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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: An article (likely the word “the”) is missing between the words “one of” and “sprockets”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the steer motor control" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unknown whether this limitation is intended to refer to the “controller” in Claim 1, or a separate controller/control scheme used exclusively for the steer motor.
The term “standby” in Claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “standby” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Specification does not clarify that the controller normally operates in different “states” or “modes” such as a standby mode, nor does it state whether the controller in standby mode continues to process inputs or outputs for other vehicle parameters. For examination purposes, “standby” is herein interpreted to mean any state where the controller does not issue a correction to the steering motor when the IMU and steering angle sensor are in disagreement, that is, during normal operation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Pub. 2025/0304162 A1 to Kohler et al., hereinafter Kohler (note a 2022 effective filing date).
Regarding Claim 11, Kohler teaches a skid-steered vehicle comprising:
a tub (“body assembly” 5, Fig. 1, [0116]);
a plurality of ground engaging members (“lower carrier wheel assemblies” 140, Fig. 8, [0127]);
an electric drive motor (“prime mover” 51, [0119]);
an electric steer motor (“steering motor” 320, Figs. 22-26, [0163]);
a controller (40, Fig. 26, [0120]);
a transmission (“front drive” 90 and “geartrain” 340, Figs. 22-26), the transmission having a first input (“front drive input” 80, Fig. 23) and a second input (“steering motor output” 321, Fig. 23), the first input rotationally coupled to the electric drive motor ([0167]) and the second input rotationally coupled to the electric steer motor (through 321, Fig. 23, [0164]);
steering controls (“steering input” 20, [0116]);
a steering angle sensor (308, Fig. 27, [0162], producing a value of “steering angle” 550); and
an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (566, [0152]);
wherein, the controller (40) determines if the IMU (566) and steering angle sensor (308) are in agreement that the vehicle is turning and, if the IMU (566) and steering angle sensor (308) are not in agreement, the controller (40) turns off current to the electric steer motor ([0173] – “…requestion rotational speed of steering motor 320 is determined based upon any of steering angle 550… or IMU 566.” and [0204] regarding force feedback).
Regarding Claim 12, Kohler further teaches wherein, if the IMU (566) and steering angle sensor (308) are in agreement that the vehicle is not turning, the controller remains in standby ([0173], controller remains in operative I/O communication with sensors during normal operation, Figs. 35-36).
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 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 2025/0304162 to Kohler et al., hereinafter Kohler, in view of US Patent 9,725,114 to Brown et al., hereinafter Brown.
Regarding Claim 1, Kohler teaches a skid-steered vehicle comprising:
a tub (“body assembly” 5, Fig. 1, [0116])
a plurality of ground engaging members (“lower carrier wheel assemblies” 140, Fig. 8, [0127])
an electric drive motor (“prime mover” 51, [0119])
an electric steer motor (“steering motor” 320, Figs. 22-26, [0163])
a controller (40, Fig. 26, [0120])
a transmission (“front drive” 90 and “geartrain” 340, Figs. 22-26), the transmission having a first input (“front drive input” 80, Fig. 23) and a second input (“steering motor output” 321, Fig. 23), the first input rotationally coupled to the electric drive motor ([0167]) and the second input rotationally coupled to the electric steer motor (through 321, Fig. 23, [0164]); and
at least three operation modes, including a park mode (“park gear”, [0205]), a forward mode (“high” or “low” gears, [0205]), and a reverse mode (“reverse gear”, [0171]).
Kohler does not teach a separate zero-turn selector with separate configurations, or that the selector configuration and operation modes communicate to determine the vehicle’s ability to perform a zero turn.
In the same field of endeavor of off-road, zero-turn capable vehicles, Brown teaches a lawnmower having a zero turn selector (“pushbutton” 145, Figs. 11, 14, 17, Para. (44)) having a first configuration (when the pushbutton 145 is selected, Para. (44)) and a second configuration (when the pushbutton 145 is deselected, i.e., the state when the control scheme lacking the zero-turn capability is used, as depicted in Fig. 11, Para. (44)).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the skid-steer vehicle and drive modes of Kohler with the zero-turn selector/lockout button of Brown, yielding predictable results. The combination of Kohler/Brown teaches that, when the vehicle is in forward mode (Kohler – “high” or “low” gears, [0205]), and the zero turn selector is in the first configuration (Brown – when the pushbutton 145 is selected, Para. (44)), the controller (Kohler – 40, Fig. 26, [0120]) permits the vehicle to conduct a zero turn ([0205]) and when the vehicle is in the forward mode (Kohler – “high” or “low” gears) and the zero turn selector is in the second configuration (Brown – when the pushbutton 145 is deselected, i.e., the state when the control scheme lacking the zero-turn capability is used, as depicted in Fig. 11, Para. (44)), the controller (Kohler – 40) does not permit the vehicle to conduct a zero turn (Brown – as the deselection of 145 forces the vehicle into a control scheme lacking the zero-turn capability, Para. (44)). One ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that adding a lockout to the zero-turn function prevents its inadvertent activation during high-speed forward travel or travel on loose/muddy terrain, preventing the vehicle from tipping and increasing safety (Brown – Para. (36)).
Brown further teaches wherein in reverse mode (joystick 140 deflection in full reverse direction, Para. (37)), the electric drive motor (“prime mover” 520, denoting “wheel hub motors” 539L and 539R, Para. (32)) rotates in a direction opposite than when the vehicle is in forward mode (Para. (37), drive mode speed regimes detailed in Para. (45)).
Regarding Claim 2, Kohler as modified by Brown above further teaches wherein when the vehicle is in park mode (Kohler – “park gear”, [0205]) or reverse mode (“reverse gear”, [0171]), the controller (40) does not permit the vehicle to conduct a zero turn (“…when steering controller 315 receives signal 560 indicating that gearbox position 556 is a park gear, steering controller 315 will disable the steering assembly 300.” – [0205]).
Regarding Claim 3, Kohler as modified by Brown above further teaches at least six ground engaging members (Kohler – three apparent in single depicted symmetrical “track assembly” 100, Fig. 8, therefore six total).
Regarding Claim 6, Kohler as modified by Brown above further teaches wherein the vehicle is in the reverse mode (Kohler – “reverse gear”) and the electric drive motor is rotating at more than zero RPM (in any of steering modes depicted in Fig. 33A), the steer motor control is inverted (steering motor outputs inverted torque depending on reverse or forward gear selection, [0171]).
Regarding Claim 7, Kohler as modified by Brown above already teaches wherein in reverse mode (joystick 140 deflection in full reverse direction, Para. (37)), the electric drive motor (“prime mover” 520, denoting “wheel hub motors” 539L and 539R, Para. (32)) rotates in a direction opposite than when the vehicle is in forward mode (Para. (37), drive mode speed regimes detailed in Para. (45)).
Claims 4-5, 8-10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohler or Kohler/Brown in further view of US Pub. 2011/0232978 A1 to Schoon.
Regarding Claims 4 and 13 (similar limitations, different dependency), Kohler/Brown teaches the vehicle according to Claim 1, and Kohler teaches the vehicle according to Claim 11, but neither teaches that the drive motor is explicitly an alternating current motor.
In the same field of endeavor as skid-steer utility vehicles, Schoon teaches a skid-steer vehicle driven by two alternating current electric motors (201, 202, Fig. 1, [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the unspecified type of electric drive motor of Kohler/Brown with the AC drive motor(s) of Schoon, yielding predictable results. One ordinarily skilled in the art would have recognized that using a smaller AC motor in a consumer utility vehicle compared to a larger DC motor beneficially reduces weight and increases available vehicle/drivetrain space (Schoon – [0011-0012]), and that the higher initial torque and extremely precise control offered in general by DC motors is not necessary when its power is applied to the ground engaging elements via a speed-reducing transmission/differential ([0008-0009]).
Schoon additionally teaches wherein the vehicle comprises a plurality of sprockets (on the left side of the vehicle, 208S and 210S, Fig. 2, [0044]) and chains (left side of vehicle, 209, 211, Fig. 2, [0063]).
Schoon additionally teaches wherein the vehicle further comprises a plurality of drive axles (on both sides of the vehicle, “output shafts” 208 and 214, Fig. 2, [0042]).
Schoon additionally teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of sprockets (e.g., left side sprockets 208S, Fig. 2) is rotationally coupled to at least one of the drive axles (coupling of 208S onto 208 depicted in Fig. 2, [0045]) and wherein at least one of the chains (209 or 211, Fig. 2) is drivingly coupled to at least one of the sprockets (coupling depicted in Fig. 2, [0047]).
Regarding Claim 8, Schoon as modified into Kohler/Brown above already teaches wherein the vehicle comprises a plurality of sprockets (on the left side of the vehicle, 208S and 210S, Fig. 2, [0044]) and chains (left side of vehicle, 209, 211, Fig. 2, [0063]).
Regarding Claim 9, Schoon as modified into Kohler/Brown above already teaches wherein the vehicle further comprises a plurality of drive axles (on both sides of the vehicle, “output shafts” 208 and 214, Fig. 2, [0042]).
Regarding Claim 10, Schoon as modified into Kohler/Brown above already teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of sprockets (e.g., left side sprockets 208S, Fig. 2) is rotationally coupled to at least one of the drive axles (coupling of 208S onto 208 depicted in Fig. 2, [0045]) and wherein at least one of the chains (209 or 211, Fig. 2) is drivingly coupled to at least one of the sprockets (coupling depicted in Fig. 2, [0047]).
Regarding Claims 5 and 14 (similar limitations, different dependency), Schoon additionally teaches that the drive motors also perform the function of steering the vehicle (Schoon – [0018]). Because no structural differences between the drive and steer motors are recited in the instant application, and that the term “electric motor” may encompass a finite number of identified, predictable types of motors, including ones utilizing alternating current, the combination of Kohler/Brown/Schoon teaches the limitations of Claim 5, and Kohler/Schoon teaches the limitations of Claim 14. One ordinarily skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to replace the steering motor of Kohler or Kohler/Brown with the same AC motor as the drive motor of Schoon, or a separate AC motor, realizing that finite types of DC motors exist to try, using the same design considerations as presented in the rejection of Claims 4/13, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not teach a two-electric motor configuration wherein either or both of the drive motor and steering motor are connected to a transmission via a belt, in comparison to the more common driveshaft configuration as in Kohler.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mitchell James Price whose telephone number is (571)272-3729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 8:00 - 5:00 Eastern, Fri 8:00 - 12:00 Eastern.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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.
/Mitchell James Price/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights