DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/02/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on European Patent Application No EP24150219, filed on January 03, 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Matsumoto et al (US 2023/0155411 A1) in view of Celinske et al (US 2020/0001806 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto discloses an electric power management arrangement for a non-propulsion vehicular steering function of a driverless vehicle, comprising:
a first energy storage (see Matsumoto figures 1-9 “battery 12”), and a second energy storage, (see Matsumoto figures 1-9 “battery 21”), the first energy storage being configured to charge the second energy storage (see Matsumoto “power flow in figure 9”), the first and second energy storages being configured to store energy in the form of electrical charge (see Matsumoto figures 1-9 and paras “0032-0035”),
at least one controller, a motor which is part of an electromechanical steering arrangement of the driverless vehicle (see Matsumoto para “0029” “The first FOP load 101, the second FOP load 102, and the third FOP load 103 are loads for automated driving. For example, the first FOP load 101, the second FOP load 102, and the third FOP load 103 may be a steering motor, an electric brake device, an in-vehicle camera, a radar, and the like that operate during the automated driving. The general load 104 includes, for example, a display, an air conditioner, an audio, a video, and various kinds of lights”),
But Matsumoto fails to explicitly teach a connector configured to connect to the motor of an electrically powered actuator, the first and second energy storages being configured to power the motor via the connector.
However, Celinske teaches a connector configured to connect to the motor of an electrically powered actuator, the first and second energy storages being configured to power the motor via the connector (see Celinske figure 1 and paras “0053-0055” and “0066” “Other electrically powered systems, such as the first set of loads 105 and second set of loads 145 used to autonomously control the vehicle 10, steer the vehicle 10 and brake the vehicle 10 are on separate isolated first and third power busses 102, 142”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Matsumoto for a power supply apparatus and inspection method “to output electrical power to loads isolated from the first loads provided to control and perform steering and braking” as taught by Celinske (paras. [0053]- [0066]) in order to prevent fault conditions that result in excess power consumption and to prevent the vehicle from losing capability to continue driving.
Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto discloses wherein the second energy storage comprises one or more of: a battery, a capacitor and a supercapacitor (see Matsumoto figures 1-9 and paras “0032-0035”).
Regarding claim 3, Matsumoto fails to explicitly teach comprising one or more further second energy storages, each one of the further second energy storages being connected to the first energy storage such that the first energy storage is configured to provide energy to the respective further second energy storage, and each one of the one or more further second energy storages being configured to be connected to a respective further motor of the electrically powered actuator.
However, Celinske teaches comprising one or more further second energy storages, (see Celinske batteries 104 & 144 in figure 1), each one of the further second energy storages being connected to the first energy storage such that the first energy storage is configured to provide energy to the respective further second energy storage, (see Celinske the DCDC converters 100 & 140 in figure 1), and each one of the one or more further second energy storages being configured to be connected to a respective further motor of the electrically powered actuator (see Celinske the power steering system 108 & 148 in figure 1),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Matsumoto for a power supply apparatus and inspection method “to output electrical power to loads isolated from the first loads provided to control and perform steering and braking” as taught by Celinske (paras. [0053]- [0066]) in order to prevent fault conditions that result in excess power consumption and to prevent the vehicle from losing capability to continue driving.
Regarding claim 4, Matsumoto teaches wherein the first energy storage comprises two or more sub-units configured to store energy, each one of the sub-units being connected to one or more of the second or further second energy storages, and each one of the sub-units being configured to be connected to the motor and/or at least one further motor of the electrically powered actuator (see Matsumoto paras “0003”, “0029” and “0031” “A battery control device that backs up a first power supply serving as a main battery with a second power supply serving as a sub-battery when an abnormality occurs in the first power supply is… Such a battery control device needs to inspect whether the backup performed by the second power supply is possible, that is, whether electric power can be supplied from the second power supply to a load to which the electric power is to be supplied”, “The first FOP load 101, the second FOP load 102, and the third FOP load 103 are loads for automated driving. For example, the first FOP load 101, the second FOP load 102, and the third FOP load 103 may be a steering motor, an electric brake device, an in-vehicle camera, a radar, and the like that operate during the automated driving. The general load 104 includes, for example, a display, an air conditioner, an audio, a video, and various kinds of lights” and “When the power supply apparatus 1 is mounted on the engine vehicle, the first power supply 10 includes a generator 11 and a lead battery (hereinafter, referred to as a “PbB 12”). A battery of the first power supply 10 may be any secondary battery other than the PbB 12”).
Regarding claim 5, Matsumoto teaches further comprising a voltage converter coupled to the first energy storage to receive from the first energy storage electrical current at a first voltage, the voltage converter being configured to provide a second voltage, different from the first voltage, to the second energy storage (see Matsumoto DCDC coverter 43 in figures 1-9).
Regarding claim 6, Matsumoto fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one controller is configured to selectively enable operation of only one from among the motor and the at least one further motor at a time.
However, Celinske teaches wherein the at least one controller is configured to selectively enable operation of only one from among the motor and the at least one further motor at a time (see Celinske paras “0065-0069” “The third DCDC converter 140 is arranged can output low voltage power, via the third power bus 142, to the second set of loads 145. Referring to FIG. 5, the second set of loads 145 includes the secondary virtual driver 146, the secondary power steering system 148 and the secondary power braking system 150” and “When the primary power steering system 108 and/or primary power braking system 110 are out-of-service, the computer 520 is further programmed to control the respective secondary power steering system 148 and/or secondary power braking system 150. The computer 520 may further be programmed to control the vehicle 10 engine 170 via the engine control module 160 and the propulsion motor 172 via the hybrid powertrain control module 162”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Matsumoto for a power supply apparatus and inspection method “to output electrical power to loads isolated from the first loads provided to control and perform steering and braking” as taught by Celinske (paras. [0065]- [0068]) in order to prevent fault conditions that result in excess power consumption and to prevent the vehicle from losing capability to continue driving.
Regarding claim 8, Matsumoto teaches wherein the at least one controller is configured to detect a fault in the electric power management arrangement (see Matsumoto paras “0063-0075” “Next, an operation of the power supply apparatus 1 when a ground fault occurs will be described with reference to FIGS. 3 to 5 . As illustrated in FIG. 3 , in the power supply apparatus 1, for example, when a ground fault 202 occurs in the first system 110, an overcurrent flows toward a ground fault point, and thus the voltage of the first system 110 detected by the first voltage sensor 7 become equal to or less than a ground fault threshold.”).
Regarding claim 9, Matsumoto teaches wherein the at least one controller is configured to detect the fault based on monitoring at least one of: current and power used by the electrically powered actuator together with monitoring a current and/or power used or provided by the second energy storage, and wherein the at least one controller is configured to determine that a fault has occurred based on the first energy storage providing less than a threshold amount of current and/or power to the electric power management arrangement (see Matsumoto paras “0063-0075” “Next, an operation of the power supply apparatus 1 when a ground fault occurs will be described with reference to FIGS. 3 to 5 . As illustrated in FIG. 3 , in the power supply apparatus 1, for example, when a ground fault 202 occurs in the first system 110, an overcurrent flows toward a ground fault point, and thus the voltage of the first system 110 detected by the first voltage sensor 7 become equal to or less than a ground fault threshold.”).
Regarding claim 10, Matsumoto teaches wherein the at least one controller is configured to: monitor at least one of: current and power use by the electrically powered actuator; monitor a voltage of the second energy storage and a current and/or power provided by the second energy storage; determine an estimated voltage change over time of the second energy storage based on the current and/or power used by the electrically powered actuator; compare the estimated voltage change over time of the second energy storage with a monitored voltage change over time of the second energy storage; and determine that the first energy storage does not provide enough current and/or power based on the difference between the estimated and monitored values of voltage of the second energy storage being greater than a predetermined limit (see Matsumoto paras “0063-0075” “Next, an operation of the power supply apparatus 1 when a ground fault occurs will be described with reference to FIGS. 3 to 5 . As illustrated in FIG. 3, in the power supply apparatus 1, for example, when a ground fault 202 occurs in the first system 110, an overcurrent flows toward a ground fault point, and thus the voltage of the first system 110 detected by the first voltage sensor 7 become equal to or less than a ground fault threshold.”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Matsumoto et al (US 2023/0155411 A1) in view of Celinske et al (US 2020/0001806 A1) in further view of Palombini et al (US 2023/0191929 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Matsumoto fails to explicitly teach wherein the electrically powered actuator the connector is configured to be connected to is an electromechanical linear actuator.
However, Palombini teaches wherein the electrically powered actuator the connector is configured to be connected to is an electromechanical linear actuator (see Palombini para “0120” “an actuator may include an electric actuator. An electric actuator may include any of electromechanical actuators, linear motors, and the like. In some cases, an actuator may include an electromechanical actuator. An electromechanical actuator may convert a rotational force of an electric rotary motor into a linear movement to generate a linear movement through a mechanism”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Matsumoto for a power supply apparatus and inspection method “to use an electromechanical linear actuator” as taught by Palombini (para. [0120]) in order to provide a predictable and well known mechanism for generating controlled linear actuation.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Matsumoto et al (US 2023/0155411 A1) in view of Celinske et al (US 2020/0001806 A1) in further view of Zhao et al (US 2022/0289269 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Matsumoto fails to explicitly teach configured to provide, via the electrically powered actuator, steering of a wheel of a heavy-duty vehicle.
However, Zhao teaches configured to provide, via the electrically powered actuator, steering of a wheel of a heavy-duty vehicle (see Zhao paras “0009” and “0071” “an electric truck steer-by-wire system design, which includes a master control electric power module, a slave control electric power module, a road sensing motor module, a steering wheel, an upper steering column, a lower steering column, a rack-pinion steering gear, wheels, a first steering angle sensor, a second steering angle sensor, a steering domain controller and a vehicle-mounted CAN network” and “Referring to FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, the disclosure provides an electric truck steer-by-wire system, which includes a master control electric power module 14, a slave control electric power module 18, a road sensing motor module 4, a steering wheel 1, an upper steering column 3, a lower steering column 10, a rack-pinion steering gear 12, wheels 13, a first steering angle sensor 2, a second steering angle sensor 11, a steering domain controller 8 and a vehicle-mounted CAN network 9”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Matsumoto for a power supply apparatus and inspection method “to use an electric powered steering actuator” as taught by Zhao (paras. [0009] – [0071]) in order to transmit steering torque to a steering gear and wheels thereby providing a known and predictable mechanism for electrically actuating vehicle steering.
Regarding claim 12, Matsumoto fails to explicitly teach wherein the heavy- duty vehicle comprises an electric and/or autonomous heavy-duty vehicle.
However, Zhao teaches wherein the heavy- duty vehicle comprises an electric and/or autonomous heavy-duty vehicle (see Zhao paras “0009” and “0071” “an electric truck steer-by-wire system design, which includes a master control electric power module, a slave control electric power module, a road sensing motor module, a steering wheel, an upper steering column, a lower steering column, a rack-pinion steering gear, wheels, a first steering angle sensor, a second steering angle sensor, a steering domain controller and a vehicle-mounted CAN network” and “Referring to FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, the disclosure provides an electric truck steer-by-wire system, which includes a master control electric power module 14, a slave control electric power module 18, a road sensing motor module 4, a steering wheel 1, an upper steering column 3, a lower steering column 10, a rack-pinion steering gear 12, wheels 13, a first steering angle sensor 2, a second steering angle sensor 11, a steering domain controller 8 and a vehicle-mounted CAN network 9”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Matsumoto for a power supply apparatus and inspection method “to use an electric powered steering actuator” as taught by Zhao (paras. [0009] – [0071]) in order to transmit steering torque to a steering gear and wheels thereby providing a known and predictable mechanism for electrically actuating vehicle steering.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Matsumoto et al (US 2023/0155411 A1) in view of Celinske et al (US 2020/0001806 A1) in further view of Wada (US A).
Regarding claim 13, Matsumoto fails to explicitly teach configured to cause an electric vehicle the electric power management arrangement is installed in to determine a category of the fault, and to respond to the fault in a response manner which is selected based on the category of the fault.
However, Wada teaches configured to cause an electric vehicle the electric power management arrangement is installed in to determine a category of the fault, and to respond to the fault in a response manner which is selected based on the category of the fault (see Wada col 5, lines 35-50, col 5 thru col 6, lines 1-15, col 7, lines 20-37 and col 8, lines 10-28 “a motor fault monitor/control means for stopping operation of the electric motor when the load torque exceeds the abnormal torque decision reference value and when duration of the load toque is longer than the reference time”, “a torque comparison means for comparing the load torque with the abnormal torque decision reference value, and a motor fault monitor/control means for stopping operation of the electric motor when the load torque exceeds the abnormal torque decision reference value and when duration of the load torque is longer than the reference time, while decreasing the coupling effort of the coupling effort control means” and “a torque comparison means for comparing the load torque with the abnormal torque decision reference value, and a motor fault monitor/control means for stopping operation of the electric motor when the load torque exceeds the abnormal torque decision reference value and when duration of the load torque is longer than the decision reference time while controlling the coupling effort of the coupling effort control means so that the steering torque value detected by the steering torque detecting means does not exceed a predetermined value at which a steering wheel of the motor vehicle can be manipulated by a driver”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Matsumoto for a power supply apparatus and inspection method “to modify the electric power mangment arrangement of the primary reference to determine fault conditions” as taught by Wada (col 5, lines 35-50 and col 5 thru col 6) in order to stop operation of the electric vehicle and then improve operational safety and prevent continued operation under abnormal conditions that may damage the vehicle components.
Regarding claim 14, Matsumoto fails to explicitly teach wherein the electric power management arrangement is configured to compel the electric vehicle to stop within a predefined time period as a response to the category of the fault being a first category.
However, Wada teaches wherein the electric power management arrangement is configured to compel the electric vehicle to stop within a predefined time period as a response to the category of the fault being a first category (see Wada col 5, lines 35-50, col 5 thru col 6, lines 1-15, col 7, lines 20-37 and col 8, lines 10-28 “a motor fault monitor/control means for stopping operation of the electric motor when the load torque exceeds the abnormal torque decision reference value and when duration of the load toque is longer than the reference time”, “a torque comparison means for comparing the load torque with the abnormal torque decision reference value, and a motor fault monitor/control means for stopping operation of the electric motor when the load torque exceeds the abnormal torque decision reference value and when duration of the load torque is longer than the reference time, while decreasing the coupling effort of the coupling effort control means” and “a torque comparison means for comparing the load torque with the abnormal torque decision reference value, and a motor fault monitor/control means for stopping operation of the electric motor when the load torque exceeds the abnormal torque decision reference value and when duration of the load torque is longer than the decision reference time while controlling the coupling effort of the coupling effort control means so that the steering torque value detected by the steering torque detecting means does not exceed a predetermined value at which a steering wheel of the motor vehicle can be manipulated by a driver”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Matsumoto for a power supply apparatus and inspection method “to modify the electric power mangment arrangement of the primary reference to determine fault conditions” as taught by Wada (col 5, lines 35-50 and col 5 thru col 6) in order to stop operation of the electric vehicle and then improve operational safety and prevent continued operation under abnormal conditions that may damage the vehicle components.
Regarding claim 15, Matsumoto fails to explicitly teach wherein the electric power management arrangement is configured to compel the electric vehicle to stop within a second predefined time period, shorter than the predefined time period, as a response to the category of the fault being a second category.
However, Wada teaches wherein the electric power management arrangement is configured to compel the electric vehicle to stop within a second predefined time period, shorter than the predefined time period, as a response to the category of the fault being a second category (see Wada col 5, lines 35-50, col 5 thru col 6, lines 1-15, col 7, lines 20-37 and col 8, lines 10-28 “a motor fault monitor/control means for stopping operation of the electric motor when the load torque exceeds the abnormal torque decision reference value and when duration of the load toque is longer than the reference time”, “a torque comparison means for comparing the load torque with the abnormal torque decision reference value, and a motor fault monitor/control means for stopping operation of the electric motor when the load torque exceeds the abnormal torque decision reference value and when duration of the load torque is longer than the reference time, while decreasing the coupling effort of the coupling effort control means” and “a torque comparison means for comparing the load torque with the abnormal torque decision reference value, and a motor fault monitor/control means for stopping operation of the electric motor when the load torque exceeds the abnormal torque decision reference value and when duration of the load torque is longer than the decision reference time while controlling the coupling effort of the coupling effort control means so that the steering torque value detected by the steering torque detecting means does not exceed a predetermined value at which a steering wheel of the motor vehicle can be manipulated by a driver”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Matsumoto for a power supply apparatus and inspection method “to modify the electric power mangment arrangement of the primary reference to determine fault conditions” as taught by Wada (col 5, lines 35-50 and col 5 thru col 6) in order to stop operation of the electric vehicle and then improve operational safety and prevent continued operation under abnormal conditions that may damage the vehicle components.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-5869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights