DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d).
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority of U.S provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e).
Acknowledgment is made of the claim for priority or continuation and divisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 120.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements provided complies with the provisions of MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits. A signed copy of the form is attached.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “As an example”. [As an example, an], should be replaced by -- An --. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al., “MPC-Based Slip Ratio Control for Electric Vehicle Considering Road Roughness, IEEE” in view of Messaoudène et al., (Innovative Brake Handwheel Concept for Paraplegic Drivers, IEEE).
As per claim 1, Ma et al. teaches an attitude control device (see abs., and Fig. 3) comprising a calculator that calculates an acceleration (see Fig. 3) in a front-rear direction (see Fig. 4, wherein 13DOF meet the limitation of left and right direction) by using a weight (see page 52410, second col. and second par.) and braking driving force of a mobile object (see page 52405, item 1, col. 2), and an acceleration (see Fig. 3) in a left-right direction (see Fig. 4, wherein 13DOF meet the limitation of left and right direction) by using a vehicle speed and a turning radius, and calculates a target in a front-rear direction (see Fig. 4, wherein 13DOF meet the limitation of left and right direction) by using the acceleration (see Fig. 3) in a front-rear direction (see Fig. 4, wherein 13DOF meet the limitation of left and right direction), and a left-right direction (see Fig. 4, wherein 13DOF meet the limitation of left and right direction) by using the acceleration (see Fig. 3) in a left-right direction (see Fig. 4, wherein 13DOF meet the limitation of left and right direction). Ma et al. was silent about seat surface angle.
Messaoudène et al., on the other hand covers the seat surface angle (see Figs. 3, 4-6 and 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the calculator teachings of Ma et al. with the seat angle as taught by Messaoudène et al., because this modification would have “bust movements during accelerations” (see Messaoudène’s et al. Fig. 6), thereby improving the control attitude as a whole.
As per claim 2, Ma et al. teaches wherein, in a case where a road surface (see page 52405, item I. col. 2, wherein road conditions covers any road surface shape as well) friction coefficient (see page 52406, col. 2, first par.) is smaller than a predetermined value (see page 52410, col. 2 and second par.), the calculator sets the acceleration (see Fig. 3) in a front-rear direction (see Fig. 4, wherein 13DOF meet the limitation of left and right direction) and the acceleration (see Fig. 3) in a left-right direction (see Fig. 4, wherein 13DOF meet the limitation of left and right direction) to values acquired from an acceleration sensor (see Fig. 3).
As per claim 3, Ma et al. teaches wherein the calculator calculates a predicted acceleration (see Fig. 3) in a left-right direction (see Fig. 4, wherein 13DOF meet the limitation of left and right direction) at a location to which a mobile object (see page 52405, item 1, col. 2) moves by a predetermined distance (see page 52406, item II. wherein rolling wheel meet the limitation of predetermine distance), by using a speed of the mobile object (see page 52405, item 1, col. 2) and a road curvature radius at a location to which the mobile object moves (see page 52405, item 1, col. 2) by a predetermined distance (see page 52406, item II. wherein rolling wheel meet the limitation of predetermine distance), calculates a jerk by using the acceleration (see Fig. 3) in a left-right direction (see Fig. 4, wherein 13DOF meet the limitation of left and right direction) and the predicted acceleration (see Fig. 3) in a left-right direction (see Fig. 4, wherein 13DOF meet the limitation of left and right direction), and, in a case where the jerk is greater than a predetermined value (see page 52410, col. 2 and second par.), in a left-right direction (see Fig. 4, wherein 13DOF meet the limitation of left and right direction) by using the acceleration (see Fig. 3) in a left-right direction (see Fig. 4, wherein 13DOF meet the limitation of left and right direction) and the predicted acceleration (see Fig. 3) in a left-right direction (see Fig. 4, wherein 13DOF meet the limitation of left and right direction). Ma et al. was silent about seat surface angle.
Messaoudène et al., on the other hand covers the seat surface angle (see Figs. 3, 4-6 and 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the calculator teachings of Ma et al. with the seat angle as taught by Messaoudène et al., because this modification would have “bust movements during accelerations” (see Messaoudène’s et al. Fig. 6), thereby improving the control attitude as a whole.
As per claim 4, Ma et al. teaches wherein the calculator calculates a predicted acceleration (see Fig. 3) in a left-right direction (see Fig. 4, wherein 13DOF meet the limitation of left and right direction) at a location to which a mobile object (see page 52405, item 1, col. 2) moves by a predetermined distance (see page 52406, item II. wherein rolling wheel meet the limitation of predetermine distance), by using a speed of the mobile object (see page 52405, item 1, col. 2) and a road curvature radius at a location to which the mobile object (see page 52405, item 1, col. 2) moves by a predetermined distance (see page 52406, item II. wherein rolling wheel meet the limitation of predetermine distance), calculates a jerk by using the acceleration (see Fig. 3) in a left-right direction (see Fig. 4, wherein 13DOF meet the limitation of left and right direction) and the predicted acceleration (see Fig. 3) in a left-right direction (see Fig. 4, wherein 13DOF meet the limitation of left and right direction), and, in a case where the jerk is greater than a predetermined value (see page 52410, col. 2 and second par.), in a left-right direction (see Fig. 4, wherein 13DOF meet the limitation of left and right direction) by using the acceleration (see Fig. 3) in a left-right direction (see Fig. 4, wherein 13DOF meet the limitation of left and right direction) and the predicted acceleration (see Fig. 3) in a left-right direction (see Fig. 4, wherein 13DOF meet the limitation of left and right direction). Ma et al. was silent about seat surface angle.
Messaoudène et al., on the other hand covers the seat surface angle (see Figs. 3, 4-6 and 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the calculator teachings of Ma et al. with the seat angle as taught by Messaoudène et al., because this modification would have “bust movements during accelerations” (see Messaoudène’s et al. Fig. 6), thereby improving the control attitude as a whole.
As per claim 5, Ma et al. further comprising an output controller (see abs., and Fig. 3) that controls front-rear direction (see Fig. 4, wherein 13DOF meet the limitation of left and right direction) and in a left-right direction (see Fig. 4, wherein 13DOF meet the limitation of left and right direction) in a front-rear direction (see Fig. 4, wherein 13DOF meet the limitation of left and right direction) and in a left-right direction (see Fig. 4, wherein 13DOF meet the limitation of left and right direction). Ma et al. was silent about seat surface angle; wherein, in a case where the calculator judges, on the basis of a state of an occupant or selection by an occupant, that a control mode is to be switched, the output controller, regardless of a calculated acceleration, switches to a control mode corresponding to a state of an occupant or selection by an occupant and performs control.
Messaoudène et al., on the other hand covers the seat surface angle (see Figs. 3, 4-6 and 10); wherein, in a case where the calculator judges, on the basis of a state of an occupant or selection by an occupant (see page 3274, item B.), that a control mode is to be switched, the output controller, regardless of a calculated acceleration (see page 3276, item C.), switches to a control mode corresponding to a state of an occupant or selection by an occupant and performs control (see pages 3274-3276, items B and C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the calculator teachings of Ma et al. with the seat angle as taught by Messaoudène et al., because this modification would have “bust movements during accelerations” (see Messaoudène’s et al. Fig. 6), thereby improving the control attitude as a whole.
As per claim 6, Ma et al. further comprising an output controller that controls front-rear direction (see Fig. 4, wherein 13DOF meet the limitation of left and right direction) and in a left-right direction (see Fig. 4, wherein 13DOF meet the limitation of left and right direction) in a front-rear direction (see Fig. 4, wherein 13DOF meet the limitation of left and right direction) and in a left-right direction (see Fig. 4, wherein 13DOF meet the limitation of left and right direction). Ma et al. was silent about seat surface angle; wherein, in a case where the calculator judges, on the basis of a state of an occupant or selection by an occupant, that a control mode is to be switched, the output controller, regardless of a calculated acceleration, switches to a control mode corresponding to a state of an occupant or selection by an occupant and performs control.
Messaoudène et al., on the other hand covers the seat surface angle (see Figs. 3, 4-6 and 10); wherein, in a case where the calculator judges, on the basis of a state of an occupant or selection by an occupant (see page 3274, item B.), that a control mode is to be switched, the output controller, regardless of a calculated acceleration (see page 3276, item C.), switches to a control mode corresponding to a state of an occupant or selection by an occupant and performs control (see pages 3274-3276, items B and C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the calculator teachings of Ma et al. with the seat angle as taught by Messaoudène et al., because this modification would have “bust movements during accelerations” (see Messaoudène’s et al. Fig. 6), thereby improving the control attitude as a whole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MCDIEUNEL MARC whose telephone number is (571) 272-6964. The examiner can normally be reached on Work 9:00 AM to 7:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, WADE MILES can be reached on (571) 270-7777. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)-273-3976.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
275
275
media_image1.png
Greyscale
/McDieunel Marc/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights