DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Application # 18/891,907 filed on September 20, 2024 in which claims 1-12 were presented for examination.
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
Claims 1-12 are pending, of which claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed September 20, 2024 and April 15, 2025 comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. They have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. §§ 120, 121, 365(c), or 371 is acknowledged.
Title of the Invention
37 C.F.R. § 1.72(a) states: “The title of the invention may not exceed 500 characters in length and must be as short and specific as possible” (emphasis added). Thus, the title of the invention is not sufficiently descriptive.
A new title is required that is more clearly and more specifically indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
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. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 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 1-4 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al., US Publication 2007/0216452 (hereinafter Matsumoto) in view of McGettrick et al., US Publication 2019/0017311 (hereinafter McGettrick).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto discloses a control device comprising “a first control unit that performs drive control of an electric motor on the basis of first electric power; and a second control unit that performs predetermined drive control on the basis of second electric power smaller than the first electric power” (Matsumoto ¶¶ 5, 18) by disclosing a hybrid motorcycle (Matsumoto ¶ 18), where Matsumoto describes a hybrid vehicle has having two batteries, a high voltage battery and a low voltage battery. (Matsumoto ¶ 5, see also Matsumoto ¶ 36). Further, Matsumoto discloses “wherein the first control unit performs the drive control of the electric motor by receiving the first electric power and the second electric power” (Matsumoto ¶¶ 21, 36) where the controls of the functions of each the high and low voltage batteries are performed.
Matsumoto does not appear to explicitly disclose “in a case of receiving an induced voltage of the electric motor while the first electric power and the second electric power are not received, performs protection processing for protecting a target from the induced voltage on the basis of the induced voltage.”
However, McGettrick discloses a control device comprising “a first control unit that performs drive control of an … motor on the basis of first electric power” (McGettrick ¶ 51) by disclosing the presence of a motor vehicle, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to control the performance of driving the vehicle on the basis of electric power supplied by a standard 12 volt car battery. Additionally, on the basis of first electric power discloses “a second control unit that performs predetermined drive control on the basis of second electric power smaller than the first electric power” (McGettrick ¶¶ 53, 59) where electric motor 22 controls power drive unit 12 (McGettrick ¶ 53) and example is given of the power being 5 volts (McGettrick ¶ 59), which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be less than the 12 volts of a standard 12 volt car battery. Finally, McGettrick discloses “in a case of receiving an induced voltage of the electric motor while the first electric power and the second electric power are not received, performs protection processing for protecting a target from the induced voltage on the basis of the induced voltage” (McGettrick ¶ 63) where detection of the back electromotive force (i.e., an induced voltage) caused by the manual opening of the lift gate causes a wake up signal to be processed in order to “dissipate the electrical output of the power drive unit” (McGettrick ¶ 14).
Matsumoto and McGettrick are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicle electrical systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Matsumoto and McGettrick before him or her to modify the high and low voltage battery systems of Matsumoto to include the back EMF protection of McGettrick.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide safety mechanisms for auxiliary functions of the vehicle. (McGettrick ¶ 84).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Matsumoto and McGettrick discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Matsumoto and McGettrick discloses “the first control unit executes startup processing on the basis of the induced voltage and performs the protection processing on the basis of a result of the startup processing” (McGettrick ¶ 63) where a wake up action is “startup processing.”
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Matsumoto and McGettrick discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Matsumoto and McGettrick discloses “the startup processing includes determining whether the drive control of the electric motor is possible” (McGettrick ¶ 71) by confirming wakeup capability.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Matsumoto and McGettrick discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Matsumoto and McGettrick discloses “the first control unit starts the startup processing in response to an absolute value of the induced voltage reaching a first threshold, and starts the protection processing in response to the absolute value reaching a second threshold larger than the first threshold” (McGettrick ¶¶ 59, 63) where the comparator “indicat[es] which of the negative comparator input 42 and the positive comparator input 44 is larger,” which a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as an absolute value (McGettrick ¶ 59), the value of which is then compared to a threshold (McGettrick ¶ 63).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Matsumoto and McGettrick discloses the control device of claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Matsumoto and McGettrick discloses “a wheel.” (Matsumoto ¶ 18). Additionally, the combination of Matsumoto and McGettrick discloses “an electric motor for rotating the wheel.” (Matsumoto ¶ 19). Finally, the combination of Matsumoto and McGettrick discloses “a battery unit that generates the first electric power.” (Matsumoto ¶ 21).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Matsumoto and McGettrick discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Matsumoto and McGettrick discloses “a second battery unit that generates the second electric power” (McGettrick ¶¶ 53, 59) where electric motor 22 controls power drive unit 12 (McGettrick ¶ 53)
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Matsumoto and McGettrick discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Matsumoto and McGettrick discloses “a motor driver that receives a control signal from the first control unit and the first electric power and drives the electric motor” (Matsumoto ¶ 21) where the control of a function of the high voltage battery is performed.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Matsumoto and McGettrick discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Matsumoto and McGettrick discloses “a start unit for bringing the vehicle into a starting state, wherein the second control unit is configured to be able to receive the second electric power in a state in which the start unit allows the vehicle to start” (McGettrick ¶ 63) where detection of the back electromotive force (i.e., an induced voltage) caused by the manual opening of the lift gate causes a wake up signal to be processed in order to “dissipate the electrical output of the power drive unit” (McGettrick ¶ 14).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Matsumoto and McGettrick discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Matsumoto and McGettrick discloses “the second control unit performs drive control of an auxiliary machine on the basis of the second electric power” (McGettrick ¶ 52) where the auxiliary machine may be, but is not limited to, a lift gate, a tail gate, a sliding closure, or a window.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Matsumoto and McGettrick discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Matsumoto and McGettrick discloses “the vehicle is a straddle type vehicle” (Matsumoto ¶ 18) where a motorcycle is “a straddle type vehicle.”
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Matsumoto and McGettrick discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Matsumoto and McGettrick discloses “the vehicle is a two-wheeled vehicle” (Matsumoto ¶ 18) where a motorcycle is “a straddle type vehicle.”
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of McGettrick, as applied to claim1 above, and in further view of Plaideau et al., US Publication 2015/0130383 (hereinafter Plaideau).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Matsumoto and McGettrick discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Matsumoto and McGettrick does not appear to explicitly disclose “the protection processing includes making phase voltages of a stator coil of the electric motor equal to each other.”
However, Plaideau discloses a vehicle electrical system including protection processing, “the protection processing includes making phase voltages of a stator coil of the electric motor equal to each other” (Plaideau Claim 1) where discharging the energy (i.e., the protection processing) is performed by making the two voltages substantially equal.
Matsumoto, McGettrick, and Plaideau are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicle electrical systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Matsumoto, McGettrick, and Plaideau before him or her to modify the electrical protection system of Matsumoto and McGettrick to include the equal voltage of Plaideau.
The motivation for doing so would have been to further enhance the safety of the device during electrical discharge. (Plaideau ¶ 53).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Abei et al., US Publication 2021/0010449, System and method for protecting an electric motorcycle from EMF currents.
Schulz et al., US Publication 2023/0029680, System and method for monitoring EMF on an electric motorcycle.
Jang et al., US Publication 2023/0085770, System and method for using EMF protections on an electric vehicle with multiple electric motors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662