DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Notes
2. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure (see MPEP §2163.06). Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1-3, 12-16, and 19-20
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernatchez (US-20220311236-A1) in view of Svensson et al. (US-20160339880-A1).
In regard to claim 1
, Bernatchez discloses a method of operating an electric vehicle, the method comprising (See at least Figs. 5-6, [0056]: a method of operating an electric vehicle):
receiving, via an operator-actuated accelerator of the electric vehicle, a propulsion command for propelling the electric vehicle, the propulsion command being indicative of an accelerator position and an actuation (See at least Fig. 4, and [0088]: vehicle 110 includes accelerator 134 [i.e., an operator-actuated accelerator] and a suitable accelerator position sensor 184 that senses a position of accelerator 134 [i.e., an accelerator position]. Accelerator position sensor 184 is operatively connected to controller 132 so that a command for propelling vehicle 110 [i.e., a propulsion command] in the form of signal generated by acceleration position sensor 184 and indicative of an actuation of accelerator 134 by the operator is communicated to controller 132. The delivery of electric power to motor 126 is controlled according to the command for propelling vehicle 110 during normal operation);
responsive to the determining and with the accelerator at the accelerator position, causing the electric vehicle to accelerate at the second acceleration (See at least Figs. 2-3, and [0087]: controller 132 is configured to control the delivery of electric power to motor 126 by controlling the operation of power inverter 180 or other suitable power electronics module operatively disposed between battery 130 and electric motor 126. Inverter 180 includes suitable electronic switches (e.g., insulated gate bipolar transistor(s)) to provide motor 126 with electric power having the desired characteristics to implement the desired performance of vehicle 110 based on an actuation of accelerator 134 by the operator indicating a command to propel vehicle 110. Examiner notes, the acceleration generated by the delivery of electric power to the motor, is the second acceleration).
Bernatchez is silent on actuation rate of the accelerator and the propulsion command corresponding to a first acceleration when the actuation rate is lower than an actuation rate threshold and to a second acceleration when the actuation rate is higher than the actuation rate threshold, the second acceleration being greater than the first acceleration;
determining that the actuation rate is higher than the actuation rate threshold.
However, Svensson teaches in parallel with the steps S2 and S3, in step S4 the torque which is applied to the steering wheel and the actuations of the accelerator pedal and the brake pedal are monitored, and in step S5 the torque which is applied to the steering wheel by the driver and the duration thereof are compared with preset steering wheel torque threshold values, the rate of change and duration of activation operations of the accelerator pedal [i.e., actuation rate of the accelerator] are compared with preset threshold values for the rate of change of the actuation and duration of actuation operations of the accelerator pedal [i.e., an actuation rate threshold], and the rate of change and duration of activation operations of the brake pedal are compared with preset threshold values for the rate of change of the actuation and duration of activation operations of the brake pedal. In step S16, the rate of change of the actuation and duration of activation operations of the accelerator pedal are determined, and in step S17 they are compared with the corresponding absolute and time-based threshold values [i.e., determining that the actuation rate is higher than the actuation rate threshold] (See at least Figs. 2-3, and [0037-0044]). Examiner notes, the actuation rate of the accelerator pedal is proportionate to the displacement of the accelerator pedal. When the acceleration pedal is activated from a starting point, using a first actuation rate and a second actuation rate, while the second actuation rate of the accelerator pedal is larger than the second actuation rate of the accelerator pedal, then the displacement of the a accelerator pedal for the second actuation rate will be larger than the displacement of the accelerator pedal for the first actuation rate. Larger displacement of the acceleration pedal, necessarily means larger torque is applied and the acceleration of the vehicle due to the second actuation rate will be larger than the first acceleration of the vehicle due to the first actuation rate. As such, Svensson teaches the propulsion command corresponding to a first acceleration when the actuation rate is lower than an actuation rate threshold and to a second acceleration when the actuation rate is higher than the actuation rate threshold, the second acceleration being greater than the first acceleration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Bernatchez, by incorporating the teachings of Svensson, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – electric vehicles, such that the actuation rate of the accelerator pedal is included in the propulsion command and the actuation rate of the accelerator pedal is monitored and compared with a preset threshold value and the vehicle is accelerated when the actuation rate of the accelerator pedal is above the preset threshold value.
The motivation to modify is that, as acknowledged by Svensson, if the rate of change and/or duration of activation operations on an accelerator pedal or brake pedal reach or exceed absolute or time-based preset threshold values for the rate of change of actuation and duration of pedal activation operations, these can also be indices for an adverse effect on the driver (See at least [0021]) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized detecting such effects allows the adverse effects on the driver to be mitigated.
In regard to claim 2
, Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson, teaches the method as defined in claim 1, wherein:
the electric vehicle is a watercraft (See at least [0064]: electric powersport vehicles include snowmobiles, personal watercraft (PWCs) [i.e., the electric vehicle is a watercraft], all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), and utility task vehicles (UTVs));
the propulsion command is received when the watercraft is in an operating mode imposing a power output limit for a powertrain of the watercraft (See at least Figs. 3-4, [0081]: the action(s) initiated by controller 32 are intended to protect powertrain 16, 116 from damage and/or protect the operator of electric vehicle 10,110 from an unsafe operating situation. The action(s) include limiting the output torque of motor 26 [i.e., an operating mode imposing a power output limit for a powertrain of the watercraft] irrespective of the command received at accelerator 34); and
causing the watercraft to accelerate at the second acceleration includes causing the powertrain of the watercraft to generate a power output higher than the power output limit while remaining in the operating mode (See at least figs. 3-4, and [0104]: when the output torque [i.e., a power output] and/or the input current are equal to or greater than the applicable threshold(s) [i.e., power output limit] 56, this indicates that powertrain 16, 116 is obstructed and method 300 proceeds to block 305 where one or more actions intended to protect powertrain 16, 116. Examiner notes, any acceleration generated by the delivery of electric power to the motor, while the output torque of the motor is higher than the applicable threshold, is the second acceleration).
In regard to claim 3
, Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson, teaches the method as defined in claim 2, the first acceleration corresponds to a power output equal to or lower than the power output limit (See at least Figs. 3-4, [0081 & 0104]: the action(s) initiated by controller 32 are intended to protect powertrain 16, 116 from damage and/or protect the operator of electric vehicle 10,110 from an unsafe operating situation. The action(s) include limiting the output torque of motor 26 irrespective of the command received at accelerator 34. when the output torque [i.e., a power output] and/or the input current are equal to or greater than the applicable threshold(s) [i.e., power output limit] 56, this indicates that powertrain 16, 116 is obstructed and method 300 proceeds to block 305 where one or more actions intended to protect powertrain 16, 116. Examiner notes, any acceleration generated by the delivery of electric power to the motor, while the output torque of the motor is less than the applicable threshold, is the first acceleration).
In regard to claim 12
, Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson, teaches the method as defined in claim 1, wherein the electric vehicle is a personal watercraft (See at least [0064]: electric powersport vehicles include snowmobiles, personal watercraft (PWCs) [i.e., the electric vehicle is a personal watercraft], all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), and utility task vehicles (UTVs)).
In regard to claim 13
, Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson, teaches a computer program product for controlling an operation of an electric powersport vehicle, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having program code embodied therewith, the program code readable and executable by a computer, processor or logic circuit to perform the method as defined in claim 1 (See at least [0079]: a computer program product embodied in one or more non-transitory computer readable medium(ia) (e.g., memory 46) [i.e., a non-transitory computer readable storage medium] having computer readable program code (e.g., instructions 50) embodied thereon. Such program code is executed entirely or in part by controller 32 or other data processing device(s) [i.e., processor or logic circuit]).
In regard to claim 14
, Bernatchez discloses a system for operating an electric vehicle, the system comprising (See at least [0064]: systems and associated methods for providing locked rotor protection for powertrains of electric vehicles):
an accelerator actuatable by an operator of the electric vehicle to generate a propulsion command including an accelerator position and an actuation (See at least Fig. 4, and [0088]: vehicle 110 includes accelerator 134 [i.e., an accelerator actuatable by an operator] and a suitable accelerator position sensor 184 that senses a position of accelerator 134 [i.e., an accelerator position]. Accelerator position sensor 184 is operatively connected to controller 132 so that a command for propelling vehicle 110 [i.e., a propulsion command] in the form of signal generated by acceleration position sensor 184 and indicative of an actuation of accelerator 134 by the operator is communicated to controller 132. The delivery of electric power to motor 126 is controlled according to the command for propelling vehicle 110 during normal operation); and
one or more controllers operatively connected to the accelerator and to a powertrain of the electric vehicle (See at least Figs. 1-4, and [0080]: controller 32 [i.e., one or more controllers] generates output(s) 52 for controlling the operation of powertrain 16. Based on a sensed accelerator position 54 of accelerator 34 and parameter(s) 48 received as input(s) 55, controller 32 generates output(s) 52 for controlling the delivery of electric power from battery 30 to motor 26 according to instructions 50. Examiner notes, as illustrated by Fig. 3, the accelerator 34 is connected to the controller 32 through the inputs 55 and the powertrain 16 is connected to the controller 32 through the outputs 52),
the one or more controllers being configured to:
receive the propulsion command (See at least Fig. 4, and [0088]: vehicle 110 includes accelerator 134 and a suitable accelerator position sensor 184 that senses a position of accelerator 134. Accelerator position sensor 184 is operatively connected to controller 132 so that a command for propelling vehicle 110 [i.e., the propulsion command] in the form of signal generated by acceleration position sensor 184 and indicative of an actuation of accelerator 134 by the operator is communicated to controller 132. The delivery of electric power to motor 126 is controlled according to the command for propelling vehicle 110 during normal operation);
Bernatchez is silent on an actuation rate of the accelerator and with the accelerator at the accelerator position, execute the propulsion command by:
when the actuation rate of the accelerator is a first value, cause the powertrain of the electric vehicle to generate a first power output to accelerate the electric vehicle; and
when the actuation rate of the accelerator is a second value higher than the first value, cause the powertrain of the electric vehicle to generate a second power output to accelerate the electric vehicle, the second power output being higher than the first power output.
However, Svensson teaches in parallel with the steps S2 and S3, in step S4 the torque which is applied to the steering wheel and the actuations of the accelerator pedal and the brake pedal are monitored, and in step S5 the torque which is applied to the steering wheel by the driver and the duration thereof are compared with preset steering wheel torque threshold values, the rate of change and duration of activation operations of the accelerator pedal [i.e., actuation rate of the accelerator] are compared with preset threshold values for the rate of change of the actuation and duration of actuation operations of the accelerator pedal, and the rate of change and duration of activation operations of the brake pedal are compared with preset threshold values for the rate of change of the actuation and duration of activation operations of the brake pedal. In step S16, the rate of change of the actuation and duration of activation operations of the accelerator pedal are determined, and in step S17 they are compared with the corresponding absolute and time-based threshold values (See at least Figs. 2-3, and [0037-0044]). Examiner notes, the first value corresponds to the actuation rate being less than the threshold and the second value corresponds to the actuation rate being greater than the threshold. The actuation rate of the accelerator pedal is proportionate to the displacement of the accelerator pedal. When the acceleration pedal is pressed from a starting point, using a first actuation rate and a second actuation rate, while the second actuation rate of the accelerator pedal is larger than the second actuation rate of the accelerator pedal, then the displacement of the a accelerator pedal for the second actuation rate will be larger than the displacement of the accelerator pedal for the first actuation rate. Larger displacement of the acceleration pedal, necessarily means larger torque (power output) is applied and the acceleration of the vehicle due to the second actuation rate will be larger than the first acceleration of the vehicle due to the first actuation rate. As such, Svensson teaches when the actuation rate of the accelerator is a first value, command the powertrain of the electric vehicle to generate a first power output to accelerate the electric vehicle; and when the actuation rate of the accelerator is a second value higher than the first value, command the powertrain of the electric vehicle to generate a second power output to accelerate the electric vehicle, second power output being higher than the first power output.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Bernatchez, by incorporating the teachings of Svensson, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – electric vehicles, such that the actuation rate of the accelerator pedal is included in the propulsion command and the power output to the to accelerate the vehicle is increased when the actuation rate of the accelerator is increased.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Svensson in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 15
, Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson, teaches the system as defined in claim 14, wherein when the propulsion command is received when the electric vehicle is in an operating mode imposing a power output limit for the powertrain of the electric vehicle, the second power output is higher than the power output limit (See at least figs. 3-4, and [0104]: when the output torque [i.e., a power output] and/or the input current are equal to or greater than the applicable threshold(s) [i.e., power output limit] 56, this indicates that powertrain 16, 116 is obstructed and method 300 proceeds to block 305 where one or more actions intended to protect powertrain 16, 116. Examiner notes, any acceleration generated by the delivery of electric power to the motor, while the output torque of the motor is higher than the applicable threshold, is the second acceleration).
In regard to claim 16
, Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson, teaches the system as defined in claim 15, wherein when the propulsion command is received when the electric vehicle is in the operating mode imposing the power output limit for the powertrain of the electric vehicle, the first power output is equal to or lower than the power output limit (See at least Figs. 3-4, [0081 & 0104]: the action(s) initiated by controller 32 are intended to protect powertrain 16, 116 from damage and/or protect the operator of electric vehicle 10,110 from an unsafe operating situation. The action(s) include limiting the output torque of motor 26 irrespective of the command received at accelerator 34. when the output torque [i.e., a power output] and/or the input current are equal to or greater than the applicable threshold(s) [i.e., power output limit] 56, this indicates that powertrain 16, 116 is obstructed and method 300 proceeds to block 305 where one or more actions intended to protect powertrain 16, 116. Examiner notes, any acceleration generated by the delivery of electric power to the motor, while the output torque of the motor is less than the applicable threshold, is the first acceleration).
In regard to claim 19
, Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson, teaches a watercraft or a snowmobile comprising the system as defined in claim 14 (See at least [0064]: electric powersport vehicles include snowmobiles, personal watercraft (PWCs) [i.e., a watercraft or a snowmobile], all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), and utility task vehicles (UTVs)).
In regard to claim 20
, Bernatchez discloses an electric vehicle comprising (See at least [0056]: a method of operating an electric vehicle):
a powertrain including an electric motor for propelling the electric vehicle and a battery operatively connected to drive the electric motor (See at least Figs. 1-4, and [0071-0072]: powertrain 16 [i.e., a powertrain] of vehicle 10 includes one or more electric motors 26 [i.e., an electric motor for propelling the electric vehicle] drivingly coupled to track 15 via drive shaft 28. Powertrain 16 also include one or more batteries 30 for providing electric power to motor 26 and driving motor 26 [i.e., a battery operatively connected to drive the electric motor]);
an accelerator actuatable by an operator of the electric vehicle (See at least Figs. 1-4, and [0080]: controller 32 generates output(s) 52 for controlling the operation of powertrain 16. Based on a sensed accelerator position 54 of accelerator 34 [i.e., an accelerator actuatable by an operator] and parameter(s) 48 received as input(s) 55, controller 32 generates output(s) 52 for controlling the delivery of electric power from battery 30 to motor 26 according to instructions 50);
one or more controllers operatively connected to the powertrain and to the accelerator, the one or more controllers being configured to (See at least Figs. 1-4, and [0080]: controller 32 [i.e., one or more controllers] generates output(s) 52 for controlling the operation of powertrain 16. Based on a sensed accelerator position 54 of accelerator 34 and parameter(s) 48 received as input(s) 55, controller 32 generates output(s) 52 for controlling the delivery of electric power from battery 30 to motor 26 according to instructions 50. Examiner notes, as illustrated by Fig. 3, the accelerator 34 is connected to the controller 32 through the inputs 55 and the powertrain 16 is connected to the controller 32 through the outputs 52):
receive a propulsion command via the accelerator, the propulsion command being indicative of an accelerator position and an actuation (See at least Fig. 4, and [0088]: vehicle 110 includes accelerator 134 and a suitable accelerator position sensor 184 that senses a position of accelerator 134 [i.e., an accelerator position]. Accelerator position sensor 184 is operatively connected to controller 132 so that a command for propelling vehicle 110 [i.e., a propulsion command] in the form of signal generated by acceleration position sensor 184 and indicative of an actuation of accelerator 134 by the operator is communicated to controller 132. The delivery of electric power to motor 126 is controlled according to the command for propelling vehicle 110 during normal operation);
Bernatchez is silent on actuation rate of the accelerator,
with the accelerator at the accelerator position, executing the propulsion command by:
when the actuation rate of the accelerator is a first value, command the powertrain of the electric vehicle to generate a first power output to accelerate the electric vehicle; and
when the actuation rate of the accelerator is a second value higher than the first value, command the powertrain of the electric vehicle to generate a second power output to accelerate the electric vehicle, second power output being higher than the first power output.
However, Svensson teaches in parallel with the steps S2 and S3, in step S4 the torque which is applied to the steering wheel and the actuations of the accelerator pedal and the brake pedal are monitored, and in step S5 the torque which is applied to the steering wheel by the driver and the duration thereof are compared with preset steering wheel torque threshold values, the rate of change and duration of activation operations of the accelerator pedal [i.e., actuation rate of the accelerator] are compared with preset threshold values for the rate of change of the actuation and duration of actuation operations of the accelerator pedal, and the rate of change and duration of activation operations of the brake pedal are compared with preset threshold values for the rate of change of the actuation and duration of activation operations of the brake pedal. In step S16, the rate of change of the actuation and duration of activation operations of the accelerator pedal are determined, and in step S17 they are compared with the corresponding absolute and time-based threshold values (See at least Figs. 2-3, and [0037-0044]). Examiner notes, the first value corresponds to the actuation rate being less than the threshold and the second value corresponds to the actuation rate being greater than the threshold. The actuation rate of the accelerator pedal is proportionate to the displacement of the accelerator pedal. When the acceleration pedal is activated from a starting point, using a first actuation rate and a second actuation rate, while the second actuation rate of the accelerator pedal is larger than the second actuation rate of the accelerator pedal, then the displacement of the a accelerator pedal for the second actuation rate will be larger than the displacement of the accelerator pedal for the first actuation rate. Larger displacement of the acceleration pedal, necessarily means larger torque (power output) is applied and the acceleration of the vehicle due to the second actuation rate will be larger than the first acceleration of the vehicle due to the first actuation rate. As such, Svensson teaches when the actuation rate of the accelerator is a first value, command the powertrain of the electric vehicle to generate a first power output to accelerate the electric vehicle; and when the actuation rate of the accelerator is a second value higher than the first value, command the powertrain of the electric vehicle to generate a second power output to accelerate the electric vehicle, second power output being higher than the first power output.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Bernatchez, by incorporating the teachings of Svensson, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – electric vehicles, such that the actuation rate of the accelerator pedal is included in the propulsion command and the power output to the to accelerate the vehicle is increased when the actuation rate of the accelerator is increased.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Svensson in regard to claim 1.
5. Claim(s) 4
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernatchez (US-20220311236-A1) in view of Svensson et al. (US-20160339880-A1) and further in view of Leblanc (US-20100178815-A1).
In regard to claim 4
, Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson, teaches the method as defined claim 1, wherein:
the actuation rate threshold is a first actuation rate threshold;
.
Further, Svensson teaches in parallel with the steps S2 and S3, in step S4 the torque which is applied to the steering wheel and the actuations of the accelerator pedal and the brake pedal are monitored, and in step S5 the torque which is applied to the steering wheel by the driver and the duration thereof are compared with preset steering wheel torque threshold values, the rate of change and duration of activation operations of the accelerator pedal are compared with preset threshold values for the rate of change of the actuation [i.e., a first actuation rate threshold] and duration of actuation operations of the accelerator pedal, and the rate of change and duration of activation operations of the brake pedal are compared with preset threshold values for the rate of change of the actuation and duration of activation operations of the brake pedal. In step S16, the rate of change of the actuation and duration of activation operations of the accelerator pedal are determined, and in step S17 they are compared with the corresponding absolute and time-based threshold values (See at least Figs. 2-3, and [0037-0044]).
Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson, is silent on the propulsion command further corresponds to a third acceleration when the actuation rate of the accelerator is higher than a second actuation rate threshold higher than the first actuation rate threshold; and
the method includes determining that the actuation rate is lower than the second actuation rate threshold.
However, Leblanc teaches if the operator/driver requests the engine 302 to reach a certain speed value that would force one of the rate of acceleration to exceed a predetermined rate of acceleration, the ECU 300 is programmed to have the rate of change of the torque output of the engine be such that at all times the rate of acceleration is below a local predetermined rate of acceleration [i.e., a second actuation rate threshold]. Such programming is used to break down the ramping up of the watercraft speed to the requested speed into intermediate steps. At each intermediate step, the rate of acceleration is programmed to increase up to a local predetermined value of the rate of acceleration. The break down into steps is further programmed to have time lags in between the steps, or alternatively to have the steps be reached gradually (See at least Figs. 1-4, and [0065]). Examiner notes, as mentioned above, at each step the rate of acceleration is kept below a local predetermined rate of acceleration. When there are at least two steps for gradually increasing the speed of the watercraft, then 2 local predetermined rate of acceleration must be used. The smallest local predetermined rate of acceleration is the first actuation rate threshold and the largest local predetermined rate of acceleration is the second actuation rate threshold. Any rate of acceleration which falls under the last step, is the third acceleration which is below the second actuation rate threshold and it will be larger than the first actuation rate threshold. As such, Leblanc teaches the propulsion command further corresponds to a third acceleration when the actuation rate of the accelerator is higher than a second actuation rate threshold higher than the first actuation rate threshold; and the method includes determining that the actuation rate is lower than the second actuation rate threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson, by incorporating the teachings of Svensson and Leblanc, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicles, such that programming is used to break down the ramping up of the watercraft speed to the requested speed into intermediate steps and in each step a local preset threshold value for the rate of change of the actuation is used to keep the acceleration rate of that step below the local preset threshold value of the rate of change of the actuation.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Svensson in regard to claim 1.
The motivation to modify is that, as acknowledged by Leblanc, controlling the forces experienced by the passengers on a tandem personal watercraft during acceleration of the personal watercraft (See at least [0007]) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized riding the watercraft to become safer and more pleasant for the driver and the riders.
6. Claim(s) 5-6, and 17-18
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernatchez (US-20220311236-A1) in view of Svensson et al. (US-20160339880-A1) and further in view of Minamitani et al. (US-20110029221-A1).
In regard to claim 5
, Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson, teaches the method as defined in claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson, is silent on wherein:
the accelerator position is indicative of a commanded speed of the electric vehicle; and
causing the electric vehicle to accelerate at the second acceleration includes causing the electric vehicle to exceed the commanded speed.
However, Minamitani teaches the graphs show change characteristics over time of a vehicle speed (graph G1), and an accelerator pedal position (graph G4) (See at least Fig. 5, and [0059]). Examiner notes, as portrayed by Fig. 5 of Minamitani (reproduced below for Applicant’s convenience), the vehicle speed and the acceleration pedal position are directly related. As the position of the accelerator pedal increases, the speed of the vehicle increases accordingly which means for each pedal position, a commended speed exists. That is, the accelerator position is indicative of a commanded speed of the electric vehicle. Furthermore, as the driver presses the accelerator pedal, the speed increases from the current commended speed to the next commended speed for that specific position. As such, Minamitani teaches causing the electric vehicle to accelerate at the second acceleration includes causing the electric vehicle to exceed the commanded speed.
PNG
media_image1.png
1011
903
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 - Figure 5 of Minamitani
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson, by incorporating the teachings of Minamitani, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicles, such that each accelerator pedal position is indicative a vehicle speed and when the accelerator is pressed, the current speed of the vehicle increases until it reaches the vehicle speed for that accelerator pedal position.
The motivation to modify is that, as acknowledged by Minamitani, to reduce or to prevent the unnecessary fuel [or power] consumption (See at least [0005]) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized allows the vehicle usage to become more economical.
In regard to claim 6
, Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson and Minamitani, teaches the method as defined in claim 5, comprising, after causing the electric vehicle to exceed the commanded speed and while the accelerator remains at the accelerator position, causing the electric vehicle to decelerate to the commanded speed.
Further, Minamitani teaches the graphs show change characteristics over time of a vehicle speed (graph G1), and an accelerator pedal position (graph G4) (See at least Fig. 5, and [0059]). Examiner notes, as portrayed by Fig. 5 of Minamitani (reproduced above for Applicant’s convenience), as the accelerator pedal is pressed, the speed of the vehicle increases until it reaches the commanded speed for the accelerator pedal position. Furthermore, the vehicle after accelerating and reaching the commanded speed, maintains the commended speed for that specific accelerator pedal position. Increasing the speed of the vehicle necessarily means the vehicle is accelerated and when the accelerator pedal is kept at a specific position, the vehicle decelerates and maintains its speed. That is, causing the electric vehicle to exceed the commanded speed and while the accelerator remains at the accelerator position, causing the electric vehicle to decelerate to the commanded speed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson and Minamitani, by further incorporating the teachings of Minamitani, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicles, such that after increasing the speed of the vehicle, when the accelerator pedal position is maintained by the operator, the vehicle is decelerated and the speed is maintained.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Minamitani in regard to claim 5.
In regard to claim 17
, Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson, teaches the system as defined in claim 14, accordingly the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated.
Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson, is silent on wherein:
the accelerator position is indicative of a commanded operating speed of an electric motor configured to propel the electric vehicle; and
causing the powertrain of the electric vehicle to generate the second power output to accelerate the electric vehicle includes causing the electric motor to exceed the commanded operating speed while executing the propulsion command.
However, Minamitani teaches the graphs show change characteristics over time of a vehicle speed (graph G1), and an accelerator pedal position (graph G4) (See at least Fig. 5, and [0059]). Examiner notes, as portrayed by Fig. 5 of Minamitani (reproduced above for Applicant’s convenience), the vehicle speed and the acceleration pedal position are directly related. As the position of the accelerator pedal, the speed of the vehicle increases accordingly which means for each pedal position, a commended speed exists. That means, the accelerator position is indicative of a commanded speed of the electric vehicle. Furthermore, as the driver presses the accelerator pedal, the speed increases from the current commended speed to the next commended speed for that specific position which means second power output was generated to accelerate the vehicle. As such, Minamitani teaches causing the powertrain of the electric vehicle to generate the second power output to accelerate the electric vehicle includes causing the electric motor to exceed the commanded operating speed while executing the propulsion command.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson, by incorporating the teachings of Minamitani, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicles, such that each accelerator pedal position is indicative a vehicle speed and when the accelerator is pressed, the current speed of the vehicle increases until it reaches the vehicle speed for that accelerator pedal position.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Minamitani in regard to claim 5.
In regard to claim 18
, Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson and Minamitani, teaches the system as defined in claim 17, wherein the one or more controllers are configured to, after causing the electric motor to exceed the commanded operating speed, causing the electric motor to decelerate to the commanded operating speed while executing the propulsion command.
Further, Minamitani teaches the graphs show change characteristics over time of a vehicle speed (graph G1), and an accelerator pedal position (graph G4) (See at least Fig. 5, and [0059]). Examiner notes, as portrayed by Fig. 5 of Minamitani (reproduced above for Applicant’s convenience), as the accelerator pedal is pressed, the speed of the vehicle increases until it reaches the commanded speed for the accelerator pedal position. Furthermore, the vehicle after accelerating and reaching the commanded speed, maintains the commended speed for that specific accelerator pedal position. Increasing the speed of the vehicle necessarily means the vehicle is accelerated and when the accelerator pedal is kept at a specific position, the vehicle decelerates and maintains its speed. That is, after causing the electric motor to exceed the commanded operating speed, causing the electric motor to decelerate to the commanded operating speed while executing the propulsion command.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson and Minamitani, by incorporating the teachings of Minamitani, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicles, such that the when after increasing the speed of the vehicle, when the accelerator pedal position is maintained by the operator, the vehicle is decelerated and the speed is maintained.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Minamitani in regard to claim 5.
7. Claim(s) 7
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernatchez (US-20220311236-A1) in view of Svensson et al. (US-20160339880-A1) and further in view of Minamitani et al. (US-20110029221-A1) and further in view of Kuroyanagi (US-20240124115-A1).
In regard to claim 7
, Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson and Minamitani, teaches the method as defined in claim 6, wherein:
the electric vehicle is a watercraft (See at least [0064]: electric powersport vehicles include snowmobiles, personal watercraft (PWCs) [i.e., the electric vehicle is a watercraft], all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), and utility task vehicles (UTVs)); and
Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson and Minamitani, is silent on the commanded speed of the watercraft is a planing speed of the watercraft.
However, Kuroyanagi teaches the main control unit 71 of the controller 7 acquires, as various types of information regarding the personal watercraft 1, information including the operation mode, the planing speed [i.e., a planing speed of the watercraft], the steering angle, the acceleration information, the angle information, the position information, and information on the mounted object (step S1) (See at least Fig. 4, and [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson and Minamitani, by incorporating the teachings of Kuroyanagi, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicles, such that the planning speed of watercraft is determined and set as the commanded speed of the watercraft.
The motivation to modify is that, as acknowledged by Kuroyanagi, to stabilize the roll attitude of the watercraft body and reduce the operation load at the time of turning (See at least [0105]) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized makes the watercraft safer to operate.
8. Claim(s) 8-11
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernatchez (US-20220311236-A1) in view of Svensson et al. (US-20160339880-A1) and further in view of Ossareh et al. (US-20160169096-A1).
In regard to claim 8
, Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson, teaches the method as defined in claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson, is silent on wherein:
the propulsion command includes a displacement of the accelerator from a first accelerator position to a second accelerator position; and
the method includes determining the actuation rate of the accelerator by dividing the displacement of the accelerator by an amount of time taken to execute the displacement of the accelerator.
However, Ossareh teaches at 320, method 300 determines accelerator pedal position and rate of accelerator pedal position increase. The rate of accelerator pedal increase [i.e., actuation rate of the accelerator] is determined from a first accelerator pedal position at a first time and from a second accelerator pedal position at a second time. The first accelerator pedal position is subtracted from the second accelerator pedal position [i.e., a displacement of the accelerator from a first accelerator position to a second accelerator position]. The result is divided by the time difference between the first time and the second time [i.e., an amount of time taken to execute the displacement of the accelerator] to provide the accelerator pedal rate of change (See at least Fig. 3, and [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson, by incorporating the teachings of Ossareh, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicles, such that the displacement of the accelerator is included in the propulsion command and the rate of accelerator pedal position increase is calculated by subtracting the first pedal position from the second pedal position and dividing the result by the time duration for the position change of the accelerator pedal.
The motivation to modify is that, as acknowledged by Ossareh, to provide for acceptable vehicle performance (See at least [0005]) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized allows the vehicle to be controlled in safer manner.
In regard to claim 9
, Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson, teaches the method as defined in claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson, is silent on wherein:
the propulsion command includes a displacement of the accelerator from a first accelerator position to a second accelerator position; and
causing the electric vehicle to accelerate at the second acceleration is conditional upon the displacement of the accelerator being higher than a displacement threshold.
However, Ossareh teaches at 320, method 300 determines accelerator pedal position and rate of accelerator pedal position increase. The rate of accelerator pedal increase is determined from a first accelerator pedal position at a first time and from a second accelerator pedal position at a second time. The first accelerator pedal position is subtracted from the second accelerator pedal position [i.e., a displacement of the accelerator from a first accelerator position to a second accelerator position]. The result is divided by the time difference between the first time and the second time to provide the accelerator pedal rate of change. Method 300 judges if an increase in accelerator pedal position [i.e., the displacement] is greater than a second threshold rate [i.e., a displacement threshold] (See at least Fig. 3, and [0033 & 0039]). Examiner notes, the position of the accelerator pedal after the displacement, necessarily changes the acceleration of the vehicle, which is the second acceleration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson, by incorporating the teachings of Ossareh, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicles, such that, the displacement of the accelerator is included in the propulsion command and when the displacement of the accelerator pedal is greater than a threshold, then the vehicle accelerates based on the position of the accelerator pedal.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Ossareh in regard to claim 8.
In regard to claim 10
, Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson, teaches the method as defined in claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson, is silent on wherein:
the propulsion command includes a displacement of the accelerator from a first accelerator position to a second accelerator position; and
causing the electric vehicle to accelerate at the second acceleration higher than the first acceleration is conditional upon the first accelerator position being lower than a position threshold.
However, Ossareh teaches at 320, method 300 determines accelerator pedal position and rate of accelerator pedal position increase. The rate of accelerator pedal increase is determined from a first accelerator pedal position at a first time and from a second accelerator pedal position at a second time. The first accelerator pedal position is subtracted from the second accelerator pedal position [i.e., a displacement of the accelerator from a first accelerator position to a second accelerator position]. If accelerator pedal position is less than the threshold position [i.e., a position threshold] or if accelerator pedal position does not increase at a rate greater than the threshold rate, the answer is no and method 300 proceeds to 310 (See at least Fig. 3, and [0033 & 0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson, by incorporating the teachings of Ossareh, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicles, such that the displacement of the accelerator is included in the propulsion command and the vehicle is accelerated only when the accelerator position is lower than the threshold position.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Ossareh in regard to claim 8.
In regard to claim 11
, Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson and Ossareh, teaches the method as defined in claim 9, comprising determining the actuation rate of the accelerator by dividing the displacement of the accelerator by an amount of time taken to execute the displacement of the accelerator.
Further, Ossareh teaches at 320, method 300 determines accelerator pedal position and rate of accelerator pedal position increase. The rate of accelerator pedal increase [i.e., actuation rate of the accelerator] is determined from a first accelerator pedal position at a first time and from a second accelerator pedal position at a second time. The first accelerator pedal position is subtracted from the second accelerator pedal position [i.e., the displacement of the accelerator ]. The result is divided by the time difference between the first time and the second time [i.e., an amount of time taken to execute the displacement of the accelerator] to provide the accelerator pedal rate of change (See at least Fig. 3, and [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Bernatchez, as modified by Svensson and Ossareh, by further incorporating the teachings of Ossareh, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicles, such that the rate of accelerator pedal position increase is calculated by subtracting the first pedal position from the second pedal position and dividing the result by the time duration for the position change of the accelerator pedal.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Ossareh in regard to claim 8.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bruneau et al. (US-20220363138-A1) teaches methods and systems for operating an electric motor of a watercraft.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Preston J Miller whose telephone number is (703)756-1582. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
11. 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.
12. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571) 272-6011. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
13. 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.
/P.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights