the first controller has been disconnected from the second controller.” (See Lee Fig. 4, Char. 406-418 and Col. 9 L. 62-67 & Col. 10 L. 1-4 disclosing detecting a communications failure with a brake controller and detecting the controller failure.).
Zhang and Lee are analogous art, because they are reasonably pertinent to the specific problem the invention attempts to solve. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Lee to include determining a vehicle brake controller is malfunctioning based on detecting a disconnection from a redundant controller. Doing so provides a known method in the art to facilitate control of parking brakes under various failure situations, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as doing so advantageously prevents vehicle safety issues due to brake communication failures, see Lee Col. 1, L. 7-17 & L. 57-65.
Regarding claim 5 and similarly with respect to claim 14
Zhang discloses “The golf vehicle of Claim 1, wherein the braking operation includes one of a pulsed braking operation that transitions the parking brake back and forth between the braking position and the non-braking position or a free-roll braking operation in which the golf vehicle is allowed to gradually roll to a stop before the parking brake is moved to the parking position.” (See Zhang Fig. 1, Char. 133 disclosing a brake unit. A brake unit may include braking to make a traveling-stopped vehicle stably parked in various road conditions, see Zhang [0003].).
Regarding claim 9
Zhang discloses “The golf vehicle of Claim 1, wherein the first controller and the second controller are configured to control the parking brake in parallel.” (See Zhang [0111] disclosing both control units may transmit braking control information to a brake to perform braking control.).
Regarding claim 11 and similarly with respect to claim 20
Zhang discloses “The golf vehicle of Claim 1, wherein the parking brake is an electromagnetic parking brake.” (See Zhang [0007] disclosing electronic mechanical braking. (electro-mechanical brakes are electromagnetic brakes, see Huennekens et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0224969 [0023])).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0249660) in view of Lee et. al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,305,747 B1) in further view of Brinkley et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0198989) in even further view of Kubik et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0291799).
Regarding claim 4
Zhang modified in view of Lee and Brinkley discloses “The golf vehicle of Claim 1,”, and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein the second controller is configured to determine an expected parking brake state based on one or more inputs received by both the first controller and the second controller, and determining that the first controller is malfunctioning is based on the expected parking brake state being different from a control indication of the first controller.”.
Kubik discloses “wherein the second controller is configured to determine an expected parking brake state based on one or more inputs received by both the first controller and the second controller, and determining that the first controller is malfunctioning is based on the expected parking brake state being different from a control indication of the first controller.” (See Kubik Abstract and [0020] disclosing a drive controller and a brake controller, the drive controller actuating the parking brake in response to a signal indicating a failure of the brake controller. Sensor data is used to determine whether the wheel brake has been adequately activated to secure the motor vehicle in the parked or standstill state.).
Zhang and Kubik are analogous art, because they are reasonably pertinent to the specific problem the invention attempts to solve. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Kubik to include determining a vehicle brake controller is malfunctioning based on detecting an expected parking brake state being different than a commanded brake state. Doing so provides a known method in the art to facilitate control of parking brakes under various failure situations, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as doing so advantageously provides a safeguard in the case of the failure of the brake controller to secure or maintain the vehicle in a parked state, see Kubik [0016].
Claims 6-8, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0249660) in view of Lee et. al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,305,747 B1) in further view of Brinkley et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0198989) in even further view of Fraser-Chanpong et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0134199).
Regarding claim 6
Zhang modified in view of Lee and Brinkley discloses “The golf vehicle of Claim 1,”, and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “further comprising a prime mover, wherein the first controller is a prime mover controller that is further configured to control the prime mover.”.
Fraser-Chanpong discloses “further comprising a prime mover, wherein the first controller is a prime mover controller that is further configured to control the prime mover.” (See Fraser-Chanpong [0028] disclosing primary and secondary controllers may control an electric wheel motor.).
Zhang and Fraser-Chanpong are analogous art, because they are reasonably pertinent to the specific problem the invention attempts to solve. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Fraser-Chanpong to include redundant multi-functional control systems that may operate a prime mover or battery system and facilitate backup control functions. Doing so provides a known method in the art to facilitate control of vehicle systems, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as doing so advantageously provides multiple control modules used to ensure a “fail safe” backup for operationally critical functions, see Fraser-Chanpong [0004].
Regarding claim 7
Zhang modified in view of Lee, Brinkley, and Fraser-Chanpong discloses “The golf vehicle of Claim 6,”, and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein the prime mover includes an electric motor.”.
Fraser-Chanpong discloses “wherein the prime mover includes an electric motor.” (See Fraser-Chanpong [0028] disclosing an electric wheel motor.).
The rationale to combine is similar to the rationale provided in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 8 and similarly with respect to claims 16 and 18 (See rejection of claim 1 in section 1.a of this office action)
Zhang modified in view of Lee, Brinkley, and Fraser-Chanpong discloses “The golf vehicle of Claim 7,”, and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “further comprising a battery system, wherein the second controller is a battery management system that is further configured to control the battery system.”.
Fraser-Chanpong discloses “further comprising a battery system, wherein the second controller is a battery management system that is further configured to control the battery system.” (See Fraser-Chanpong Claim 8 disclosing primary and secondary controllers may control a battery management system.).
The rationale to combine is similar to the rationale provided in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 20
See rejection of claim 11 in section 1.f
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0249660) in view of Lee et. al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,305,747 B1) in further view of Brinkley et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0198989) in even further view of Michels et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0070788).
Regarding claim 10
Zhang modified in view of Lee and Brinkley discloses “The golf vehicle of Claim 1,”, and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein the first controller and the second controller are configured to control the parking brake in series.”.
Michels discloses “wherein the first controller and the second controller are configured to control the parking brake in series.” (See Michels [0021] disclosing a first control unit can be configured to communicate a parking brake command via a communications connection to a second control unit, causing the second control unit to control a parking brake, thus the parking brake is controlled in series.).
Zhang and Michels are analogous art, because they are reasonably pertinent to the specific problem the invention attempts to solve. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Michels to include operating a parking brake in series with redundant control systems. Doing so provides a known method in the art for performing control of vehicle parking brakes, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as doing so advantageously provides redundant communication channels for fail-safe operation of a vehicle parking brakes, see Michels [0041].
Claims 12, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0249660) in view of Lee et. al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,305,747 B1).
Regarding claim 12
Zhang discloses “A golf vehicle comprising: a parking brake moveable between a braking position and a non-braking position;” (See Zhang Fig. 1, Char. 133 disclosing a brake unit. A brake unit may include braking to make a traveling-stopped vehicle stably parked in various road conditions, thus a parking brake, see Zhang [0003]. The vehicle may be a golf cart, see Zhang [0083].).
Zhang discloses “a first controller in communication with the parking brake;” (See Zhang Fig. 4, Char. 420 disclosing a first control unit in communication with a wheel brake.).
Zhang discloses “and a second controller in communication with the first controller and the parking brake;” (See Zhang Fig. 4, Char. 430 disclosing a second control unit in communication with a wheel brake and the first control unit.).
Zhang discloses “the second controller including at least one processing circuit having at least one processor and at least one memory,” (See Zhang [0027] disclosing the controllers have a memory coupled to a processor.).
Zhang discloses “the at least one memory storing instructions thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: determine that the first controller indicates that the parking brake should move from the non-braking position to the braking position while the golf vehicle is being driven;” (See Zhang Fig. 4 Chars. 410 and 430 & [0106] disclosing obtaining input information, including braking requirement information.).
Zhang discloses “determine that the first controller is malfunctioning;” (See Zhang Fig. 5 Chars. 501-502 disclosing determining that the first controller is malfunctioning.).
Zhang discloses “and in response to determining that the first controller is malfunctioning, take control of the parking brake.” (See Zhang Fig. 5 Char. 502 disclosing taking control of braking with the second controller when it is determined that the first controller is malfunctioning.).
Zhang discloses all the elements of claim 1 and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except the concept of redundant control units specifically for performing parking brake control. (Zhang discloses redundant wheel brake controllers, and discloses braking control units may be used form parking brake control, however the control system is not necessarily for parking brake control.).
Lee discloses redundant control units for parking brake control (See Lee Col. 5 L. 15-21 disclosing parking brake control with redundant controllers for mitigating controller failures.).
Zhang and Lee are analogous art, because they are reasonably pertinent to the specific problem the invention attempts to solve. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Lee to include redundant parking brake controllers for mitigating unsafe situations from occurring when vehicle brake controller is malfunctioning. Doing so provides a known method in the art to facilitate control of parking brakes under various failure situations, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as doing so advantageously prevents vehicle safety issues due to brake communication failures, see Lee Col. 1, L. 7-17 & L. 57-65.
Regarding claim 15
Refer to rejection of claim 2 in section 1.b.
Regarding claim 17
Refer to rejection of claim 3 in section 1.c.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0249660) in view of Lee et. al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,305,747 B1) in further view of Brinkley et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0198989).
Regarding claim 13
Zhang modified in view of Lee discloses “The golf vehicle of Claim 12,”, and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein the parking brake is biased toward the braking position.”.
Brinkley discloses “wherein the parking brake is biased toward the braking position.” (See Brinkley Abstract disclosing a parking brake including a fluid supply for disengaging the parking brake. When fluid is not received, the parking brake is engaged (biased toward the braking position).).
Zhang and Brinkley are analogous art, because they are reasonably pertinent to the specific problem the invention attempts to solve. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Brinkley to include a parking brake biased towards a braking position. Doing so provides a known method in the art to facilitate control of a parking brake, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as doing so advantageously provides automatic parking brake activation to ensure the vehicle remains stationary when parked and/or slows to a stop automatically during a failure of a component, see Brinkley [0018].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0249660) in view of Lee et. al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,305,747 B1) in further view of King et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0317198).
Regarding claim 14 and similarly with respect to claim 19
Zhang modified in view of Lee discloses “The golf vehicle of Claim 12,”, and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein taking control of the parking brake includes performing a pulsed braking operation that transitions the parking brake back and forth between the braking position and the non-braking position.”.
King discloses “wherein taking control of the parking brake includes performing a pulsed braking operation that transitions the parking brake back and forth between the braking position and the non-braking position.” (See King Abstract disclosing performing a pulsing braking operation to gradually slow a vehicle (golf car see King [0045]), when a fault condition occurs.).
Zhang and King are analogous art, because they are reasonably pertinent to the specific problem the invention attempts to solve. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of King to include pulsing a parking brake between a braking/non-braking position when an emergency occurs. Doing so provides a known method in the art to facilitate control of a parking brake for an electric vehicle, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as doing so advantageously provides gradual braking to slow a vehicle less abruptly during emergency fault situations, see King [0005].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0249660) in view of Lee et. al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,305,747 B1) in further view of Fraser-Chanpong et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0134199).
Regarding claim 16
Refer to rejection of claim 8 in section 3.c.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0249660) in view of Lee et. al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,305,747 B1) in further view of Brinkley et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0198989) in even further view of Fraser-Chanpong et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0134199) still in further view of King et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0317198).
Regarding claim 19
Refer to rejection of claim 14 in section 7.a.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERROD IRVIN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7083. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 7:00 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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/JERROD IRVIN DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3656