DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Priority
The present application’s priority under Provisional US Application Number 63/542,845 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-7 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6: based on language of paragraph [0061 of the specification, “if the difference is greater than or equal to a threshold” and “if the difference is less than the threshold” should instead state “if the difference is positive” and “if the difference is negative”. The word “threshold” appears in the specification in the context of velocity comparisons.
Claim 7: “the active brake controller is configured to engage in response to…” is missing the brake mechanism between “engage” and “in response to”.
Claim 15: “increased” in “the target velocity is increased when the braking control is engaged” should be changed to decreased. This suggestion is based on FIG. 4 and paragraph [0057] of the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 6 states, “wherein the rotational data is normalized based upon an expected value in view of the throttle data”, however, the specification does not appear to describe the rotational data being normalized. For example, paragraph [0022] states, “velocity sensor 123a generates velocity data by measuring the rotational speed”, and “the velocity data generated by velocity sensors 123a may be utilized in tandem to generate a normalized value for the instant velocity”. The instant velocity is normalized, but not the rotational data. Also, paragraph [0061] states “the descent score can be a normalized value”. The descent score is different from the rotational data.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, which states, “wherein the rotational data is normalized based upon an expected value in view of the throttle data”, it is unclear which value is being normalized based on the appearance of “normalized” in paragraphs [0022] and [0061] of the specification.
Furthermore, “the difference” lacks antecedent basis. Paragraph [0061 of the specification describes “the difference of the accelerometer data and an expected value. The expected value can be determined using rotational data indicating the speed of propulsion components … and conditions of driving control”. It is unclear what the difference represents and how it is calculated. Is it a difference in acceleration values or velocity values?
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
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. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 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 1-2 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US 20160296848 A1) in view of Shenzhen (CN 111775937 A).
Regarding claim 1, Taylor teach A velocity governance method for a snowmobile (see at least FIG. 1: vehicle 10; [0021]: “In certain embodiments, the wheels may be replaced by, or used in conjunction with, other mechanisms such as one or more treads or tracks (e.g., in a snowmobile”), the method comprising:
establishing a target velocity (see at least [0055]: “a parent may select a speed of 2 MPH”) for the snowmobile;
the snowmobile is descending (see at least [0055]: “the vehicle 10 may start to accelerate down an incline. This condition can be detected through the data supplied by the indirect wheel speed sensor 82”) a slope;
engaging (see at least [0055]: “the CPU 68 can … operate [the motors 44(1) and/or 44(2)] in a dynamic brake configuration to maintain the desired speed.”) a brake mechanism (see at least FIG. 3: motors 44(1) and 44(2)) in response to an instant velocity of the snowmobile increasing beyond the target velocity (see at least [0063]: “Once the max speed of the vehicle 10 is set using the speed interface, the electronic drive system 26 will limit the vehicle to that speed across all terrains, including on down slopes.”), the brake mechanism suitable to slow the rotation of a propulsion component (see at least FIG. 1: FIG. 3: motor assembly 42; [0024]: “The motor assembly 42 includes first and second motors 44(1) and 44(2) and one or more drive mechanisms … that transmit rotational forces”; [0055]: “the CPU 68 can … operate [the motors 44(1) and/or 44(2)] in a dynamic brake configuration to maintain the desired speed.”) of the snowmobile.
However, Taylor does not explicitly teach generating a descent score indicating whether the snowmobile is descending a slope;
engaging a brake mechanism in response to the descent score indicating that the snowmobile is descending a slope;
disengaging the brake mechanism in response to the instant velocity falling below the target velocity.
Shenzhen teach generating a descent score indicating whether (see at least FIG. 1 step 102: “Whether the lawnmower is going downhill is determined based on the tilt angle, the throttle position, and the driving direction.”) the mobile is descending a slope;
engaging (see at least FIG. 1 step 105: “the braking duty cycle of the motor is adjusted”) a brake mechanism in response to an instant velocity of the mobile increasing beyond (see at least FIG. 1 step 105: “When the speed difference between the current vehicle speed and the target vehicle speed is greater than a first preset threshold”) the target velocity (see at least [0013]: target vehicle speed + first preset threshold) and the descent score indicating that the snowmobile is descending (see at least FIG. 1 step 103: “When the lawnmower is going downhill…”) a slope;
disengaging the brake mechanism in response to the instant velocity falling below (see at least [0026]: “When the speed difference between the current vehicle speed and the target vehicle speed is less than the second preset threshold, the duty cycle of the motor brake is stopped from increasing”) the target velocity (see at least [0013]: “the first preset threshold is greater than or equal to the second preset threshold.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Taylor to incorporate the teachings of Shenzhen to brake when a vehicle velocity exceeds a threshold and when the vehicle is descending a slope. Doing so would help to avoid collisions caused by excessive speed and to improve safety, as recognized by Shenzhen in paragraphs [0005] and [0007].
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Taylor and Shenzhen teach The velocity governance method of claim 1.
Shenzhen further teach wherein the target velocity is established dynamically in response to engagement of a driving control (see at least FIG. 1 step 103: “the target speed of the lawnmower is determined based on the throttle position”) of the snowmobile.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Taylor to incorporate the teachings of Shenzhen to base target speed on throttle inputs. Doing so would help to avoid collisions caused by excessive speed and to improve safety, as recognized by Shenzhen in paragraphs [0005] and [0007].
Regarding claim 13, Taylor teach A velocity governance method for a snowmobile (see at least FIG. 1: vehicle 10; [0021]: “In certain embodiments, the wheels may be replaced by, or used in conjunction with, other mechanisms such as one or more treads or tracks (e.g., in a snowmobile”), the method comprising:
establishing a target velocity (see at least [0055]: “a parent may select a speed of 2 MPH”) for the snowmobile;
the snowmobile is descending a slope (see at least [0055]: “the vehicle 10 may start to accelerate down an incline. This condition can be detected through the data supplied by the indirect wheel speed sensor 82”);
engaging (see at least [0055]: “the CPU 68 can … operate [the motors 44(1) and/or 44(2)] in a dynamic brake configuration to maintain the desired speed.”) a brake mechanism (see at least FIG. 3: motors 44(1) and 44(2)) in response to an instant velocity of the snowmobile increasing beyond a high threshold value (see at least [0063]: “Once the max speed of the vehicle 10 is set using the speed interface, the electronic drive system 26 will limit the vehicle to that speed across all terrains, including on down slopes.”), the brake mechanism suitable to slow the rotation of a propulsion component (see at least FIG. 1: FIG. 3: motor assembly 42; [0024]: “The motor assembly 42 includes first and second motors 44(1) and 44(2) and one or more drive mechanisms … that transmit rotational forces”; [0055]: “the CPU 68 can … operate [the motors 44(1) and/or 44(2)] in a dynamic brake configuration to maintain the desired speed.”) of the snowmobile; and
wherein
the high threshold value is at equal to *Examiner’s amendment: operation of motors in brake configuration triggered by velocity exceeding parent selected velocity.* or greater than the target velocity.
However, Taylor does not explicitly teach generating a descent score indicating whether the snowmobile is descending a slope;
engaging a brake mechanism in response to the descent score indicating that the snowmobile is descending a slope;
disengaging the brake mechanism in response to the instant velocity falling below a low threshold value;
wherein the low threshold value is equal to or lesser than the target velocity.
Shenzhen teach generating a descent score indicating whether (see at least FIG. 1 step 102: “Whether the lawnmower is going downhill is determined based on the tilt angle, the throttle position, and the driving direction.”) the mobile is descending a slope;
engaging (see at least FIG. 1 step 105: “the braking duty cycle of the motor is adjusted”) a brake mechanism in response to an instant velocity of the mobile increasing beyond (see at least FIG. 1 step 105: “When the speed difference between the current vehicle speed and the target vehicle speed is greater than a first preset threshold”) a high threshold (see at least [0013]: target vehicle speed + first preset threshold) and the descent score indicating that the snowmobile is descending (see at least FIG. 1 step 103: “When the lawnmower is going downhill…”) a slope;
disengaging the brake mechanism in response to the instant velocity falling below (see at least [0026]: “When the speed difference between the current vehicle speed and the target vehicle speed is less than the second preset threshold, the duty cycle of the motor brake is stopped from increasing”) a low threshold value;
wherein
the low threshold value is equal to (see at least [0013]: “the first preset threshold is greater than or equal to the second preset threshold.”) or lesser than the target velocity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Taylor to incorporate the teachings of Shenzhen to brake when a vehicle velocity exceeds a threshold and when the vehicle is descending a slope. Doing so would help to avoid collisions caused by excessive speed and to improve safety, as recognized by Shenzhen in paragraphs [0005] and [0007].
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Taylor and Shenzhen teach The velocity governance method of claim 13.
Shenzhen further teach wherein the target velocity is established dynamically in response to engagement of a driving control (see at least FIG. 1 step 103: “the target speed of the lawnmower is determined based on the throttle position”) of the snowmobile.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Taylor to incorporate the teachings of Shenzhen to base target speed on throttle inputs. Doing so would help to avoid collisions caused by excessive speed and to improve safety, as recognized by Shenzhen in paragraphs [0005] and [0007].
Claims 3-5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US 20160296848 A1) in view of Shenzhen (CN 111775937 A) and Schuler et al. (US 20130197773 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Taylor and Shenzhen teach The velocity governance method of claim 2.
Shenzhen further teaches wherein the driving control of the snowmobile comprises a throttle control (see at least FIG. 1 step 103: “the target speed of the lawnmower is determined based on the throttle position”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Taylor to incorporate the teachings of Shenzhen to base target speed on throttle inputs. Doing so would help to avoid collisions caused by excessive speed and to improve safety, as recognized by Shenzhen in paragraphs [0005] and [0007].
However, the combination of Taylor and Shenzhen does not explicitly teach establishing the target velocity comprises increasing the target velocity until engagement of the throttle control discontinues.
Schuler teach establishing the target velocity comprises increasing the target velocity until engagement of the throttle control discontinues (see at least [0044]: “At stage 402, the vehicle ground speed reaches a speed at which the operator wants to maintain. The operator releases the throttle. Per block 204 of the descent control system 200, once the throttle is released the vehicle controller 106 obtains current vehicle speed and establishes a target vehicle speed based on the current vehicle speed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Taylor to incorporate the teachings of Schuler to update target speed until release of throttle. Doing so would improve operator comfort, as recognized by Schuler in paragraphs [0033] and [0053].
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Taylor and Shenzhen teach The velocity governance method of claim 2.
However, the combination of Taylor and Shenzhen does not explicitly teach wherein the driving control comprises a brake control, and establishing the target velocity comprises decreasing the target velocity until engagement of the brake control discontinues.
Schuler teach wherein the driving control comprises a brake control (see at least [0025]: “brake pedal”), and establishing the target velocity comprises decreasing the target velocity until engagement of the brake control discontinues (see at least [0047]: “Once the vehicle ground speed reaches a speed desired by the vehicle operator, the operator releases the brake pedal at stage 408.… Referring to FIG. 2, when the brake pedal is released (e.g., in block 204), the controller 106 performs the functions in blocks 206”; FIG. 2 step 206: “…Set target vehicle speed to current vehicle speed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Taylor to incorporate the teachings of Schuler to update target speed until release of brake control. Doing so would improve operator comfort, as recognized by Schuler in paragraphs [0033] and [0053].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Taylor, Shenzhen, and Schuler teach The velocity governance method of claim 4.
Shenzhen further teaches wherein the driving control further comprises a throttle control (see at least FIG. 1 step 103: “the target speed of the lawnmower is determined based on the throttle position”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Taylor to incorporate the teachings of Shenzhen to base target speed on throttle inputs. Doing so would help to avoid collisions caused by excessive speed and to improve safety, as recognized by Shenzhen in paragraphs [0005] and [0007].
However, the combination of Taylor and Shenzhen does not explicitly teach establishing the target velocity comprises increasing the target velocity until engagement of the throttle control discontinues.
Schuler teach establishing the target velocity comprises increasing the target velocity until engagement of the throttle control discontinues (see at least [0044]: “At stage 402, the vehicle ground speed reaches a speed at which the operator wants to maintain. The operator releases the throttle. Per block 204 of the descent control system 200, once the throttle is released the vehicle controller 106 obtains current vehicle speed and establishes a target vehicle speed based on the current vehicle speed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Taylor to incorporate the teachings of Schuler to increase target speed until release of throttle. Doing so would improve operator comfort, as recognized by Schuler in paragraphs [0033] and [0053].
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Taylor and Shenzhen teach The velocity governance method of claim 14.
However, the combination of Taylor and Shenzhen does not explicitly teach wherein driving control of the snowmobile comprises a throttle control and a braking control, and wherein
the target velocity is increased when the throttle control is engaged and the instant velocity of the snowmobile is equal to or greater than the target velocity, and
the target velocity is increased when the braking control is engaged and the instant velocity of the snowmobile is equal to or greater than the target velocity.
Schuler teach wherein driving control of the snowmobile comprises a throttle control and a braking control, and wherein
the target velocity is increased when the throttle control is engaged and the instant velocity of the snowmobile is equal to (see at least [0044]: “At stage 402, the vehicle ground speed reaches a speed at which the operator wants to maintain. The operator releases the throttle. Per block 204 of the descent control system 200, once the throttle is released the vehicle controller 106 obtains current vehicle speed and establishes a target vehicle speed based on the current vehicle speed”) or greater than the target velocity, and
the target velocity is increased when the braking control is engaged and the instant velocity of the snowmobile is equal to (see at least [0047] Once the vehicle ground speed reaches a speed desired by the vehicle operator, the operator releases the brake pedal at stage 408.… Referring to FIG. 2, when the brake pedal is released (e.g., in block 204), the controller 106 performs the functions in blocks 206”; FIG. 2 step 206: “…Set target vehicle speed to current vehicle speed”) or greater than the target velocity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Taylor to incorporate the teachings of Schuler to increase target velocity based on throttle input and decrease target velocity based on brake input. Doing so would improve operator comfort, as recognized by Schuler in paragraphs [0033] and [0053].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US 20160296848 A1) in view of Shenzhen (CN 111775937 A) and Yui (US 20190161069 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Taylor and Shenzhen teach The velocity governance method of claim 1.
Shenzhen further teaches wherein generating the descent score that the snowmobile is descending a slope comprises:
receiving accelerometer data (see at least [0063]: “a triaxial accelerometer can effectively detect acceleration signals.”) from an accelerometer (see at least [0063]: “The tilt angle is obtained by using a triaxial accelerometer.”), the accelerometer data comprising acceleration measurements according to a plurality of dimensions, including at least a forward dimension relative to a chassis of the snowmobile;
receiving throttle data (see at least [0064]: “The voltage value output by the hall element”) from a throttle position sensor (see at least [0064]: “the throttle pedal voltage detection circuit”), the throttle data indicating the instantaneous throttle position (see at least [0064]: “The AD sampling value corresponding to the corresponding angle can be obtained through the throttle pedal voltage detection circuit, thereby obtaining the throttle position.”);
receiving rotational data (see at least [0125]: “the number of square waves”; “When the motor rotates once, the Hall sensor circuit will output a fixed number of square waves.”) from a rotational sensor (see at least [0125]: “the Hall sampling circuit”), the rotational data indicating the instantaneous moving speed (see at least [0125]: “The number of square waves can be obtained through the Hall sampling circuit per unit time, thereby determining the motor speed.”) of the propulsion component; and
assigning the descent score in view of the accelerometer data (see at least FIG. 1 step 102: “Whether the lawnmower is going downhill is determined based on the tilt angle”), the descent score calculated using the accelerometer data, the expected velocity (see at least [0125]: “The current vehicle speed can then be calculated using the gear ratio of the lawnmower’s gearbox and the radius of the drive wheels.”) calculated from the rotational data, wherein the rotational data is normalized based upon an expected value in view of the throttle data,
wherein
the descent score indicates downslope motion if the difference is greater than (see at least [0119]: “It should be noted that when a lawnmower of a certain weight moves at a constant speed on a horizontal surface, its speed is 'a' and the required throttle is 'b'.… When going downhill, if the same throttle is maintained to drive the lawnmower, its speed is greater than 'a'.”; current speed minus ‘a’ is greater than zero when going downhill) or equal to a threshold, and
the descent score does not indicate downslope motion if the difference is less than (see at least [0119]: “When going uphill, if the throttle is maintained at 'b', the lawnmower's uphill speed is less than 'a' due to gravity.”; current speed minus ‘a’ is less than zero when going uphill) the threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Taylor to incorporate the teachings of Shenzhen to base target speed on throttle inputs. Doing so would help to avoid collisions caused by excessive speed and to improve safety, as recognized by Shenzhen in paragraphs [0005] and [0007].
However, the combination of Taylor and Shenzhen does not explicitly teach the descent score calculated using an expected velocity.
Yui teach the descent score calculated using an expected velocity (see at least [0052]: “The continuous descent determining unit 12 determines whether the vehicle is in the continuous descending state, based on the running distance of the vehicle calculated based on the vehicle speed VP obtained from the speed sensor 4”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Taylor to incorporate the teachings of Yui to determine if a vehicle is descending based on vehicle speed. Doing so would “achieve … improvement of fuel efficiency”, as recognized by Yui in paragraph [0011].
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US 20160296848 A1) in view of Fairgrieve (US 20190161082 A1) and Shenzhen (CN 111775937 A).
Regarding claim 7, Taylor teach A snowmobile (see at least FIG. 1: vehicle 10; [0021]: “In certain embodiments, the wheels may be replaced by, or used in conjunction with, other mechanisms such as one or more treads or tracks (e.g., in a snowmobile”) comprising:
a propulsion component (see at least FIG. 3: motor assembly 42) operated using a rotational motion (see at least [0024]: “The motor assembly 42 includes first and second motors 44(1) and 44(2) and one or more drive mechanisms … that transmit rotational forces”);
a throttle control (see at least [0027]: “The vehicle 10 includes one or more proportional control drive actuators 56”) configured to engage the rotational motion (see at least [0030]: “The electronic drive system 26 actuates the motor assembly 42”);
a brake mechanism (see at least FIG. 3: motors 44(1) and 44(2)) configured to slow the rotational motion (see at least [0055]: “the CPU 68 can … operate [the motors 44(1) and/or 44(2)] in a dynamic brake configuration to maintain the desired speed.”);
a brake control (see at least FIG. 3: electronic safety brake 78) configured to engage (see at least [0041]: “the electronic safety brake 78 that is configured to short one or more of the motors 44(1) and 44(2) when, for example, there is no power supplied to the electronic drive system 6 or when one or more failure conditions are detected.”) the brake mechanism;
an active brake controller (see at least FIG. 3: CPU 68) configured to engage (see at least [0055]: “the CPU 68 can … operate [the motors 44(1) and/or 44(2)] in a dynamic brake configuration to maintain the desired speed.”) the brake mechanism independently (see at least FIG. 3 motor communication pathways: CPU [Wingdings font/0xDF] [Wingdings font/0xE0] FET Driver 74 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Dual H-bridge 80 [Wingdings font/0xE0] motor assembly 42 || Safety Brake 78 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Dual H-bridge 80 [Wingdings font/0xE0] motor assembly 42) of the brake control;
a memory (see at least FIG. 3: memory 66) in data communication with (see at least FIG. 3, [0062]: “the CPU 68 may be configured to store data in memory 66”) the active brake controller, a target velocity value (see at least [0055]: “a parent may select a speed of 2 MPH”);
a processor (see at least FIG. 3, [0029]: “one processor (e.g., central processing unit (CPU)) 68”) in data communication with the active brake controller,
wherein
the active brake controller is configured to engage (see at least [0055]: “the CPU 68 can … operate [the motors 44(1) and/or 44(2)] in a dynamic brake configuration to maintain the desired speed.”) in response to an instant velocity of the snowmobile increasing beyond the target velocity (see at least [0063]: “Once the max speed of the vehicle 10 is set using the speed interface, the electronic drive system 26 will limit the vehicle to that speed across all terrains, including on down slopes.”).
However, Taylor does not explicitly teach the memory storing thereon a target velocity value;
the processor is configured to generate a descent score of whether the snowmobile is descending a slope;
and the descent score indicates that the snowmobile is descending a slope.
Fairgrieve teach the memory (see at least [0059]: “an electronic memory device”) storing thereon a target velocity value (see at least [0018]: “the target speed value store in the memory of the vehicle”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Taylor to incorporate the teachings of Fairgrieve to store a target velocity in memory. Doing so would help “to prevent or at least reduce passenger discomfort”, as recognized by Fairgrieve in paragraph [0104].
Shenzhen teach the processor (see at least [0163]: “a processor”) is configured to generate a descent score of whether (see at least FIG. 1 step 102: “Whether the lawnmower is going downhill is determined based on the tilt angle, the throttle position, and the driving direction.”) the snowmobile is descending a slope;
the active brake controller (see at least [0029]: “a control device”) is configured to engage (see at least FIG. 1 step 105: “the braking duty cycle of the motor is adjusted”) in response to an instant velocity of the snowmobile increasing beyond (see at least FIG. 1 step 105: “When the speed difference between the current vehicle speed and the target vehicle speed is greater than a first preset threshold”) the target velocity (see at least [0013]: target vehicle speed + first preset threshold) and the descent score indicates that the snowmobile is descending (see at least FIG. 1 step 103: “When the lawnmower is going downhill…”) a slope.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Taylor to incorporate the teachings of Shenzhen to brake when a vehicle velocity exceeds a threshold and when the vehicle is descending a slope. Doing so would help to avoid collisions caused by excessive speed and to improve safety, as recognized by Shenzhen in paragraphs [0005] and [0007].
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Taylor, Fairgrieve, and Shenzhen teach The snowmobile of claim 7.
Shenzhen further teaches wherein the active brake controller is configured to disengage in response to the instant velocity of the snowmobile decreasing below (see at least [0026]: “When the speed difference between the current vehicle speed and the target vehicle speed is less than the second preset threshold, the duty cycle of the motor brake is stopped from increasing”) a threshold value (see at least [0013]: “the first preset threshold is greater than or equal to the second preset threshold.”) or an assessment that the snowmobile is not descending a slope.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Taylor to incorporate the teachings of Shenzhen to disengage the brakes when velocity falls below a threshold. Doing so would help to avoid collisions caused by excessive speed and to improve safety, as recognized by Shenzhen in paragraphs [0005] and [0007].
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Taylor, Fairgrieve, and Shenzhen teach The snowmobile of claim 8.
Shenzhen further teaches wherein the threshold value is smaller than (see at least [0013]: “the first preset threshold is greater than or equal to the second preset threshold.”) the target velocity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Taylor to incorporate the teachings of Shenzhen to have the threshold less than the target velocity. Doing so would help to avoid collisions caused by excessive speed and to improve safety, as recognized by Shenzhen in paragraphs [0005] and [0007].
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US 20160296848 A1) in view of Fairgrieve (US 20190161082 A1), Shenzhen (CN 111775937 A), and Chappell et al. (US 20110125376 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Taylor, Fairgrieve, and Shenzhen teach The snowmobile of claim 7.
However, the combination of Taylor, Fairgrieve, and Shenzhen does not explicitly teach wherein the target velocity is increased in response to a user engaging the throttle control to accelerate the snowmobile beyond the current target velocity.
Chappell teach wherein the target velocity is increased in response to a user engaging the throttle control to accelerate the snowmobile beyond the current target velocity (see at least [0062]: “The powertrain retarder may be deactivated when the throttle is engaged. The powertrain retarder may be reactivated and a new target speed set based on a new current speed when the throttle is again released.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Taylor to incorporate the teachings of Chappell to increase target velocity based on throttle input. Doing so would improve operator focus and make automated control easier, as recognized by Chappell in paragraph [0058].
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Taylor, Fairgrieve, and Shenzhen teach The snowmobile of claim 7.
However, the combination of Taylor, Fairgrieve, and Shenzhen does not explicitly teach wherein the target velocity is decreased in response to a user engaging the brake control to decelerate the snowmobile to a velocity below the current target velocity.
Chappell teach wherein the target velocity is decreased in response to a user engaging the brake control to decelerate the snowmobile to a velocity below the current target velocity (see at least [0062]: “A level of powertrain retarding may be increased to decrease machine speed below the target speed when a brake pedal is engaged and a new target speed may be set based on a new current speed when the brake pedal is released.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Taylor to incorporate the teachings of Chappell to reduce target velocity based on brake input. Doing so would improve operator focus and make automated control easier, as recognized by Chappell in paragraph [0058].
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Taylor, Fairgrieve, and Shenzhen teach The snowmobile of claim 11.
However, the combination of Taylor, Fairgrieve, and Shenzhen does not explicitly teach wherein the target velocity is increased in response to a user engaging the throttle control to accelerate the snowmobile beyond the current target velocity.
Chappell teach wherein the target velocity is increased in response to a user engaging the throttle control to accelerate the snowmobile beyond the current target velocity (see at least [0062]: “The powertrain retarder may be deactivated when the throttle is engaged. The powertrain retarder may be reactivated and a new target speed set based on a new current speed when the throttle is again released.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Taylor to incorporate the teachings of Chappell to increase target velocity based on throttle input. Doing so would improve operator focus and make automated control easier, as recognized by Chappell in paragraph [0058].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Woodley (US 20180170125 A1) teaches a vehicle system that applies brake torque when a vehicle is descending an incline and a speed exceeds a speed limit (see paragraph [0105]).
Ishiguro et al. (JP 2016175496 A) teaches a vehicle system that uses brakes to prevent a descending vehicle from exceeding a target speed (see paragraph [0009]).
Lu et al. (US 20090187324 A1) teaches a vehicle system that prevents vehicle backsliding (see FIG. 2) and corrects for vehicle speed differing from intended speed (see FIG. 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE ALCORN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30 am – 6:30 pm est.
Examiner Interview 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/GEORGE A ALCORN III/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662