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 04/21/2023.The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1, 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
On January 7, 2019, the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories?
Yes claim 1, 6 is directed towards a method.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?
Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The process in claim 16 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pen and paper and as such is directed toward and abstract idea. The claim consists of calculating an expected motor current, this is similar to a human using known mathematical equations to calculate an expected motor current for instance based on a throttle value. Detecting a wheel slip event based on a comparison of the measured motor current to a calculated motor current is similar to a human determining based on a deviation of a measured current from a calculated expected amount that there is a wheel slip event causing the deviation. Calculating the expected values of acceleration and velocity is similar to a human calculating expected values using known equations with the aid of paper and pen. Detecting a wheel slip based on the comparison of values is similar to a human observing and determining that the difference is large and is indicative of a wheel slipping.
Notably, the claim does not positively recite any limitations regarding actual determination of the attitude of the vehicle.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
An additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1, 6 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations measuring a motor current which is considered merely data gathering which is insignificant extra solution and routine data collection. The turf device, traction wheels and the motor are considered at the apply it level technology. measuring the acceleration and velocity is considered data gathering.
Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer at the “apply it level”, which is indicative of the abstract solution having not been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1, 6 do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The turf device, traction wheels and the motor are considered at the apply it level technology. measuring step referred to above are insignificant extra-solution activity, are not considered significantly more because acquiring step is mere data gathering or transmission of data over a network, which has been held to be routine and conventional activity. See Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1, 6: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that the claims are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 2, 4,7, 9, the calculations are part of the abstract idea of claim 1 which can be performed by a person with the aid of paper and pen. The measurements are considered data gathering. The detection is an observation of values and determining the slip based on a difference over a threshold.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Hawkins (US7778747, from IDS) in view of Sherman (US20090276134) and Mori (US20020198078).
Regarding claim 1, Hawkins teaches a method for traction control for a turf device comprising:
Providing a turf device having a motor operationally engaged with a wheel (col. 5 lines 1-50 disclosing the motor engaged with a wheel).
measuring a motor current (col 5 lines 1-50 disclosing a measured motor current, i.e., measuring a motor current);
calculating an expected motor current (col 5 lines 1-50 disclosing a running average of the current of the traction motor, i.e., calculating an expected motor current);
detecting a wheel slip condition based on a comparison of the measured motor current to the calculated motor current (col 5 lines 1-50 disclosing the running average difference is a difference between a measured current value and an average value of the current of the traction motor. col 6 lines 27-31 disclosing determining loss of adhesion “slip” based on the current running average difference, i.e., slip is detected based on comparing a measured motor current to an average “calculated” motor current).
Hawkins does not teach and either, A) calculating an expected linear velocity associated with the turf device; calculating an expected linear acceleration associated with the turf device; measuring a linear velocity associated with the turf device; measuring a linear acceleration associated with the turf device; and detecting a wheel slip condition based on a comparison of the measured linear velocity to the calculated linear velocity and a comparison of the measured linear acceleration to the calculated linear acceleration; or B) calculating an expected rotational acceleration associated with the turf device; calculating an expected linear acceleration associated with the turf device; measuring a rotational acceleration associated with the turf device; measuring a linear acceleration associated with the turf device; and detecting a wheel slip condition based on a comparison of the measured rotational acceleration to the calculated rotational acceleration and a comparison of the measured linear acceleration to the calculated linear acceleration.
Sherman teaches A) calculating an expected linear velocity associated with the turf device (abstract, [0004]-[0010], [0063]-[ 0066] disclosing calculating a vehicle velocity) ;
measuring a linear velocity associated with the turf device ([0004]-[0010] disclosing a sensor for measuring the linear velocity of the wheel);
detecting a wheel slip condition based on a comparison of the measured
linear velocity to the calculated linear velocity ([0004]-[0010] disclosing comparing the vehicle velocity to the wheel velocity and determining a slip when the difference is greater than a predefined value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined and or substituted the method for slip detection as taught by Sherman yielding predictable results in order to verify the occurrence of slip and or for redundancy in case one method fails which improves the detection of slip and improves vehicle safety by accurately detecting slip condition.
Hawkins as modified by Sherman does not teach calculating an expected linear acceleration associated with the turf device; measuring a linear acceleration associated with the turf device; and a comparison of the measured linear acceleration to the calculated linear acceleration
Mori teaches calculating an expected linear acceleration associated with the turf device ([0021] disclosing the calculating an estimated deceleration “negative acceleration”,);
measuring a linear acceleration associated with the turf device ([0021] disclosing detecting an actual vehicle deceleration “measured”); and
and a comparison of the measured linear acceleration to the calculated linear acceleration ([0021] disclosing detecting a slip based on the difference between the measured and expected deceleration “negative acceleration”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined and or substituted the method for slip detection as taught by Mori yielding predictable results in order to verify the occurrence of slip and or for redundancy in case one method fails which improves the detection of slip and improves vehicle safety by accurately detecting slip condition.
Regarding claim 2, Hawkins as modified by Sherman and Mori teaches the method for traction control for a turf device of claim 1, comprising: calculating an expected linear velocity associated with the turf device; calculating an expected linear acceleration associated with the turf device; measuring a linear velocity associated with the turf device; measuring a linear acceleration associated with the turf device; and detecting a wheel slip condition based on a comparison of the measured linear velocity to the calculated linear velocity and a comparison of the measured linear acceleration to the calculated linear acceleration.
Specifically, Sherman teaches A) calculating an expected linear velocity associated with the turf device (abstract, [0004]-[0010], [0063]-[ 0066] disclosing calculating a vehicle velocity) ;
measuring a linear velocity associated with the turf device ([0004]-[0010] disclosing a sensor for measuring the linear velocity of the wheel);
detecting a wheel slip condition based on a comparison of the measured
linear velocity to the calculated linear velocity ([0004]-[0010] disclosing comparing the vehicle velocity to the wheel velocity and determining a slip when the difference is greater than a predefined value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined and or substituted the method for slip detection as taught by Sherman yielding predictable results in order to verify the occurrence of slip and or for redundancy in case one method fails which improves the detection of slip and improves vehicle safety by accurately detecting slip condition.
Mori teaches calculating an expected linear acceleration associated with the turf device ([0021] disclosing the calculating an estimated deceleration “negative acceleration”,);
measuring a linear acceleration associated with the turf device ([0021] disclosing detecting an actual vehicle deceleration “measured”); and
and a comparison of the measured linear acceleration to the calculated linear acceleration ([0021] disclosing detecting a slip based on the difference between the measured and expected deceleration “negative acceleration”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined and or substituted the method for slip detection as taught by Mori yielding predictable results in order to verify the occurrence of slip and or for redundancy in case one method fails which improves the detection of slip and improves vehicle safety by accurately detecting slip condition.
Claims 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Hawkins (US7778747) in view of Sherman (US20090276134) and Mori (US20020198078) and Ohno (US20050103552).
Regarding claim 3, Hawkins as modified by Sherman and Mori does not teach the method for traction control for a turf device of claim 2, further comprising: Responding to the wheel slip condition by: Stopping the wheel; gradually increasing wheel speed of the wheel.
Ohno teaches further comprising: Responding to the wheel slip condition by: Stopping the wheel ([0057] disclosing stopping the vehicle based on the slippage);
gradually increasing wheel speed of the wheel ([0057] disclosing the increase of the speed gradually).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Ohno yielding predictable results in order to stop a vehicle temporarily when a slip cannot be controlled thus improving safety.
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Hawkins (US7778747) in view of Sherman (US20090276134) and Mori (US20020198078) and Ozaki (US20140330470).
Regarding claim 4, Hawkins as modified by Sherman and Mori further teaches the method for traction control for a turf device of claim 1, comprising:
calculating an expected linear acceleration associated with the turf device;
measuring a linear acceleration associated with the turf device; and
detecting a wheel slip condition based on a comparison of the measured rotational acceleration to the calculated rotational acceleration and a comparison of the
measured linear acceleration to the calculated linear acceleration.
Specifically, Mori teaches calculating an expected linear acceleration associated with the turf device ([0021] disclosing the calculating an estimated deceleration “negative acceleration”,);
measuring a linear acceleration associated with the turf device ([0021] disclosing detecting an actual vehicle deceleration “measured”); and
and a comparison of the measured linear acceleration to the calculated linear acceleration ([0021] disclosing detecting a slip based on the difference between the measured and expected deceleration “negative acceleration”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined and or substituted the method for slip detection as taught by Mori yielding predictable results in order to verify the occurrence of slip and or for redundancy in case one method fails which improves the detection of slip and improves vehicle safety by accurately detecting slip condition.
Ozaki teaches calculating an expected rotational acceleration associated with the turf device ([0020] disclosing detecting slip by comparing a detected rotation acceleration of wheel, i.e., rotation, to an expected acceleration);
measuring a rotational acceleration associated with the turf device ([0020] disclosing detecting slip by comparing a detected rotation acceleration of wheel, i.e., rotation, to an expected acceleration);
detecting slip based on the comparison of the measured rotational acceleration to the calculated rotational acceleration ([0020] disclosing detecting slip by comparing a detected rotation acceleration of wheel, i.e., rotation, to an expected acceleration);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined and or substituted the method for slip detection as taught by Ozaki yielding predictable results in order to verify the occurrence of slip and or for redundancy in case one method fails which improves the detection of slip and improves vehicle safety by accurately detecting slip condition.
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Hawkins (US7778747) in view of Sherman (US20090276134) and Mori (US20020198078) and Ozaki (US20140330470) and Ohno (US20050103552).
Regarding claim 5, Hawkins as modified by Sherman and Mori and Ozaki does not teach the method for traction control for a turf device of claim 4, further comprising
responding to the wheel slip condition by: stopping the wheel; and gradually increasing wheel speed of the wheel.
Ohno teaches further comprising: Responding to the wheel slip condition by: Stopping the wheel ([0057] disclosing stopping the vehicle based on the slippage);
gradually increasing wheel speed of the wheel ([0057] disclosing the increase of the speed gradually).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Ohno yielding predictable results in order to stop a vehicle temporarily when a slip cannot be controlled thus improving safety.
Claims 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Hawkins (US7778747) in view of Wieder (US20120299369) and Ozaki (US20140330470).
Regarding claim 6, Hawkins teaches a method for traction control for a turf device comprising:
Providing a turf device having a motor operationally engaged with a wheel (col. 5 lines 1-50 disclosing the motor engaged with a wheel).
measuring a motor current (col 5 lines 1-50 disclosing a measured motor current, i.e., measuring a motor current);
calculating an expected motor current (col 5 lines 1-50 disclosing a running average of the current of the traction motor, i.e., calculating an expected motor current);
detecting a wheel slip condition based on a comparison of the measured motor current to the calculated motor current (col 5 lines 1-50 disclosing the running average difference is a difference between a measured current value and an average value of the current of the traction motor. col 6 lines 27-31 disclosing determining loss of adhesion “slip” based on the current running average difference, i.e., slip is detected based on comparing a measured motor current to an average “calculated” motor current)
Hawkins does not teach and either, A) calculating an expected rotational velocity associated with the turf device; calculating an expected rotational acceleration associated with the turf device; measuring a rotational velocity associated with the turf device; measuring a rotational acceleration associated with the turf device; and detecting a wheel slip condition based on a comparison of the measured rotational velocity to the calculated rotational velocity and a comparison of the measured rotational acceleration to the calculated rotational acceleration; or B) calculating an expected linear velocity associated with the turf device; calculating an expected rotational velocity associated with the turf device; measuring a linear velocity associated with the turf device; measuring a rotational velocity associated with the turf device; and
detecting a wheel slip condition based on a comparison of the measured linear velocity associated with the device to the calculated linear velocity associated with the device and a comparison of the measured rotational velocity to the calculated rotational velocity.
Wieder teaches A) calculating an expected rotational velocity associated with the turf device ([0061]-[0062] disclosing detecting a slip based on measured rotation wheel speed compared to an expected value);
measuring a rotational velocity associated with the turf device([0061]-[0062] disclosing detecting a slip based on measured rotation wheel speed compared to an expected value); and
detecting a wheel slip condition based on a comparison of the measured rotational velocity to the calculated rotational velocity ([0061]-[0062] disclosing detecting a slip based on measured rotation wheel speed compared to an expected value);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined and or substituted the method for slip detection as taught by Wieder yielding predictable results in order to verify the occurrence of slip and or for redundancy in case one method fails which improves the detection of slip and improves vehicle safety by accurately detecting slip condition.
Ozaki teaches calculating an expected rotational acceleration associated with the turf device ([0020] disclosing detecting slip by comparing a detected rotation acceleration of wheel, i.e., rotation, to an expected acceleration);
measuring a rotational acceleration associated with the turf device ([0020] disclosing detecting slip by comparing a detected rotation acceleration of wheel, i.e., rotation, to an expected acceleration);
detecting slip based on the comparison of the measured rotational acceleration to the calculated rotational acceleration ([0020] disclosing detecting slip by comparing a detected rotation acceleration of wheel, i.e., rotation, to an expected acceleration);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined and or substituted the method for slip detection as taught by Ozaki yielding predictable results in order to verify the occurrence of slip and or for redundancy in case one method fails which improves the detection of slip and improves vehicle safety by accurately detecting slip condition.
Regarding claim 7, Hawkins as modified by Wieder and Ozaki further teaches the method for traction control for a turf device of claim 6, comprising: calculating an expected rotational velocity associated with the turf device; calculating an expected rotational acceleration associated with the turf device; measuring a rotational velocity associated with the turf device; measuring a rotational acceleration associated with the turf device; and detecting a wheel slip condition based on a comparison of the measured rotational velocity to the calculated rotational velocity and a comparison of the measured rotational acceleration to the calculated rotational acceleration.
Specifically, Wieder teaches A) calculating an expected rotational velocity associated with the turf device ([0061]-[0062] disclosing detecting a slip based on measured rotation wheel speed compared to an expected value);
measuring a rotational velocity associated with the turf device([0061]-[0062] disclosing detecting a slip based on measured rotation wheel speed compared to an expected value); and
detecting a wheel slip condition based on a comparison of the measured rotational velocity to the calculated rotational velocity ([0061]-[0062] disclosing detecting a slip based on measured rotation wheel speed compared to an expected value);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined and or substituted the method for slip detection as taught by Wieder yielding predictable results in order to verify the occurrence of slip and or for redundancy in case one method fails which improves the detection of slip and improves vehicle safety by accurately detecting slip condition.
Specifically, Ozaki teaches calculating an expected rotational acceleration associated with the turf device ([0020] disclosing detecting slip by comparing a detected rotation acceleration of wheel, i.e., rotation, to an expected acceleration);
measuring a rotational acceleration associated with the turf device ([0020] disclosing detecting slip by comparing a detected rotation acceleration of wheel, i.e., rotation, to an expected acceleration);
detecting slip based on the comparison of the measured rotational acceleration to the calculated rotational acceleration ([0020] disclosing detecting slip by comparing a detected rotation acceleration of wheel, i.e., rotation, to an expected acceleration);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined and or substituted the method for slip detection as taught by Ozaki yielding predictable results in order to verify the occurrence of slip and or for redundancy in case one method fails which improves the detection of slip and improves vehicle safety by accurately detecting slip condition.
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Hawkins (US7778747) in view of Wieder (US20120299369) and Ozaki (US20140330470) and Ohno (US20050103552).
Regarding claim 3, Hawkins as modified by Wieder and Ozaki does not teach the method for traction control for a turf device of claim 7, further comprising: Responding to the wheel slip condition by: Stopping the wheel; gradually increasing wheel speed of the wheel.
Ohno teaches further comprising: Responding to the wheel slip condition by: Stopping the wheel ([0057] disclosing stopping the vehicle based on the slippage);
gradually increasing wheel speed of the wheel ([0057] disclosing the increase of the speed gradually).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Ohno yielding predictable results in order to stop a vehicle temporarily when a slip cannot be controlled thus improving safety.
Claims 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Hawkins (US7778747) in view of Wieder (US20120299369) and Ozaki (US20140330470) and Sherman (US20090276134).
Regarding claim 9, Hawkins as modified by Wieder and Ozaki teaches the method for traction control for a turf device of claim 6, comprising:
calculating an expected rotational velocity associated with the turf device; measuring a rotational velocity associated with the turf device; and detecting a wheel slip condition based on a comparison of the measured rotational velocity to the calculated rotational velocity.
Specifically, Wieder teaches A) calculating an expected rotational velocity associated with the turf device ([0061]-[0062] disclosing detecting a slip based on measured rotation wheel speed compared to an expected value);
measuring a rotational velocity associated with the turf device([0061]-[0062] disclosing detecting a slip based on measured rotation wheel speed compared to an expected value); and
detecting a wheel slip condition based on a comparison of the measured rotational velocity to the calculated rotational velocity ([0061]-[0062] disclosing detecting a slip based on measured rotation wheel speed compared to an expected value);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined and or substituted the method for slip detection as taught by Wieder yielding predictable results in order to verify the occurrence of slip and or for redundancy in case one method fails which improves the detection of slip and improves vehicle safety by accurately detecting slip condition.
Hawkins as modified by Wieder and Ozaki does not teach calculating an expected linear velocity associated with the turf device; measuring a linear velocity associated with the turf device; detecting a wheel slip condition based on a comparison of the measured linear velocity associated with the device to the calculated linear velocity associated with the device.
Sherman teaches calculating an expected linear velocity associated with the turf device (abstract, [0004]-[0010], [0063]-[ 0066] disclosing calculating a vehicle velocity) ;
measuring a linear velocity associated with the turf device ([0004]-[0010] disclosing a sensor for measuring the linear velocity of the wheel);
detecting a wheel slip condition based on a comparison of the measured
linear velocity to the calculated linear velocity ([0004]-[0010] disclosing comparing the vehicle velocity to the wheel velocity and determining a slip when the difference is greater than a predefined value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined and or substituted the method for slip detection as taught by Sherman yielding predictable results in order to verify the occurrence of slip and or for redundancy in case one method fails which improves the detection of slip and improves vehicle safety by accurately detecting slip condition.
Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Hawkins (US7778747) in view of Wieder (US20120299369) and Ozaki (US20140330470) and Sherman (US20090276134) and Ohno (US20050103552).
Regarding claim 10, Hawkins as modified by Wieder and Ozaki and Sherman does not teach the method for traction control for a turf device of claim 9, further comprising: Responding to the wheel slip condition by: Stopping the wheel; gradually increasing wheel speed of the wheel.
Ohno teaches further comprising: Responding to the wheel slip condition by: Stopping the wheel ([0057] disclosing stopping the vehicle based on the slippage);
gradually increasing wheel speed of the wheel ([0057] disclosing the increase of the speed gradually).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Ohno yielding predictable results in order to stop a vehicle temporarily when a slip cannot be controlled thus improving safety.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20140229072 disclosing autobraking to reduce slipping of wheel.
US20160236672 disclosing the difference in rotation speed to detect slip.
US20200001716 disclosing the torque of the wheel slipping to zero.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658B
Prosecution Insights