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 .
Status of the Claims
This first non-final action is in response to applicant's original filing on Nov. 26, 2024. 1-5 are pending and have been considered as follows.
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(s) is/are: “a center-of-gravity estimation unit” and “a torque correction unit” in claim 1.
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 § 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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Okamura (WO2021220693A) in view of Daisuke JP (2008265545 A)
Regarding claim 1, Okamura teaches a driving force control device for a right and left wheel independent drive type vehicle, the driving force control device comprising: a right electric motor that drives a right wheel, and a left electric motor that drives a left wheel paired with the right wheel (Okamura, FIG. 1, the control device 10 includes a pair of electric motors 1 (motors) for driving at least the left and right wheels 5 (here, rear wheels)); and
a controller that controls the right electric motor and the left electric motor (Okamura,vehicle control device is a vehicle control device equipped with a pair of electric motors that drive the left and right wheels and a differential mechanism that applies a torque difference to the left and right wheels), wherein the controller includes
a torque correction unit that adds correction torque for canceling a yaw moment to output torque of the right electric motor and the left electric motor (Okamura, page 3, calculates the compensation torque for canceling the turning obstruction yaw moment caused by the difference between the first inertia torque in the power transmission path from the motor to the right wheel and the second inertia torque in the power transmission path from the motor to the left wheel).
Okamura does not explicitly teach but Daisuke teaches the specific limitations of a center-of-gravity estimation unit that estimates a center-of-gravity position of the right and left wheel independent drive type vehicle (Daisuke, title, Center of gravity position estimating device of vehicle and center of gravity position/yaw inertia moment estimating device),
the yaw moment being generated according to a difference between the estimated center-of-gravity position of the right and left wheel independent drive type vehicle estimated by the center-of-gravity estimation unit and a predetermined center-of-gravity position determined in advance (Daisuke, machine translation, page 4, Yaw moment around the center of gravity of the vehicle, It should be understood that Tr / 2 and / or L / 2 may be appropriately changed in the above formula if the designed center of gravity position does not coincide with the center position of the vehicle; page 5, the position of the center of gravity and the yaw moment of inertia change depending on the number of passengers, the amount of luggage to be loaded, and their distribution or arrangement on the vehicle; when the height of the center of gravity of the vehicle, the yaw moment of inertia, and the like are detected or estimated using the horizontal position of the center of gravity of the vehicle, the accuracy of those values also deteriorates).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a control device for vehicle, as taught by Okamura, a center-of-gravity estimation unit, as taught by Daisuke, as Okamura and Daisuke are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using the center-of-gravity estimation unit and predictably applied it to Okamura’s teaching to improve vehicles’ stability, handling, and safety. In addition, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, Okamura does not explicitly teach but Daisuke teaches wherein the center-of-gravity estimation unit estimates the center-of-gravity position of the right and left wheel independent drive type vehicle when the right and left wheel independent drive type vehicle is stopped or during straight travel in which a steering angle of the right and left wheel independent drive type vehicle is within a predetermined angle range (page 2-3, determining whether or not the vehicle is traveling straight, and when it is determined that the vehicle is traveling straight, the left wheel (left wheel) of the vehicle is determined. Of the horizontal center of gravity of the vehicle based on the balance between the yaw moment generated by the tire generated force at the wheel and the yaw moment generated by the tire generated force at the right wheel (right wheel) of the vehicle. The position in the left-right direction may be estimated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a control device for vehicle, as taught by Okamura, a center-of-gravity estimation unit, as taught by Daisuke, as Okamura and Daisuke are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using the center-of-gravity estimation unit and predictably applied it to Okamura’s teaching to improve vehicles’ stability, handling, and safety.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Okamura (WO2021220693A) in view of Daisuke (JP (2008-265545 A) in view of Yuji (JP2016150605 A)
Regarding claim 2, Okamura as modified by Daisuke does not explicitly teach but Yuji teaches the specific limitations a plurality of seats on which an occupant is to be seated; and a plurality of seating sensors provided for each of the seats to detect that the occupant is seated, wherein the center-of-gravity estimation unit estimates the center-of-gravity position of the right and left wheel independent drive type vehicle based on a position of the seating sensor that detects that the occupant is seated (each load is detected by the load sensors provided at four locations plane of the right and left front and rear of the vehicle seat, and the position of each load sensor, is corrected by the amount of movement of the vehicle longitudinal direction for the sheet vehicles, center-of-gravity position is determined by the corrected position of the load sensors. The obtained centroid position, sitting position on the basis of the sum and the load distribution of the detected load is estimated. Weight of an occupant sum of detected load using a correction coefficient corresponding to the estimated sitting posture is seated is corrected to the vehicle seat is estimated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a control device for vehicle, as taught by Okamura as modified by Daisuke, estimating the center-of-gravity position based on a position of the seating sensor, as taught by Daisuke, as Okamura, Yuji and Daisuke are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using estimating the center-of-gravity position based on a position of the seating sensor and predictably applied it to teaching of Okamura as modified by Daisuke to improve vehicles’ stability, handling, and safety.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Okamura (WO2021220693A) in view of Daisuke (JP 2008-265545 A) in view of Yoshihiro (JP 2018020660)
Regarding claim 3, Okamura as modified by Daisuke does not explicitly teach but Yoshihiro teaches a plurality of suspensions that reciprocates in an up-down direction of the right and left wheel independent drive type vehicle to suppress vibration of each of the wheels in the up-down direction; and a stroke sensor provided for each of the suspensions to detect a displacement amount of the suspension, wherein the center-of-gravity estimation unit estimates the center-of-gravity position of the right and left wheel independent drive type vehicle based on the displacement amount of the suspensions detected by the stroke sensor (A adjusts the vehicle height under conditions where the vehicle is likely to roll over. the vehicle rolls over during turning by a stroke sensor provided in each of a plurality of air suspensions that suspend the vehicle body and an acceleration sensor that detects the turning direction of the vehicle. Such a condition is detected. Then, when there is a risk of rollover, the related art reduces the amount of air (displacement) in the air suspension to lower the center of gravity of the vehicle and prevents the vehicle from rolling over when turning).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a control device for vehicle, as taught by Okamura as modified by Daisuke, estimating the center-of-gravity position based on the displacement amount of the suspensions, as taught by Yoshihiro, as Okamura, Yoshihiro and Daisuke are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using estimating the center-of-gravity position based on the displacement amount of the suspensions and predictably applied it to teaching of Okamura as modified by Daisuke to improve vehicles’ stability, handling, and safety.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Okamura (WO2021220693A) in view of Daisuke (JP 2008-265545 A) in view of Wang (CN116278790B)
Regarding claim 4, while Okamura as modified by Daisuke teaches there is known a drive system that improves turning performance by generating a yaw moment corresponding to a turning direction in a vehicle body by distributing a large amount of driving force to an outer ring during turning (Okamura), Okamura as modified by Daisuke does not explicitly teach but Wang teaches wherein the torque correction unit increases torque of one of the right electric motor and the left electric motor that is coupled to one of the right wheel and the left wheel on a side closer to the estimated center-of-gravity position estimated by the center-of-gravity estimation unit than the predetermined center-of-gravity position, and reduces torque of another of the right electric motor and the left electric motor (torque distribution basically follows the following rule: when the vehicle is idle load, the gravity centre of the whole vehicle is close to the front, the front two wheels output larger torque, the back four wheels output smaller torque).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a control device for vehicle, as taught by Okamura as modified by Daisuke, increasing torque of a motor closer to the estimated center-of-gravity position, as taught by Wang, as Okamura, Wang and Daisuke are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using increasing torque of a motor closer to the estimated center-of-gravity position and predictably applied it to teaching of Okamura as modified by Daisuke to improve vehicles’ stability, handling, and safety.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
For example, Suzuki (US 20250018942 A1) teaches estimates the center-of-gravity position when vehicle is stopped or during straight travel ( when the vehicle 10 is traveling straight, the ratio between the sum (FL+FR) of the thrust forces FL and FR of the left and right drive wheels 21 and 22 and the difference between the thrust forces FL and FR (FL-FR) is calculated. The center of gravity position Py in the left-right direction is calculated based on the thrust ratio).
Wang (CN111267639 A) teaches multi-wheel independent drive vehicle. The wheels 13 include a left front wheel 131, a left rear wheel 132 and the right front wheel 133 and right rear wheel 134. wherein, the left front wheel 131 and right front wheel 133 front wheel, a left rear wheel 132 and right rear wheel 134 is a rear wheel. correspondingly, the driving motor 14 may include a left front wheel drive motor 141, the left rear wheel drive motor 142, a right front wheel drive motor 143 and the right rear wheel drive motor 144, the drive motor may be mounted on the chassis to reduce the gravity centre of the vehicle. multi-wheel independent drive vehicle 10 can drive the wheels 13 driven by driving the hub motor, namely the left front wheel drive motor 141 can drive the left front wheel 131, a left rear wheel drive motor 142 can drive the left rear wheel 132, a right front wheel drive motor 143 can drive the right front wheel 133, a right rear wheel drive motor 144 can drive the right rear wheel 134, so as to realize the drive of the pair of wheels to drive operation of the vehicle. the independent drive capable of making the vehicle ring, increases the flexibility of wheel combined reduce the centre of gravity of the vehicle, which is good for improving the climbing performance of the vehicle.
PNG
media_image1.png
446
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JINGLI WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8040. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 am-5 pm EST.
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 Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313)446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 86-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-100.
/J.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666