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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: punctuation in Paragraph 0013, Line 1. Replacing “example thereof,, the youth” with “example thereof, the youth” is suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 5 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. Claim 5 recites the limitation “the user device” in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Logan et al. (US 20170136875 A1) (hereinafter “Logan”) in view of Morgan et al. (US 8973691 B2) (hereinafter “Morgan”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Logan teaches a youth recreational vehicle, comprising: one or more front ground engaging members; one or more rear ground engaging members; a frame supported by the one or more front ground engaging members and the one or more rear ground engaging members; and a seat supported by the frame and configured to support at least one rider [Logan Fig. 3; Logan Paragraph 0095: “the functionality limiting mechanism is normally paired with two sets of Bluetooth devices, one for a parent or owner of the device (this could be several parents or owners) and the other for a child or user (again, this could be multiple children or users).”]; but does not explicitly teach an electric powertrain.
Morgan teaches an electric powertrain configured to drive at least one of: (i) the one or more front ground engaging members and (ii) the one or more rear ground engaging members [Morgan Abstract: “At least two of the wheels are driven by an electric motor powered by batteries disposed in the vehicle.”; Morgan Paragraph 9: “Although vehicle range would also likely be of concern to owners of electric RUVs, they also have high expectations regarding aspects such as maximum speed, handling and acceleration. In other words, an electric RUV should be true to its ‘recreational" nature.’”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the youth recreational vehicle of Logan to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, an electric powertrain in view of Morgan. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Logan and Morgan because this would have achieved the desirable result of eliminating fuel requirements and greenhouse gas emissions, as recognized by Morgan [Morgan Paragraph 8: “It is also possible to completely eliminate fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by replacing the internal combustion engine by an electric motor.”].
Logan further teaches a controller, and at least one electric motor, and [Logan Paragraph 0065: “On an electric vehicle you could disable the vehicle by limiting the voltage to the electric motor…This new circuit would increase/decrease the resistance therefore sending a lower or higher voltage signal to the motor controller.”], but does not explicitly teach a battery pack.
Morgan teaches at least one battery pack [Morgan Paragraph 47: “The batteries are electrically connected together in series to form a first 48 volt battery pack.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the youth recreational vehicle of Logan to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a battery pack in view of Morgan. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Logan and Morgan because this would have achieved the desirable result of being able to provide electrical power to an electric powertrain, such powertrain effectively eliminating fuel requirements and greenhouse gas emissions, as recognized by Morgan [Morgan Paragraph 8: “It is also possible to completely eliminate fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by replacing the internal combustion engine by an electric motor.”].
Logan further teaches the controller is in communication with a remote device separate from the youth recreational vehicle and is configured to adapt a setting of the at least one electric motor based on the communication with the remote device [Logan Paragraph 0047: “The signal would get transmitted to a processing unit or smartphone. The processing unit could then use this signal along with other data (such as a throttle position sensor) to deduce the engine speed.”; Paragraph 0065: “On an electric vehicle you could disable the vehicle by limiting the voltage to the electric motor. This can be done by activating a circuit attached to the same circuit as the throttle potentiometer….You could also employ a circuit breaking technique wherein the power is completely disabled and the motor gets no power at all.”].
Regarding Claim 2, Logan teaches the youth recreational vehicle of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: receive a signal from the remote device to stop power output of the at least one electric motor; and send a signal, to the electric motor, to stop outputting power in response to a throttle signal [Logan Paragraph 0047: “The signal would get transmitted to a processing unit or smartphone. The processing unit could then use this signal along with other data (such as a throttle position sensor) to deduce the engine speed.”; Logan Paragraph 0065: “On an electric vehicle you could disable the vehicle by limiting the voltage to the electric motor. This can be done by activating a circuit attached to the same circuit as the throttle potentiometer….You could also employ a circuit breaking technique wherein the power is completely disabled and the motor gets no power at all.”].
Regarding Claim 3, Logan teaches the youth recreational vehicle of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: receive, in response to a user input at the remote device, a request to alter a power characteristic of the at least one electric motor; and cause the power characteristic of the at least one electric motor to be altered [Logan Paragraph 0073: “While such controls could be set in place ahead of time, another approach would provide the parent with real time input as to what is happening on the trail due to the connection between the user's smartphone and the owner's. With that capability, the owner could institute such controls in real time as current events became evident. This would require that the vehicle couple with the user's cell phone to allow ride information to be relayed into the cell phone network.”; Logan Claim 1: “A vehicle safety apparatus comprising: a motor for propelling a vehicle forward, a power limiting device connected to the motor, where the power limiting device limits speed of the motor, but does not stop the motor, a communications interface for receiving wireless messages from a safety equipment communications device, and a processor connected to the communications interface and to the power limiting device”].
Regarding Claim 4, Logan teaches the youth recreational vehicle of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: receive a power output signal from the remote device; and configure a maximum power output of the at least one electric motor based upon the received power output signal [Logan Paragraph 0073: “While such controls could be set in place ahead of time, another approach would provide the parent with real time input as to what is happening on the trail due to the connection between the user's smartphone and the owner's. With that capability, the owner could institute such controls in real time as current events became evident. This would require that the vehicle couple with the user's cell phone to allow ride information to be relayed into the cell phone network.”; Logan Claim 1: “A vehicle safety apparatus comprising: a motor for propelling a vehicle forward, a power limiting device connected to the motor, where the power limiting device limits speed of the motor, but does not stop the motor, a communications interface for receiving wireless messages from a safety equipment communications device, and a processor connected to the communications interface and to the power limiting device”].
Regarding Claim 5, Logan teaches the youth recreational vehicle of claim 4, wherein the controller is further configured to, in response to the maximum power output of the at least one electric motor being configured, transmit a confirmation signal to the user device [Logan Paragraph 0073: “While such controls could be set in place ahead of time, another approach would provide the parent with real time input as to what is happening on the trail due to the connection between the user's smartphone and the owner's. With that capability, the owner could institute such controls in real time as current events became evident. This would require that the vehicle couple with the user's cell phone to allow ride information to be relayed into the cell phone network.”; Logan Claim 1: “A vehicle safety apparatus comprising: a motor for propelling a vehicle forward, a power limiting device connected to the motor, where the power limiting device limits speed of the motor, but does not stop the motor, a communications interface for receiving wireless messages from a safety equipment communications device, and a processor connected to the communications interface and to the power limiting device”].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Logan et al. (US 20170136875 A1) (hereinafter “Logan”) in view of Morgan et al. (US 8973691 B2) (hereinafter “Morgan”) and further in view of Hong (KR 102281641 B1). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Logan and Morgan teaches a youth recreation vehicle comprising a controller and a battery pack but does not teach a charge signal. Hong teaches the youth recreational vehicle of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: receive a charge signal from the at least one battery pack corresponding to a charge level of the battery pack and a time of operation remaining; and transmit a signal to the remote device corresponding to the charge level of the at least one battery pack and the time of operation remaining for the at least one battery pack [Hong “Description” Paragraph 1: “The present invention relates to a battery control system, and more particularly, to a smartphone that can check a battery stored in a charging station and a battery replaced by a user in real time while checking the remaining amount and replacement time of the battery by a smartphone. It relates to a battery control system for an electric vehicle”; Hong “Description of Embodiments” Paragraph 18: “request battery information for battery charging information including a unique identification code (ID) assigned to the battery and the state of charge and the current location of the battery. When there is a signal, it is implemented in a way that wirelessly transmits to the server 200, and the battery control system is implemented as a user's smartphone application (APP).”; Hong “Description of Embodiments” Paragraph 21: “it can be implemented in a manner of retransmitting battery charge information including the position of the state of charge of the corresponding battery to the server 200”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the youth recreation vehicle, comprising a controller and a battery pack, of the combination of Logan and Morgan to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a charge signal in view of Hong. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Logan, Morgan, and Hong because this would have achieved the desirable result of increasing battery management efficiency and preventing total discharge of the battery, as recognized by Hong [Hong Abstract: “by charging or replacing the battery, it is possible to prevent in advance that the vehicle is inoperable due to power discharge. In addition, by controlling the state of charge of the battery, which could not be visually grasped in the prior art, by a smart phone in real time, there is an effect that more efficient battery management is possible.”].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Logan et al. (US 20170136875 A1) (hereinafter “Logan”) in view of Morgan et al. (US 8973691 B2) (hereinafter “Morgan”), further in view of Hong (KR 102281641 B1), and further in view of Light-Holets et al. (CN 111954615 A) (hereinafter “Light-Holets”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Logan, Morgan, and Hong teaches a youth recreation vehicle comprising a controller but does not teach stopping power output. Light-Holets teaches the youth recreational vehicle of claim 6, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine the charge level is at or below a threshold; and in response to determining the charge level is at or below a threshold, send a signal to the at least one motor to stop power output of the at least one electric motor [Light-Holets Paragraph 0068: “the battery adjustment command may cause the battery 132 to provide power to the motor 113 under the traffic congestion condition to increase the travel, but when the battery power is low and/or the charging station on the route cannot be used, the power is stopped when the battery capacity is low.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the youth recreation vehicle of the combination of Logan, Morgan, and Hong to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, stopping power output in view of Light-Holets. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Logan, Morgan, Hong, and Light-Holets because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing higher efficiency in repeated stopping/starting conditions, as recognized by Light-Holets [Light-Holets Paragraph 0045: “This can provide higher efficiency in the situation of stopping/starting commonly occurring in the crowded traffic area.”].
Claims 8-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Logan et al. (US 20170136875 A1) (hereinafter “Logan”) in view of Morgan et al. (US 8973691 B2) (hereinafter “Morgan”) and further in view of Hong (KR 102281641 B1). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 8, Logan teaches a youth recreational vehicle, comprising: one or more front ground engaging members; one or more rear ground engaging members; a frame supported by the one or more front ground engaging members and the one or more rear ground engaging members; and a seat supported by the frame and configured to support at least one rider [Logan Fig. 3; Logan Paragraph 0095: “the functionality limiting mechanism is normally paired with two sets of Bluetooth devices, one for a parent or owner of the device (this could be several parents or owners) and the other for a child or user (again, this could be multiple children or users).”]; but does not explicitly teach an electric powertrain.
Morgan teaches an electric powertrain configured to drive at least one of: (i) the one or more front ground engaging members and (ii) the one or more rear ground engaging members [Morgan Abstract: “At least two of the wheels are driven by an electric motor powered by batteries disposed in the vehicle.”; Morgan Paragraph 9: “Although vehicle range would also likely be of concern to owners of electric RUVs, they also have high expectations regarding aspects such as maximum speed, handling and acceleration. In other words, an electric RUV should be true to its ‘recreational" nature.’”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the youth recreational vehicle of Logan to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, an electric powertrain in view of Morgan. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Logan and Morgan because this would have achieved the desirable result of eliminating fuel requirements and greenhouse gas emissions, as recognized by Morgan [Morgan Paragraph 8: “It is also possible to completely eliminate fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by replacing the internal combustion engine by an electric motor.”].
Logan further teaches a controller, and at least one electric motor, and [Logan Paragraph 0065: “On an electric vehicle you could disable the vehicle by limiting the voltage to the electric motor…This new circuit would increase/decrease the resistance therefore sending a lower or higher voltage signal to the motor controller.”], but does not explicitly teach a battery pack.
Morgan teaches at least one battery pack [Morgan Paragraph 47: “The batteries are electrically connected together in series to form a first 48 volt battery pack.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the youth recreational vehicle of Logan to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a battery pack in view of Morgan. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Logan and Morgan because this would have achieved the desirable result of being able to provide electrical power to an electric powertrain, such powertrain effectively eliminating fuel requirements and greenhouse gas emissions, as recognized by Morgan [Morgan Paragraph 8: “It is also possible to completely eliminate fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by replacing the internal combustion engine by an electric motor.”].
Logan teaches a youth recreation vehicle comprising a controller but does not teach battery pack charge signals. Hong teaches that the controller is configured to receive a charge signal from the at least one battery pack corresponding to a charge level of the at least one battery pack and a time of operation remaining for the at least one battery pack; and transmit a signal to a user device corresponding to the charge level of the at least one battery pack and the time of operation remaining for the at least one battery pack [Hong “Description” Paragraph 1: “The present invention relates to a battery control system, and more particularly, to a smartphone that can check a battery stored in a charging station and a battery replaced by a user in real time while checking the remaining amount and replacement time of the battery by a smartphone. It relates to a battery control system for an electric vehicle”; Hong “Description of Embodiments” Paragraph 18: “request battery information for battery charging information including a unique identification code (ID) assigned to the battery and the state of charge and the current location of the battery. When there is a signal, it is implemented in a way that wirelessly transmits to the server 200, and the battery control system is implemented as a user's smartphone application (APP).”; Hong “Description of Embodiments” Paragraph 21: “it can be implemented in a manner of retransmitting battery charge information including the position of the state of charge of the corresponding battery to the server 200”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the youth recreation vehicle, comprising a controller and a battery pack, of the combination of Logan and Morgan to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a charge signal in view of Hong. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Logan, Morgan, and Hong because this would have achieved the desirable result of increasing battery management efficiency and preventing total discharge of the battery, as recognized by Hong [Hong Abstract: “by charging or replacing the battery, it is possible to prevent in advance that the vehicle is inoperable due to power discharge. In addition, by controlling the state of charge of the battery, which could not be visually grasped in the prior art, by a smart phone in real time, there is an effect that more efficient battery management is possible.”].
Regarding Claim 9, Logan teaches the youth recreational vehicle of claim 8, wherein the controller is further configured to: receive a signal from a remote device, separate from the vehicle, to stop power output of the at least one electric motor; and send a signal, to the electric motor, to stop outputting power in response to a throttle signal [Logan Paragraph 0047: “The signal would get transmitted to a processing unit or smartphone. The processing unit could then use this signal along with other data (such as a throttle position sensor) to deduce the engine speed.”; Logan Paragraph 0065: “On an electric vehicle you could disable the vehicle by limiting the voltage to the electric motor. This can be done by activating a circuit attached to the same circuit as the throttle potentiometer….You could also employ a circuit breaking technique wherein the power is completely disabled and the motor gets no power at all.”].
Regarding Claim 10, Logan teaches the youth recreational vehicle of claim 8, wherein the controller is further configured to: receive, in response to a user input at a mobile device, a request to alter a power characteristic of the at least one electric motor; and cause the power characteristic of the at least one electric motor to be altered [Logan Paragraph 0073: “While such controls could be set in place ahead of time, another approach would provide the parent with real time input as to what is happening on the trail due to the connection between the user's smartphone and the owner's. With that capability, the owner could institute such controls in real time as current events became evident. This would require that the vehicle couple with the user's cell phone to allow ride information to be relayed into the cell phone network.”; Logan Claim 1: “A vehicle safety apparatus comprising: a motor for propelling a vehicle forward, a power limiting device connected to the motor, where the power limiting device limits speed of the motor, but does not stop the motor, a communications interface for receiving wireless messages from a safety equipment communications device, and a processor connected to the communications interface and to the power limiting device”].
Regarding Claim 11, Logan teaches the youth recreational vehicle of claim 8, wherein the controller is further configured to: receive a power output signal from a user device; configure a maximum power output of the at least one electric motor based upon the received power output signal; and transmit a confirmation signal to the user device [Logan Paragraph 0073: “While such controls could be set in place ahead of time, another approach would provide the parent with real time input as to what is happening on the trail due to the connection between the user's smartphone and the owner's. With that capability, the owner could institute such controls in real time as current events became evident. This would require that the vehicle couple with the user's cell phone to allow ride information to be relayed into the cell phone network.”; Logan Claim 1: “A vehicle safety apparatus comprising: a motor for propelling a vehicle forward, a power limiting device connected to the motor, where the power limiting device limits speed of the motor, but does not stop the motor, a communications interface for receiving wireless messages from a safety equipment communications device, and a processor connected to the communications interface and to the power limiting device”].
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Logan and Morgan teaches a youth recreation vehicle comprising a controller and a battery pack, but does not teach an operation time remaining indication. Hong teaches the youth recreational vehicle of claim 8, wherein the controller is further configured to: cause an indication of the time of operation remaining for the at least one battery pack to be displayed [Hong “Description of Embodiments” Paragraph 10: “a display 10 for displaying an operating state, a state of charge of the battery, and whether or not the battery is fully charged”; Hong “Description of Embodiments” Paragraph 6: “The display 10 may be implemented as a liquid crystal screen such as LCD or LED, and information about the remaining amount of the battery inserted by the touch of the selection button 20 implemented on the liquid crystal, information on the charging time of the inserted battery”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the youth recreation vehicle of the combination of Logan and Morgan to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, an indication of remaining battery operation time in view of Hong. It should be noted that while Hong does not explicitly provide a motivation for causing an indication, such indication would help a vehicle user to plan an efficient return to a charging facility, would provide data for future route planning, and would help the user to avoid excess vehicle use prior to recharging, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art. It should be further noted that applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Logan and Morgan teaches a youth recreation vehicle comprising a controller and a battery pack, but does not teach an illumination feature. Hong teaches the youth recreational vehicle of claim 12, wherein the indication of the time of operations remaining for the at least one battery pack comprises a degree of illumination of a feature of the youth recreational vehicle [Hong “Description of Embodiments” Paragraph 10: “a display 10 for displaying an operating state, a state of charge of the battery, and whether or not the battery is fully charged”; Hong “Description of Embodiments” Paragraph 6: “The display 10 may be implemented as a liquid crystal screen such as LCD or LED, and information about the remaining amount of the battery inserted by the touch of the selection button 20 implemented on the liquid crystal, information on the charging time of the inserted battery”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the youth recreation vehicle of the combination of Logan and Morgan to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, an illumination feature in view of Hong. It should be noted that while Hong does not explicitly provide a motivation for including an illumination feature, such feature would enable the remaining battery operation time feature to be seen in low-light environments and would serve to distinguish this indication from other, non-illuminated indications, thereby enabling proper prioritization of battery recharging, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art. It should be further noted that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Logan and Morgan teaches a youth recreation vehicle comprising a controller and a battery pack, but does not teach periodic charge signal reception and transmission. Hong teaches the youth recreational vehicle of claim 8, wherein the charge signal from the at least one battery pack is received periodically, and the signal corresponding to the charge level from the at least one battery pack is transmitted periodically to the user device [Hong “Description” Paragraph 1: “The present invention relates to a battery control system, and more particularly, to a smartphone that can check a battery stored in a charging station and a battery replaced by a user in real time while checking the remaining amount and replacement time of the battery by a smartphone. It relates to a battery control system for an electric vehicle used.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the youth recreation vehicle of the combination of Logan and Morgan to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, periodic battery pack charge signal reception and transmission in view of Hong. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Logan, Morgan, and Hong because this would have achieved the desirable results of timely indication of the need to recharge, timely indication of the locations of nearby charging stations, timely conveyance of status information, all of which could prevent stranding and increase battery management efficiency, as recognized by Hong [Hong Abstract: {enable a user to} “move in advance by checking a charging station in an adjacent area. Thus, by charging or replacing the battery, it is possible to prevent in advance that the vehicle is inoperable due to power discharge. In addition, by controlling the state of charge of the battery, which could not be visually grasped in the prior art, by a smart phone in real time, there is an effect that more efficient battery management is possible.”].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Logan et al. (US 20170136875 A1) (hereinafter “Logan”) in view of Morgan et al. (US 8973691 B2) (hereinafter “Morgan”), further in view of Hong (KR 102281641 B1), and further in view of Light-Holets et al. (CN 111954615 A) (hereinafter “Light-Holets”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Logan, Morgan, and Hong teaches a youth recreation vehicle comprising a controller and determination of charge level but does not teach stopping power output. Light-Holets teaches the youth recreational vehicle of claim 6, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine the charge level is at or below a threshold; and in response to determining the charge level is at or below a threshold, send a signal to the at least one motor to stop power output of the at least one electric motor [Light-Holets Paragraph 0068: “the battery adjustment command may cause the battery 132 to provide power to the motor 113 under the traffic congestion condition to increase the travel, but when the battery power is low and/or the charging station on the route cannot be used, the power is stopped when the battery capacity is low.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the youth recreation vehicle of the combination of Logan, Morgan, and Hong to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, stopping power output in view of Light-Holets. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Logan, Morgan, Hong, and Light-Holets because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing higher efficiency in repeated stopping/starting conditions, as recognized by Light-Holets [Light-Holets Paragraph 0045: “This can provide higher efficiency in the situation of stopping/starting commonly occurring in the crowded traffic area.”].
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Logan et al. (US 20170136875 A1) (hereinafter “Logan”) in view of Morgan et al. (US 8973691 B2) (hereinafter “Morgan”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 16, Logan teaches a youth recreational vehicle, comprising: one or more front ground engaging members; one or more rear ground engaging members; a frame supported by the one or more front ground engaging members and the one or more rear ground engaging members; and a seat supported by the frame and configured to support at least one rider [Logan Fig. 3; Logan Paragraph 0095: “the functionality limiting mechanism is normally paired with two sets of Bluetooth devices, one for a parent or owner of the device (this could be several parents or owners) and the other for a child or user (again, this could be multiple children or users).”]; but does not explicitly teach an electric powertrain.
Morgan teaches an electric powertrain configured to drive at least one of: (i) the one or more front ground engaging members and (ii) the one or more rear ground engaging members [Morgan Abstract: “At least two of the wheels are driven by an electric motor powered by batteries disposed in the vehicle.”; Morgan Paragraph 9: “Although vehicle range would also likely be of concern to owners of electric RUVs, they also have high expectations regarding aspects such as maximum speed, handling and acceleration. In other words, an electric RUV should be true to its ‘recreational" nature.’”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the youth recreational vehicle of Logan to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, an electric powertrain in view of Morgan. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Logan and Morgan because this would have achieved the desirable result of eliminating fuel requirements and greenhouse gas emissions, as recognized by Morgan [Morgan Paragraph 8: “It is also possible to completely eliminate fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by replacing the internal combustion engine by an electric motor.”].
Logan further teaches a controller, and at least one electric motor, and [Logan Paragraph 0065: “On an electric vehicle you could disable the vehicle by limiting the voltage to the electric motor…This new circuit would increase/decrease the resistance therefore sending a lower or higher voltage signal to the motor controller.”], but does not explicitly teach a battery pack.
Morgan teaches at least one battery pack [Morgan Paragraph 47: “The batteries are electrically connected together in series to form a first 48 volt battery pack.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the youth recreational vehicle of Logan to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a battery pack in view of Morgan. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Logan and Morgan because this would have achieved the desirable result of being able to provide electrical power to an electric powertrain, such powertrain effectively eliminating fuel requirements and greenhouse gas emissions, as recognized by Morgan [Morgan Paragraph 8: “It is also possible to completely eliminate fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by replacing the internal combustion engine by an electric motor.”].
Logan further teaches that the controller is configured to: receive a power output signal from a user device separate from the youth recreation vehicle; configure a maximum power output of the at least one electric motor based upon the received power output signal; and in response to the maximum power output of the at least one electric motor being configured, transmit a confirmation signal to the user device [Logan Paragraph 0073: “While such controls could be set in place ahead of time, another approach would provide the parent with real time input as to what is happening on the trail due to the connection between the user's smartphone and the owner's. With that capability, the owner could institute such controls in real time as current events became evident. This would require that the vehicle couple with the user's cell phone to allow ride information to be relayed into the cell phone network.”; Logan Claim 1: “A vehicle safety apparatus comprising: a motor for propelling a vehicle forward, a power limiting device connected to the motor, where the power limiting device limits speed of the motor, but does not stop the motor, a communications interface for receiving wireless messages from a safety equipment communications device, and a processor connected to the communications interface and to the power limiting device”].
Regarding Claim 17, Logan teaches the youth recreational vehicle of claim 16, wherein the controller is further configured to: receive a signal from the user device to stop power output of the at least one electric motor; and send a signal, to the electric motor, to stop outputting power in response to a throttle signal [Logan Paragraph 0047: “The signal would get transmitted to a processing unit or smartphone. The processing unit could then use this signal along with other data (such as a throttle position sensor) to deduce the engine speed.”; Logan Paragraph 0065: “On an electric vehicle you could disable the vehicle by limiting the voltage to the electric motor. This can be done by activating a circuit attached to the same circuit as the throttle potentiometer….You could also employ a circuit breaking technique wherein the power is completely disabled and the motor gets no power at all.”].
Regarding Claim 18, Logan teaches the youth recreational vehicle of claim 16, wherein the controller is further configured to: store a plurality of user profiles, each user profile of the plurality of user profiles having a respective maximum power output setting; and receive a selection of a user profile from the plurality of user profiles, wherein the maximum power output of the at least one electric motor is configured based on the selected user profile [Logan Paragraph 0061: each user of the vehicle could have a profile corresponding to their phone and/or safety device that tracks the user's experience and/or abilities with the vehicle. This data could be stored in the cloud and updated as a user gains experience (measured by for example driving hours) and then compared to permissions given based on the amount of experience a user has.”; Logan Paragraph 0060: “each user could be identified by his or her phone and corresponding data parameters, which would determine the speed and functionality of the vehicle…For example, a 10 year old user would cause a limiting of the speed to 60% of its maximum operation, while an 18 year old user would take advantage of 95% of the vehicle's performance.”].
Regarding Claim 19, Logan teaches the youth recreational vehicle of claim 16, further comprising a global position system (GPS), wherein the controller is configured to adjust the maximum power output of the at least one electric motor based on a distance of the youth recreational vehicle from one or more designated locations, according to the GPS [Logan Paragraph 0067: “the vehicle could also be disabled due to certain location based or ride characteristic based specifications. For example, if a vehicle being ridden by a child moved too far away from a parent the vehicle could be disabled. This could be done with GPS fences, using GPS signals to determine if the vehicle is within a given area. The geofence could be set as a distance from a specific point, or could be an irregular shaped area based on a map. For instance, a parent could highlight an irregular area on a map interface on a smartphone, the areas specifying where the child could operate the vehicle. Or radio signal strength on BLE, WiFi or other radio signals could be used to determine if the vehicle moves beyond the range of the radio signal. Essentially this is setting a geofence during the course of the trip…Or the performance could be limited for the vehicle as it is leaving the geofenced area, and full performance is allowed as the vehicle returns toward the geofenced area. In one embodiment, the performance is gradually limited as the vehicle approaches the edge of the geofenced area.”].
Regarding Claim 20, Logan teaches the youth recreational vehicle of claim 19, wherein the controller is configured to provide an indication when the youth recreational vehicle exceeds a predetermined distance from the designated location, the indication comprising at least one of an auditory indication or a visual indication [Logan Paragraph 0067: “The geofence could be set as a distance from a specific point, or could be an irregular shaped area based on a map. For instance, a parent could highlight an irregular area on a map interface on a smartphone, the areas specifying where the child could operate the vehicle. Or radio signal strength on BLE, WiFi or other radio signals could be used to determine if the vehicle moves beyond the range of the radio signal. Essentially this is setting a geofence during the course of the trip. The system could use the compass of the smart phone and GPS readings to know what direction the unit was heading at any point in time.”].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T WALSH whose telephone number is 303-297-4351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, J. Allen Shriver II, can be reached at 303-297-4337. 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.
/MICHAEL T. WALSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights