DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 02/21/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Also, the IDS filed 02/21/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Specifically, no copies of Foreign Document Numbers “JP 1987123901 A” and “JP 1987123903 A” have been provided by Applicant, and no concise explanations of Foreign Document Numbers “JP 1987123901 A” and “JP 1987123903 A” have been provided by Applicant.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “vehicle control module” (or “VCM”) in claims 8-16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8-10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0166173 to Lauffer et al. (hereinafter: “Lauffer”).
With respect to claim 1, Lauffer teaches a method of controlling an electrically released brake [as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 2 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0008-0009, 0013 & 0017-0021, any one of brakes 20, 22, 24, 26 (e.g., “electrically released brake”) of a vehicle brake system 10 is releasable by electric control] of a personal transportation vehicle (apparent from at least Fig. 1 in view of at least ¶ 0008-0009), the method comprising: (a) energizing the electrically released brake with a first electrical signal from a first electrical power supply of the personal transportation vehicle to transition the electrically released brake from an engaged position to a disengaged position [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 2 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0008-0009 & 0018-0022, a definable first electrical connection (e.g., “first electrical signal”) is established from a primary low voltage battery 32 (e.g., “first electrical power supply”) of the vehicle to the one of the brakes 20, 22, 24, 26 of a corresponding one of wheels 12, 14, 16, 18 to energize releasing of the one of the brakes 20, 22, 24, 26 such that the one of the brakes 20, 22, 24, 26 transitions from an engaged (applied) state (e.g., “engaged position”) to a disengaged (released) state (e.g., “disengaged position”) (e.g., in a definable first instance of performing the flow chart of Fig. 2)]; (b) detecting a fault in the first electrical power supply after (a) [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 2 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0014 & 0018-0022, the primary low voltage battery 32 (or a primary power converter 30 thereof) is determined to be inactive (e.g., “detecting a fault in the first electrical power supply”), at times including after the one of the brakes 20, 22, 24, 26 transitioned from the engaged (applied) state to the disengaged (released) state, such as when the one of the brakes 20, 22, 24, 26 is in the engaged (applied) state at a timing after the one of the brakes 20, 22, 24, 26 transitioned from the engaged (applied) state to the disengaged (released) state (e.g., in a definable second instance of performing the flow chart of Fig. 2 subsequent to the definable first instance) (e.g., “after (a)”), where the determination that the one of the brakes 20, 22, 24, 26 is inactive indicates that the primary low voltage battery 32 exhibits a fault and is incapable of providing sufficient power to operate the one of the brakes 20, 22, 24, 26]; and (c) applying a second electrical signal to the electrically released brake in response to (b) to maintain the electrically released brake in the disengaged position [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 2 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0009 & 0018-0022, a definable second electrical connection (e.g., “second electrical signal”) is provided between a secondary low voltage battery 38 and the one of the brakes 20, 22, 24, 26 to at least temporarily maintain the one of the brakes 20, 22, 24, 26 in the disengaged (released) state, including in response to the one of the brakes 20, 22, 24, 26 being controlled to the disengaged (released) state from the engaged (applied) state responsive to the determination that the primary low voltage battery 32 (or the primary power converter 30 thereof) is inactive (e.g., “in response to (b)”)].
With respect to claim 8, Lauffer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein (b) comprises detecting the fault in the first electrical power supply with a vehicle control module (VCM) of the personal transportation vehicle [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 2 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0009-0010, 0012-0014 & 0016-0022, a primary braking module 34 (e.g., “vehicle control module”) of the vehicle determines that the one of the brakes 20, 22, 24, 26 is inactive].
With respect to claim 9, Lauffer teaches the method of claim 8, wherein (c) comprises applying the second electrical signal to the electrically released brake with the VCM (for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 2 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0009-0010, 0012-0014 & 0016-0022, the definable second electrical connection is applied the one of the brakes 20, 22, 24, 26 via the primary braking module 34).
With respect to claim 10, Lauffer teaches a personal transportation vehicle comprising: an electrically released brake that is configured to transition between: a disengaged position in which the electrically released brake is configured to allow a wheel of the personal transportation vehicle to rotate; and an engaged position in which the electrically released brake is configured to prevent the wheel of the personal transportation vehicle to rotate; a high-voltage electrical power supply that is configured to output a first electrical power signal to the electrically released brake to transition the electrically released brake from the engaged position to the disengaged position; and a vehicle control module (VCM) communicatively coupled to the high-voltage electrical power supply that is configured to: detect a fault in the high-voltage electrical power supply; and output a second electrical power signal to the electrically released brake in response to detecting the fault to maintain the electrically released brake in the disengaged position (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 9; also, note that “high-voltage” in the claim term “high-voltage electrical power supply” is a broad relative term, which the claim neither defines nor provides a point of reference, such that at least the primary low voltage battery 32 is definable as a “high-voltage electrical power supply” under a broadest reasonable interpretation, such as relative to a selectable relatively lower voltage).
With respect to claim 17, Lauffer teaches a non-transitory, computer readable medium comprising instructions, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: (a) detect a fault in a first electrical power supply that is configured to output a first electrical signal to an electrically released brake of a personal transportation vehicle to transition the electrically released brake from an engaged position to a disengaged position; and (b) output a second electrical signal to the electrically released brake in response to (a) to maintain the electrically released brake in the disengaged position (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claims 1 and 10, and as discussed by at least ¶ 0018 & 0025-0027).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claim 2-4, 11-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauffer alone.
With respect to claim 2, Lauffer teaches the method of claim 1; however, Lauffer appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the first electrical signal has a greater voltage than the second electrical signal (as discussed by at least ¶ 0009 & 0013, the primary low voltage battery 32 is rated as a 12V DC battery with voltage being communicated to the primary low voltage battery 32 via an approximately 12V DC output of the primary power converter 30, and the secondary low voltage battery 38 is rated as a 12V DC battery with voltage being communicated to the second low voltage battery 38 via an approximately 12V DC output of a secondary power converter 36).
Even so, the examiner takes Official Notice (e.g., see: MPEP 2144.03) that it is was well-known, or common knowledge in the art, that nominal (rated) battery voltage is not necessarily exactly the same as actual battery voltage obtained during use of a battery resulting from factor(s) including battery state of charge, battery age, and battery temperature.
Therefore, even though each of the primary low voltage battery 32 and the secondary low voltage battery 38 is rated as a 12V DC battery, the primary low voltage battery 32 would not be reasonably expected by one having ordinary skill in the art to always provide exactly the same voltage in use as the secondary low voltage battery 38 in use, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made that the first electrical signal of Lauffer would, at least at times, have a greater voltage (by at least a smallest possible voltage amount) than the second electrical signal of Lauffer.
With respect to claim 3, Lauffer modified supra teaches the method of claim 2, wherein a voltage of the second electrical signal is insufficient to transition the electrically released brake from the engaged position to the disengaged position [as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1, the definable second electrical connection is provided between the secondary low voltage battery 38 and the one of the brakes 20, 22, 24, 26 to at least temporarily maintain the one of the brakes 20, 22, 24, 26 in the disengaged (released) state, such that the definable second electrical connection (and a voltage thereof) does not transition the one of the brakes 20, 22, 24, 26 from the engaged (applied) state to the disengaged (released) state].
With respect to claim 4, Lauffer modified supra teaches the method of claim 3, further comprising: (d) determining that a speed of the personal transportation vehicle has fallen below a threshold after (c) [as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 2 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0017 & 0021-0022, a vehicle speed of the vehicle is determined to have reduced to less than a Park Brake Application Vehicle Speed (e.g., “threshold”), at times including in a definable third instance of performing the flow chart of Fig. 2 subsequent to the definable second instance (e.g., “after (c)”)]; and (e) removing the second electrical signal from the electrically released brake in response to (d) to transition the electrically released brake from the disengaged position to the engaged position and thereby stop the personal transportation vehicle [as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 2 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0017-0022, the definable second electrical connection is discontinued between the secondary low voltage battery 38 and the one of the brakes 20, 22, 24, 26 to transition the one of the brakes 20, 22, 24, 26 from the disengaged (released) state to the engaged (applied) state to stop the vehicle, including in response to the determination that the vehicle speed has reduced to less than the Park Brake Application Vehicle Speed (e.g., “after (d)”)].
With respect to claim 11, Lauffer modified supra teaches the personal transportation vehicle of claim 10, wherein the first electrical power signal has a greater voltage than the second electrical power signal (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claims 2 and 10).
With respect to claim 12, Lauffer modified supra teaches the personal transportation vehicle of claim 11, wherein the second electrical power signal output from the VCM is insufficient to transition the electrically released brake from the engaged position to the disengaged position (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claims 3 and 11).
With respect to claim 13, Lauffer modified supra teaches the personal transportation vehicle of claim 12, wherein the VCM is configured to remove the second electrical power signal from the electrically released brake in response to a speed of the personal transportation vehicle falling below a threshold, to thereby transition the electrically released brake from the disengaged position to the engaged position (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 4 and 12).
With respect to claim 18, Lauffer modified supra teaches the non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 17, wherein the first electrical signal has a greater voltage than the second electrical signal (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claim 2).
With respect to claim 19, Lauffer modified supra teaches the non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 18, wherein a voltage of the second electrical signal is insufficient to transition the electrically released brake from the engaged position to the disengaged position (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claim 3).
With respect to claim 20, Lauffer modified supra teaches the non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 19, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: (c) determine that a speed of the personal transportation vehicle has fallen below a threshold after (b); and (d) remove the second electrical signal from the electrically released brake in response to (c) to transition the electrically released brake from the disengaged position to the engaged position and thereby stop the personal transportation vehicle (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 4 and 13).
Claims 6, 7, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauffer in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0266806 to King et al. (hereinafter: “King”).
With respect to claim 6, Lauffer modified supra teaches the method of claim 3, further comprising: removing the second electrical signal from the electrically released brake transition the electrically released brake from the disengaged position to the engaged position and stop the personal transportation vehicle (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 4); however, Lauffer appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the method further comprises: (f) starting a timer after (b); (g) determining that the timer has reached a predetermined amount of time; and (h) removing the second electrical signal from the electrically released brake in response to (g) to transition the electrically released brake from the disengaged position to the engaged position and stop the personal transportation vehicle.
King teaches an analogous method including: (a) detecting a fault in a first electrical power supply; (b) starting a timer after (a); (c) determining that the timer has reached a predetermined amount of time; and (d) removing the second electrical signal from the electrically released brake in response to (c) to transition an electrically released brake from a disengaged position to an engaged position and stop a personal transportation vehicle (as depicted by at least Figs. 1-4 & 8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0003-0004, 0007-0015, 0024-0030 & 0076).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the method of Lauffer with the teachings of King to further include (f) starting a timer after (b); (g) determining that the timer has reached a predetermined amount of time; and (h) removing the second electrical signal from the electrically released brake in response to (g) to transition the electrically released brake from the disengaged position to the engaged position and stop the personal transportation vehicle to beneficially bring the personal transportation vehicle to a more immediate stop after extended gradual braking. Note that “after (b)” includes any timing after performing “(b)” and does not require “(f)” to be performed immediately following (or responsive to) the performing of “(b).”
With respect to claim 7, Lauffer modified supra teaches the method of claim 6; however, Lauffer appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the method further comprises: (i) outputting an alarm indicating that the electrically released brake will be transitioned to the engaged position when the predetermined amount of time has elapsed.
King further teaches (i) outputting an alarm indicating that the electrically released brake will be transitioned to the engaged position when the predetermined amount of time has elapsed (as discussed by at least ¶ 0031, 0066 & 0076).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the method of Lauffer with the teachings of King to further include (i) outputting an alarm indicating that the electrically released brake will be transitioned to the engaged position when the predetermined amount of time has elapsed to beneficially alert passengers of the personal transportation vehicle of imminent deceleration of the vehicle such that the passengers are able to brace for controlled deceleration of the vehicle.
With respect to claim 15, Lauffer modified supra teaches the personal transportation vehicle of claim 13, wherein the VCM is configured to remove the second electrical power signal from the electrically released brake in response to a predetermined amount of time elapsing since detecting the fault (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 6 and 13).
With respect to claim 16, Lauffer modified supra teaches the personal transportation vehicle of claim 15, wherein the VCM is configured to output an alarm indicating that the electrically released brake will be transitioned to the engaged position when the predetermined amount of time has elapsed (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 7 and 15).
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauffer in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200171966 to Steele et al. (hereinafter: “Steele”).
With respect to claim 5, Lauffer modified supra teaches the method of claim 4, wherein (d) comprises monitoring an output from a wheel speed sensor of the personal transportation vehicle to determine the speed of the personal transportation vehicle (as discussed by at least ¶ 0009, 0017 & 0021-0022; the vehicle is an electric vehicle); however, Lauffer appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the monitored output is from an encoder coupled to a motor of the personal transportation vehicle.
Steele teaches monitoring an output from an encoder coupled to a motor of a personal transportation vehicle to determine a speed of the personal transportation vehicle (as discussed by at least ¶ 0016, 0032, 0074, 0082 & 0090).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the method of Lauffer with the teachings of Steele, if even necessary, such that the monitored output is from an encoder coupled to a motor of the personal transportation vehicle to provide a particular form of wheel speed sensor for the personal transportation vehicle in place of the generic wheel speed sensor of Lauffer.
With respect to claim 14, Lauffer modified supra teaches the personal transportation vehicle of claim 13, further comprising: a motor to drive a rotation of one or more wheels of the personal transportation vehicle; and an encoder coupled to the motor that is configured to detect a rotational speed of the motor, wherein the encoder is configured to receive electrical power from the VCM; and wherein the VCM is coupled to the encoder so that the VCM is configured to detect a speed of the vehicle by use of an output from the encoder (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 5 and 13).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747