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 .
Status of Claims
This is in response to Applicant’s case, no. 19/298,899, with an effective filing date of 8/13/2025. Claims 1-9 are currently pending.
Priority
This is the first office action on the merits of the instant application which was filed 8/13/2025, claiming priority to provisional application 63/218,800 and CON of 17/566,567, filed 7/6/2021 and 12/30/2021, respectively.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/22/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description:
Fig.2 item 200;
Fig.5 item 500; and
Fig.5 item 512.
__________________________________
Further, drawing 6 is also objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show with regard to Fig. 6, details regarding the blocks contained therein (i.e. Fig. 6 items 308 and 310), as described by the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the
disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: it contains phraseology that may be implied (e.g., line 1 and line 3 “…is provided…”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
___________________________________
The disclosure is further objected to because of the following informalities:
"Title" section header on page 1 should be removed;
[0037], last line, motor controller 300 not found in drawing, however there is a motor controller 112 disclosed properly in the drawings and specification;
[0045], line 4, "may used" should be "may be used".
___________________________________
The disclosure is also objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code (e.g., [0006] lines 3-4 and [0007] lines 8-9). Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
___________________________________
Lastly, the use of the terms "Measurement Specialties" (i.e., [0042] line 2) and "Curtis" (i.e., [0042] line 3), which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 7 contains a typographical error where accessing range of should be corrected to accessing a range of; and
Claim 3 line 2 contains a typographical error where said motor controller and said g-force sensor is provided should be corrected to said motor controller and said g-force sensor are provided.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the Applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 8 recite(s) the limitation said storage (Claim 8 line 4) and there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the above claims which renders the claim indefinite because it is difficult to ascertain which storage the Applicant is referring to. Please see MPEP §2173.05(e)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected as they inherit the rejections of the claim(s) from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggoune et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0216066 A1) , hereinafter referred to as Aggoune, in view of Funke et al. (US Pat. No. 11,136,021 B1), hereinafter referred to as Funke, and Yoon (US Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0030601 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Aggoune discloses:
A safety system for a baggage tractor ([0017] sentence(s) (s.)1-2, vehicles, such as trucks, sport utility vehicles (SUV), cross-overs, mini-vans, or other suitable vehicles, may include various automatic vehicle propulsion control systems that may provide a level of automation for the vehicle including cruise control, adaptive cruise control, automatic braking, a fully autonomous vehicle control system, or any suitable vehicle propulsion control system or a combination thereof, which a baggage tractor is being construed as being similar to other high-rollover vehicles such as SUVs and [0039] s.2, provide vehicle parameters of the vehicle 10, such as, vehicle weight, vehicle make and model, vehicle age, vehicle maintenance information, vehicle identification number, a number of passengers, load information (e.g., an amount of luggage or other load information), other vehicle parameters, or a combination thereof) having an electric motor connected to a battery for propelling the baggage tractor ([0018], second-to-last sentence, propulsion systems that include use of a battery and [0020], second sentence, electric motor in an electric vehicle), the safety system comprising:
a motor controller connected to the electric motor via a wiring harness ([0020] s.6, propulsion controls may communicate signals to a vehicle computer (e.g., drive by wire) which in turn may control the corresponding propulsion component of the propulsion system, which are wired connections between a processor, actuators, and sensors, and it is construed that a wiring harness is ubiquitous in the art of vehicles, especially electric vehicles),
but Aggoune doesn’t explicitly disclose:
a g-force sensor generating g-force data relating to a magnitude of a g-force generated by movement of the baggage tractor, the g-force data transmitted to said motor controller;
However, Funke teaches in column (col) 5 line(s) (ln) 45-51 a rollover prevention system may include an acceleration system including a motor configured to be coupled to the second wheels of the vehicle and a motor controller configured to cause the motor to supply torque to one or more of the second wheels of the vehicle in response to receipt of the one or more signals indicative the lateral force exceeding the threshold force, which is construed as a lateral acceleration which is measured in g-forces and col 18 ln 30 the use of accelerometers which measure g-forces.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle stability controls and anti-rollover technology before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle propulsion control system of Aggoune, by incorporating the g-force data collection teachings of Funke, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of collecting pertinent data for vehicle stability.
However, Aggoune, as modified by Funke, does not explicitly disclose:
said motor controller accessing range of g-force values defined by a first and a second g-force threshold value;
said motor controller comparing the g-force data to the range of g-force values,
wherein when the g-force data is within the range of g-force values, said motor controller reduces power transmitted from the battery to the electric motor based on the received g-force data; and
wherein if the g-force data exceeds the second g-force threshold value, the motor controller reduces power transmitted to the electric motor by a maximum amount.
However, Yoon teaches in [0010] that the control unit compares sensed g-force values to a pre-determined lateral acceleration threshold and generates a torque value (e.g., power) to be applied by the motor. Further in [0011] teaches if the lateral G-force is larger than a predetermined value (first threshold), roll stability control is operated to deteriorate the torque applied. The torque deterioration may be operated by a predetermined torque reduction factor according to the difference between the actual lateral G-Force and the lateral G-Force threshold (second threshold). This is construed as a motor controller accessing a range between a first and second threshold, comparing the sensed values to the thresholds, and reducing power based on the g-forces being within said range, and reducing the power by a maximum amount when the second threshold is exceeded.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle stability controls and anti-rollover technology before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle propulsion control system of Aggoune, as already modified by the g-force data collection teachings of Funke, by incorporating the torque deterioration based on g-force threshold teachings of Yoon, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of improving vehicle stability while traversing a curvature of the road.
Regarding claim 2, Aggoune, as modified by Funke and Yoon, discloses:
The safety system according to claim 1, wherein the maximum amount is selectable or programmable (see claim 1 regarding Yoon’s predetermined G-force threshold which would be a selected or programmed threshold).
Regarding claim 5, Aggoune, as modified by Funke and Yoon, discloses:
The safety system according to claim 1, wherein said g-force sensor comprises an accelerometer (see claim 1 regarding Funke col 18 ln 30 the use of accelerometers which measure g-forces).
Regarding claim 6, Aggoune, as modified by Funke and Yoon, discloses:
The safety system according to claim 1, wherein the first g-force threshold value, the second g-force threshold value or both are selectable or programmable (see claim 1 and claim 2 regarding Yoon’s predetermined threshold being construed as either selectable and/or programmable).
Regarding claim 7, Aggoune, as modified by Funke and Yoon, discloses:
The safety system according to claim 1, further comprising a speed sensor that generates speed data ([0027] s.2 vehicle propulsion controller (VPC) in communication with speed sensors),
wherein when a magnitude of the speed data reaches or exceeds a first speed threshold value, said motor controller reduces power transmitted to the electric motor ([0008] s.2, determining a profile for a target vehicle speed based on the at least one route characteristic and a vehicle energy consumption profile, wherein the vehicle energy consumption profile is predetermined based on vehicle parameters contributing to vehicle energy consumption; selectively adjusting a vehicle speed control input based on the target vehicle speed profile).
_____________________________________
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggoune et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0216066 A1) , hereinafter referred to as Aggoune, in view of Funke et al. (US Pat. No. 11,136,021 B1), hereinafter referred to as Funke, Yoon (US Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0030601 A1), and Mendes et al. (US Pat. No. 11,049,336 B1), hereinafter referred to as Mendes.
Regarding claim 3, Aggoune, as modified by Funke and Yoon, discloses:
integrated with a wiring harness (wiring harnesses are construed to be ubiquitous in the art of electric vehicles)
The safety system according to claim 1, wherein said motor controller and said g-force sensor is provided as a retrofit assembly and adapted to be retrofit into an existing baggage tractor.
Mendes teaches, in Column (Col) 1 lines (ln) 58-61, where a retrofitted solution is utilized to update an existing motor vehicle with a new technology or capability. This understanding that there would be a need and a capability to add this new technology to an existing vehicle would prove extremely beneficial to companies as they are constantly focusing on reducing cost and overhead.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle stability controls and anti-rollover technology before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle propulsion control system of Aggoune, as already modified by the g-force data collection teachings of Funke and the g-force threshold teachings of Yoon, by incorporating the retrofit assembly teachings of Mendes, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of possibly leading to a more cost effective solution for the company operating the baggage tractors. Instead of having to buy new vehicles, which would be costly both in time and money, the retrofitting of existing vehicles would provide for a more effective rollout and not hinder current production standards by vast amounts.
Regarding claim 4, Aggoune, as modified by Funke, Yoon, and Mendes, discloses:
The safety system according to claim 3, wherein said wiring harness further comprises:
a throttle pedal connected to said motor controller via the wiring harness (see claim 1 regarding Aggoune’s drive by wire which may control the corresponding propulsion component of the propulsion system, which are wired connections between a processor, actuators, and sensors and it is construed that a throttle pedal/accelerator and wiring harnesses are construed to be ubiquitous in the art of electric vehicles);
and a brake pedal connected to said motor controller via the wiring harness ((see claim 1 regarding Aggoune drive by wire which may control the corresponding propulsion component of the propulsion system, which are wired connections between a processor, actuators, and sensors and it is construed that a brake pedal and wiring harnesses are construed to be ubiquitous in the art of electric vehicles).
______________________________________
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggoune et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0216066 A1) , hereinafter referred to as Aggoune, in view of Funke et al. (US Pat. No. 11,136,021 B1), hereinafter referred to as Funke, Yoon (US Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0030601 A1), and Jarek et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0334500 A1), hereinafter referred to as Jarek.
Regarding claim 8, Aggoune, as modified by Funke and Yoon, discloses:
The safety system according to claim 1 values saved on said storage ([0008] s.2, non-transitory computer-readable medium includes executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, facilitate performance of operations).
further comprising a transceiver connected to said processor, said transceiver receiving wireless signals from a remote computer to remotely adjust at least one of the first or second threshold
However, Jarek teaches in [0184-185] that an operator may select the speeds at which vehicle 200 may operate for a given rider and the input required to change the speed key parameters (fob, speed limitations, security key, etc.) via a speed key input option. Furthermore, the speed key input may be accessed remotely via a signal or input sent over a wireless network or Bluetooth® to remotely control or change the parameters of the speed key of vehicle. For example, speed key input may be accessed by the manager of a fleet of vehicles to allow for fleet management of vehicles from any location at or away from vehicles.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle stability controls and anti-rollover technology before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle propulsion control system of Aggoune, as already modified by the g-force data collection teachings of Funke and the g-force threshold teachings of Yoon, by incorporating the remote parameter control teachings of Jarek, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of providing consistent safety control to a remote operator or fleet manager.
Regarding claim 9, Aggoune, as modified by Funke and Yoon, discloses:
The safety system according to claim 8, wherein the at least one of the first or second threshold values are automatically adjusted based on programmed criteria. However, Jarek is further relied upon to teach selected from the group consisting of: a date, a current local weather condition, human resources information and combinations thereof in [0184] that the operator or fleet manager may control operation of vehicle when another person is operating vehicle based on the person's age, ability, and experience with vehicle which is construed as human resource information. This is also construed to be based off of staff scheduling for the fleet which pertains the particular date. Lastly, in [0144] s.5-7, a plurality of third-party data services may be integrated with the information delivered to an operator of vehicle, fleet manager, and owner of the mobile or computer devices. The data services, provided by a data provider, allow for integration of a variety of types of data in a user interface coordinated by server system including weather data.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle stability controls and anti-rollover technology before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle propulsion control system of Aggoune, as already modified by the g-force data collection teachings of Funke, the g-force threshold teachings of Yoon, and the remote parameter control teachings of Jarek, by further incorporating the date, weather, and human resource teachings of Jarek, such that as remote parameter control teachings are considered within Aggoune, the date, weather, and human resource teachings are also considered.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to KEITH ALLEN VON VOLKENBURG whose telephone number is (703)756-5886. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Keith A von Volkenburg/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights