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 .
Comments regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s specification paragraph 15 recites, “With the method indicated, undesired travel, e.g. undesired driving away, in the wrong direction can be safeguarded against and prevented. Travelling, e.g. driving away, of the work machine can be safety-critical since there can be people in the surroundings of the work machine. Such a method can prevent undesired travelling in the wrong direction in situations where, for example, there is a hardware or software fault in the control device and undesired travelling in the wrong direction is initiated.” Current independent claim attempts to solve the problem of unintended operation of the work machine in a direction that was not intended by the operator. Therefore, such disclosure integrates judicial exception into a practical application (An improvement in the work machine operation/safety). Claims 1-9 are thus, subject matter eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102[a][1] as being anticipated by Ozaki (US 20130325239 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Ozaki teaches, A method for preventing undesired travelling of a work machine in a wrong direction, wherein the work machine has an electric machine for propelling the work machine, the method comprising: (See paragraph 8, An object of the present invention is to provide an electric vehicle which can quickly detect a malfunction of a motor, such as caused by noise in a control system, and correspondingly take safety measures…The present invention may provide an electric vehicle which includes a motor unit 6 configured to drive a wheel 2, 3…paragraph 12, Such a configuration of continuously monitoring possible abnormalities in a motor unit 6 and causing at least one of shut-off of a drive current to the motor unit 6 and braking with the mechanical brake 9, 10, allows for quickly establishing safety by, for example, preventing travel of a vehicle in a direction opposite to a driver's intended direction and/or a driver's unintended acceleration of a vehicle.)
detecting a desired direction of travel of a driver of the work machine; (See paragraph 36, The drive control subunit 21a may include a torque allocator 48 that is configured to generate an accelerating/decelerating command in the form of a torque command value, which will influence the traction motor units 6, 6 of the left and right wheels, based on an accelerating signal produced from an accelerator manipulation unit 16, a decelerating signal produced from a brake manipulation unit 17, and a cornering signal produced from the steering angle sensor 15…paragraph 52, The rotational direction command determiner 41 may be configured to determine, based on a torque command which is a drive command sent from the ECU 21 to the inverter unit 22, whether the rotational direction as commanded by the drive command from the ECU 21 is a positive or negative direction (i.e., forward or rearward travel of the vehicle).)
detecting a state variable of the work machine that correlates with an actual direction of travel of the work machine; (See paragraph 45, The malfunction detector 37 may be configured to continuously monitor a torque command from the ECU 21 as well as one of the followings: signals indicating a rotational frequency of the motor unit 6; signals indicating a rotational frequency of the wheel 2, 3 driven by the motor unit 6; signals indicating a rotational direction of the motor unit 6; signals indicating a rotational direction of the wheel 2, 3 driven by the motor unit 6; and a motor current…paragraph 52, The rotational direction abnormality determiner 42 may be configured to compare the rotational direction A as commanded by the drive command from the ECU 21 which is determined by the rotational direction command determiner 41 with the actual rotational direction B of the motor unit 6, i.e., the rotational direction B as determined with the rotation sensor 24 (FIG. 2) or with the angle sensor 36 (FIG. 2). The actual rotational direction B of the motor unit 6, as determined by the rotation sensor 24 or angle sensor 36, is a claimed state variable that directly correlates with the actual direction of travel of the vehicle)
determining, based on a comparison of the detected desired direction of travel and the detected state variable of the work machine, whether the electric machine is in a safety-critical state; and (See paragraph 52, The rotational direction abnormality determiner 42 may be configured to compare the rotational direction A as commanded by the drive command from the ECU 21 which is determined by the rotational direction command determiner 41 with the actual rotational direction B of the motor unit 6…if the rotational direction A and the rotational direction B are different, generate a determination result indicating an abnormality in the motor unit 6, for output…paragraph 13, A rotational direction abnormality of a motor unit 6 may result in travel of a vehicle in a direction opposite to a driver's intended direction, thus significantly lowering the safety)
based on a determination that a safety-critical state exists, sending a signal to the electric machine to transfer the electric machine to a state unsuitable for propulsion. (See paragraph 46, The malfunction-responsive controller 38 may be configured to cause at least one of shut-off of a drive current to the motor unit 6 and braking with the mechanical brake 9, 10, if the malfunction detector 37 detects a malfunction…paragraph 61, In this way, a malfunction of a motor unit 6, such as caused by noise in a control system can be quickly detected and fail-safe safety measures can be correspondingly taken which may include shutting off of the supply of a motor current. Thus, safety can be quickly established by, for example, preventing travel of a vehicle in a direction opposite to a driver's intended direction and/or a driver's unintended acceleration of a vehicle.)
In regards to claim 2, Ozaki teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein detecting the state variable that correlates with the actual direction of travel comprises detecting a direction of motor rotation of the electric machine, (See paragraph 45, signals indicating a rotational direction of the motor unit 6; signals indicating a rotational direction of the wheel 2, 3 driven by the motor unit 6;…paragraph 52, the actual rotational direction B of the motor unit 6, i.e., the rotational direction B as determined with the rotation sensor 24 (FIG. 2) or with the angle sensor 36 (FIG. 2),)
wherein a determination of the actual direction of travel takes place based on the detected direction of motor rotation, and (See paragraph 52, The rotational direction abnormality determiner 42 may be configured to compare the rotational direction A as commanded by the drive command from the ECU 21 which is determined by the rotational direction command determiner 41 with the actual rotational direction B of the motor unit 6, i.e., the rotational direction B as determined with the rotation sensor 24 (FIG. 2) or with the angle sensor 36 (FIG. 2). Also see paragraph 13)
wherein the determination of the existence of the safety-critical state takes place based on the determined actual direction of travel being different from the detected desired direction of travel. (See paragraph 52, if the rotational direction A and the rotational direction B are different, generate a determination result indicating an abnormality in the motor unit 6, for output…paragraph 57, The rotational direction abnormality determiner 42 may compare the rotational direction A with an actual rotational direction B of the motor unit 6 and, if the rotational direction A and the rotational direction B are different, generate a determination result indicating an abnormality in the motor unit 6, for output.)
Claim 8 is similar in scope to claim 1, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Claim 9 is similar in scope to claim 1, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
In regards to claim 10, Ozaki teaches, A work machine comprising: a vehicle control device, (See paragraph 9) a pedal, (See paragraph 37) a travel direction switch; (See paragraph 52, drive command from the ECU 21 is a positive or negative direction (i.e., forward or rearward travel of the vehicle). Operator being able to provide drive command in either positive or negative direction inherently comprises rear/forward switch. Mere Steering/Accelerating/Braking cannot do this) and the drive group as claimed in claim 9. (Please see rejection of claim 1 set forth above)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozaki (US 20130325239 A1) in view of Gears (US 20090211822 A1)
In regards to claim 3, Ozaki teaches the method as claimed in claim 1.
Ozaki does not specifically teach, wherein detecting the state variable that correlates with the actual direction of travel comprises detecting a motor speed of the electric machine, and wherein the determination of the existence of the safety-critical state takes place based on the detected motor speed is being within a parameter range around a motor speed corresponding to a stationary state of the work machine.
Gears further teaches, wherein detecting the state variable that correlates with the actual direction of travel comprises detecting a motor speed of the electric machine, and wherein the determination of the existence of the safety-critical state takes place based on the detected motor speed is being within a parameter range around a motor speed corresponding to a stationary state of the work machine. (See paragraph 10, an input for receiving a signal measuring, directly or indirectly, the actual motor velocity…paragraph 29, value "Vf" (14) indicative of either a direct or an indirect measurement of the actual motor velocity is also received at an input to the stall detection apparatus…paragraph 19, means for evaluating a discriminator function whose inputs are the said actual motor velocity and one or more user programmable values which define said actual motor velocity measurement error estimates or tolerance margins, wherein if said actual motor velocity is within the threshold defined by said discriminator function, it is indicative that the motor is stationary. The discriminator function, may, for example, be a rectangular function and is used to ensure that the apparatus discriminates between errors in the said actual motor velocity measurement and prevents incorrect triggering of the stall detection output when the motor is being driven away from zero…paragraph 30, if the absolute value of Vf is determined to be within the function (22) defined by predefined boundary value Vstop (24), then the output "Stationary" (24) is set true…paragraph 20, the said "Drive Error" flag, indicative that the controller cannot achieve the demand velocity, is fed to a first input of a function having at least two inputs, wherein the second input receives the said "Stationary" flag indicative that the motor is stationary, the output of said function being the "Stall" flag if all inputs indicate the presence of a stall condition…paragraph 31, When both the "Drive Error" flag (12) and the "Stationary" flag (24) are true, the output from AND gate will indicate that the motor is stationary and the speed loop is Drive Error. The output from the AND gate, "Stall" (32), is fed to a debounce filter (40) )
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the method of Ozaki to further comprise method taught by Gears because proper detection of stall condition allows temperature to be limited on the motor windings, thereby improving safety as well as preventing failures (Gears, paragraph 5).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozaki (US 20130325239 A1) in view of Meeks et al. (US 20150088351 A1)
In regards to claim 5, Ozaki teaches the method as claimed in claim 1.
Ozaki does not specifically teach, comprising acquiring information on an operating mode of the electric machine, and wherein the determination of the existence of the safety-critical state takes place based on the electric machine being in a motor mode.
Meeks further teaches, comprising acquiring information on an operating mode of the electric machine, and wherein the determination of the existence of the safety-critical state takes place based on the electric machine being in a motor mode. (See paragraph 3, if the direction of action deviates from the target drive direction, unauthorized operation of the drive of the vehicle is detected or determined. Unauthorized operation of the drive of the vehicle is to be understood as meaning operation of the drive of the vehicle in the wrong direction…paragraph 5, If the positive tractive force/drive force is not sufficient to overcome the downgrade force, for example because the driver does not sufficiently activate the accelerator pedal, the vehicle can move rearward, that is to say can move rearward down the slope counter to the target drive direction. In this case, a negative vehicle speed arises in the case of a positive tractive force, for example in the case of a positive drive force. A resulting product is a negative drive power, which then has to be implemented by the drive unit which operates as a generator and has to be taken up, for example, by the above-mentioned energy store. The electric or hydraulic machine then generates a positive torque in the case of a negative rotational speed, that is to say operates as a generator. The driver can consciously bring about this state, for example during a parking process on a slope. Since the drive force in this case acts in the correct direction, and when the accelerator pedal is depressed the vehicle would move in the desired target drive direction, this case does not constitute a fault situation…paragraph 6, In contrast, a negative drive force must not be set in the case of a predefined "forward" target direction of travel and a negative vehicle speed, that is to say a current "rearward" direction of travel. A negative drive force/tractive force would in this case bring about strong, safety-critical operation of the drive counter to the target direction of travel, associated with a positive power in the motor operating mode of the drive unit and a corresponding power output of the energy store or of the energy supplier to the drive unit…paragraph 12, The current drive power is preferably compared with a predefinable limiting power and unauthorized operation of the drive is detected only in the case of the limiting power being exceeded. The drive power is preferably determined from the product of the determined speed and the sum of all the drive forces of the driven wheels. Unauthorized operation of the drive is expediently determined/detected if the drive power is positive in the case of a vehicle movement counter to the target drive direction. Distinguishes between motor mode (e.g. positive drive power) and generator mode (e.g. negative drive power) as the basis for determining whether a safety-critical state (e.g. positive power in the motor operating mode) exists.
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the method of Ozaki to further comprise method taught by Meeks because Meeks provides advantage that starting of the vehicle in an incorrect or undesired direction can be reliably detected and prevented (paragraph 3).
In regards to claim 6, Ozaki teaches the method as claimed in claim 1.
Ozaki does not specifically teach, wherein the determination of the existence of the safety- critical state takes place based on the safety-critical state existing for a duration of a fault tolerance time.
Meeks further teaches, wherein the determination of the existence of the safety- critical state takes place based on the safety-critical state existing for a duration of a fault tolerance time. (See paragraph 13, According to one advantageous development of the invention, there is provision that the amount by which the drive power exceeds the limiting power is integrated over time and a fault situation is detected if the integrated value exceeds a further threshold…paragraph 28, As an alternative to exceeding the limiting power, the drive power of the vehicle or of the drive device 1 can be summed or integrated over time. Unauthorized operation of the drive is detected if the integrated value exceeds a corresponding predefined limiting value. As a result, debouncing can be performed, for example in order to detect no incorrect detection of unauthorized operation of the drive when operating train oscillations are present.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the method of Ozaki to further comprise method taught by Meeks because Meeks provides advantage that starting of the vehicle in an incorrect or undesired direction can be reliably detected and prevented (paragraph 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, JAMES J LEE can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/JUSTIN S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights