Office Action 2: Final Rejection (2024-10-11)
Rejection types: 112 - Written Description/Enablement

CLAIMS:
18101916 IN THE CLAIMS
1\. (Currently Amended) A method comprising: receiving a set of technical parameters associated with the wheel power of at least one wheel of a vehicle on a terrain, the set of technical parameters comprising a first technical parameter and a second technical parameter, wherein the first technical parameter comprises a wheel circumferential force and the second technical parameter comprises a velocity; estimating an actual mobility performance based on the received set of technical parameters; determining a maximum mobility performance for the vehicle comprising \[\[the \]\] at least one wheel on the terrain; comparing the actual mobility performance to the maximum mobility performance; and controlling the vehicle based on a difference between the actual mobility performance and the maximum mobility performance.
2\. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, further comprising determining an optimal tire slippage for \[\[the \]\] at least one wheel on the terrain based on the mobility performance by determining the optimal tire slippage that is greater than 0 and less than a predetermined slippage of \[\[the \]\] at least one wheel.
3\. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 2, wherein the predetermined slippage is greater than a characteristic slippage of \[\[the \]\] at least one wheel by a predetermined amount.
4\. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein controlling the vehicle comprises controlling a driving power to \[\[the \]\] at least one wheel or controlling at least one characteristic of the wheel.
5\. (Currently Amended) A method comprising: receiving a plurality of sets of technical parameters associated with the wheel power of at least one wheel for a vehicle on a terrain, each set of technical parameters comprising a first technical parameter and a second technical parameter, wherein the first technical parameter of each set comprises a wheel circumferential force and the second technical parameter of each set comprises a velocity; estimating an actual mobility performance for each set of technical parameters and based on the first technical parameter and the second technical parameter for each set of technical parameters; determining a maximum mobility performance for the vehicle comprising \[\[the \]\] at least one wheel on the terrain; generating a mobility performance index based on a comparison of the estimated mobility performance \[\[s\]\] with the maximum mobility performance; determining an optimal tire slippage for \[\[the \]\] at least one wheel on the terrain based on the mobility performance index; and controlling the vehicle based on the optimal tire slippage.
6\. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 5, wherein determining the optimal tire slippage comprises determining the optimal tire slippage that is greater than 0 and less than a predetermined slippage of \[\[the \]\] at least one wheel.
7\. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 6, wherein the predetermined slippage is greater than a characteristic slippage of \[\[the \]\] at least one wheel by a predetermined amount.
8\. (Original) The method of claim 7, further comprising determining the predetermined amount based an operational parameter of the vehicle.
9\. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 5, wherein controlling the vehicle comprises controlling a driving power to \[\[the \]\] at least one wheel or controlling at least one characteristic of the wheel.
10\. (Currently Amended) A vehicle system comprising: one or more data processors; and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium containing instructions which, when executed on the one or more data processors, cause the one or more data processors to perform actions including: receiving a plurality of sets of technical parameters associated with the wheel power of at least one wheel of a vehicle on a terrain, each set of technical parameters comprising a first technical parameter and a second technical parameter, wherein the first technical parameter of each set comprises a wheel circumferential force and the second technical parameter of each set comprises a velocity; estimating an actual mobility performance for each set of technical parameters and based on the first technical parameter and the second technical parameter for each set of technical parameters; generating a mobility performance index based on a comparison of the estimated mobility performance \[\[s\]\] with a maximum mobility performance for the vehicle on the terrain; determining an optimal tire slippage for \[\[the \]\] at least one wheel on the terrain based on the mobility performance index; and generating a control signal for controlling the vehicle based on the optimal tire slippage.
11\. (Currently Amended) The vehicle system of claim 10, further comprising at least one sensor configured to detect at least one of the set of technical parameters, wherein \[\[the \]\] at least one sensor is operably connected to the one or more data processors.
12\. (Currently Amended) The vehicle system of claim 10, further comprising a driving system configured to provide driving power to \[\[the \]\] at least one wheel for moving the vehicle system on the terrain, wherein the driving system is configured to control the driving power based on the control signal.
13\. (Original) The vehicle system of claim 12, wherein the driving system comprises a mechanical driveline or a virtual driveline.
14\. (Currently Amended) The vehicle system of claim 10, further comprising \[\[the \]\] at least one wheel.
15\. (Currently Amended) A method comprising: receiving a set of technical parameters associated with the wheel power for each of a first wheel and a second wheel of a vehicle, the set of technical parameters comprising a first technical parameter and a second technical parameter, wherein the first technical parameter comprises a wheel circumferential force and the second technical parameter comprises a velocity; determining an optimal vehicle mobility performance by determining an optimal tire slippage for the first wheel based on the set of technical parameters and on a mobility performance index for the first wheel and individually determining an optimal tire slippage for the second wheel based on the set of technical parameters and on a mobility performance index for the second wheel; and individually controlling the first wheel and the second wheel such that the vehicle operates at the determined optimal vehicle mobility performance.
16\. (Original) The method of claim 15, wherein individually controlling the first wheel and the second wheel comprises controlling a driving system for controlling driving power provided to each of the first wheel and the second wheel.
17\. (Original) The method of claim 15, wherein determining the optimal tire slippages comprises determining the optimal tire slippage for the first wheel that is different from the optimal tire slippage for the second wheel based on the first wheel being on a first terrain and the second wheel being on a second terrain different from the first terrain.

18 – 20. (Cancelled) .

21\. (Original)The method of claim 15, wherein the first wheel is a front wheel and the second wheel is a rear wheel.

OFFICE ACTION:
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 .
Disposition of Claims
The amendment of 08/16/2024 has been entered. Claims 1-17 and 21 are currently pending in the application. Claims 18-20 are canceled.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.  The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A)	the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B)	the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C)	the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.  Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a driving system…” in claim 12. The generic placeholder “system” is linked by linking word “configured to” to the functional limitation “provide driving power to the at least one wheel for moving the vehicle system on the terrain” without reciting the structure of the system capable of performing the recited function.
“a driving system…” in claim 16. The generic placeholder “system” is linked by linking word “for” to the functional limitation “controlling driving power provided to each of the first wheel and the second wheel” without reciting the structure of the system capable of performing the recited function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification has returned the following respective structures:
A mechanical driveline, a virtual driveline, of combinations thereof (0027 lines 7-8)
A mechanical driveline, a virtual driveline, of combinations thereof (0027 lines 7-8)
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:  (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 11 line 2 “the set of technical parameters” should read --the sets of technical parameters--.
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.
Claims 1-17 and 21 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 pre-AIA  the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the wheel power” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. A wheel may have a plurality of wheel powers on a terrain. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as -- a wheel power--.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the mobility performance” in lines 2-3. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to the actual mobility performance or the maximum mobility performance as introduced in claim 1. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --the actual mobility performance-- (see 0035 and 0036 for support).
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the wheel power” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. A wheel may have a plurality of wheel powers on a terrain. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as -- a wheel power--.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the estimated mobility performance” in lines 13-14. It is unclear to which estimated mobility performance of the plurality of sets of technical parameters the limitation refers. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as -- the estimated mobility performances--.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the wheel” in line 3. It is unclear to which wheel the limitation refers as the claim potentially introduces at least one wheel at each of claim 5 lines 3 and 15. For examination purposes the limitation “the wheel” at claim 9 line 3 has been considered as --at least one wheel--.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the wheel power” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. A wheel may have a plurality of wheel powers on a terrain. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --a wheel power--.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the estimated mobility performance” in lines 15-16. It is unclear to which estimated mobility performance of the plurality of sets of technical parameters the limitation refers. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as -- the estimated mobility performances--.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “at least one wheel” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether the claim requires an additional wheel over those potentially introduced at claim 10 lines 7 and 18. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --the at least one wheel of the vehicle on the terrain--.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the wheel power” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. A wheel may have a plurality of wheel powers on a terrain. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as -- a wheel power--.
Claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16-17, and 21 are rejected for depending upon an indefinite base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 and 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter:
CHOI (KR 20180049576, provided by Applicant on 08/10/2023 IDS) is the closest prior art of record.
Regarding claim 1, CHOI discloses a method comprising:
receiving a set of technical parameters associated with wheel power (implied, “associated with wheel power” is broad) of at least one wheel (front wheel, pg. 2 line 44)(S2, Fig. 3, pg. 4 lines 14-15) of a vehicle (Fig. 1) on a terrain (implied), the set of technical parameters comprising a first technical parameter and a second technical parameter, wherein the first technical parameter comprises a wheel circumferential force (pg. 3 line 18) and the second technical parameter comprises a velocity (wheel speed, pg. 3 line 19).
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the limitation “estimating an actual mobility performance based on the received set of technical parameters; determining a maximum mobility performance for the vehicle comprising the at least one wheel on the terrain; comparing the actual mobility performance to the maximum mobility performance; and controlling the vehicle based on a difference between the actual mobility performance and the maximum mobility performance” in the manner defined by claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, CHOI discloses a method comprising:
receiving a plurality of sets of technical parameters associated with wheel power (implied, “associated with wheel power” is broad) of at least one wheel (front wheels, pg. 2 line 44)(S2, Fig. 3, pg. 4 lines 14-15) for a vehicle (Fig. 1) on a terrain (implied), each set of technical parameters comprising a first technical parameter and a second technical parameter, wherein the first technical parameter of each set comprises a wheel circumferential force (pg. 3 line 18) and the second technical parameter of each set comprises a velocity (wheel speed, pg. 3 line 19).
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the limitation “estimating an actual mobility performance for each set of technical parameters and based on the first technical parameter and the second technical parameter for each set of technical parameters; determining a maximum mobility performance for the vehicle comprising the at least one wheel on the terrain; generating a mobility performance index based on a comparison of the estimated actual mobility performances with the maximum mobility performance; determining an optimal tire slippage for the at least one wheel on the terrain based on the mobility performance index; and controlling the vehicle based on the optimal tire slippage” in the manner defined by claim 5.
Regarding claim 10, CHOI discloses a vehicle system comprising:
one or more data processors (implied by controller 20); and
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (implied by controller 20) containing instructions which, when executed on the one or more data processors, cause the one or more data processors to perform actions including:
receiving a plurality of sets of technical parameters associated with wheel power (implied, “associated with wheel power” is broad) of at least one wheel (wheels, pg. 2 line 44)(S2, Fig. 3, pg. 4 lines 14-15) of a vehicle (Fig. 1) on a terrain, each set of technical parameters comprising a first technical parameter and a second technical parameter, wherein the first technical parameter of each set comprises a wheel circumferential force (pg. 3 line 18) and the second technical parameter of each set comprises a velocity (wheel speed, pg. 3 line 19).
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the limitation “estimating an actual mobility performance for each set of technical parameters and based on the first technical parameter and the second technical parameter for each set of technical parameters; generating a mobility performance index based on a comparison of the estimated actual mobility performances with a maximum mobility performance for the vehicle on the terrain; determining an optimal tire slippage for the at least one wheel on the terrain based on the mobility performance index; and generating a control signal for controlling the vehicle based on the optimal tire slippage” in the manner defined by claim 10.
Regarding claim 15, CHOI discloses a method comprising:
receiving a set of technical parameters associated with wheel power (implied, “associated with wheel power” is broad) for each of a first wheel and a second wheel (pair of front wheels, pg. 2 line 44; i.a. pg. 6 line 38 and pg. 7 lines 12-13 imply that control is performed for each wheel; also both wheels connected to controller 20 in Fig. 1)(S2, Fig. 3, pg. 4 lines 14-15) of a vehicle (Fig. 1), the set of technical parameters comprising a first technical parameter and a second technical parameter, wherein the first technical parameter comprises a wheel circumferential force (pg. 3 line 18) and the second technical parameter comprises a velocity (wheel speed, pg. 3 line 19).
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the limitation “determining an optimal vehicle mobility performance by determining an optimal tire slippage for the first wheel based on the set of technical parameters and on a mobility performance index for the first wheel and individually determining an optimal tire slippage for the second wheel based on the set of technical parameters and on a mobility performance index for the second wheel; and individually controlling the first wheel and the second wheel such that the vehicle operates at the determined optimal vehicle mobility performance” in the manner defined by claim 15.
Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.
Response to Arguments
The following remarks respond to Applicant’s arguments filed 08/16/2024.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that claims 1-17 and 21 are allowable, see bottom of pg. 1 to top of pg. 2, the arguments do not apply to the new indefiniteness issues introduced into the claims by Applicant’s amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.  Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.  See MPEP § 706.07(a).  Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.  In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action.  In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKS
In response to the Final Office Action mailed on October 11, 2024, Applicants respectfully request reconsideration and allowance of the rejected and newly submitted claims. The amendment to the claims does not constitute adding new matter to the specification. That is, any amendment to the claims is fully supported by the specification and figures.
Claims 1-17 and 21 are pending.
Claims 1-17 and 21 stand rejected.
In this amendment, claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15 are amended.
Applicants encourage the Examiner to call the undersigned Attorney of record if the Examiner feels that a discussion of the pending claims would be helpful towards furthering prosecution of the present application towards allowance.
Obj
ections and Re
j
ections under 35 U.S.C.
&
Claims 1-17 and 21 stand rejected for formalities under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The amendments herein correct the noted deficiencies.
CONCLUSION

NEXT OFFICE ACTION: 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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.  The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A)	the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B)	the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C)	the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.  Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a driving system…” in claim 12. The generic placeholder “system” is linked by linking word “configured to” to the functional limitation “provide driving power to the at least one wheel for moving the vehicle system on the terrain” without reciting the structure of the system capable of performing the recited function.
“a driving system…” in claim 16. The generic placeholder “system” is linked by linking word “for” to the functional limitation “controlling driving power provided to each of the first wheel and the second wheel” without reciting the structure of the system capable of performing the recited function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification has returned the following respective structures:
A mechanical driveline, a virtual driveline, of combinations thereof (0027 lines 7-8)
A mechanical driveline, a virtual driveline, of combinations thereof (0027 lines 7-8)
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:  (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
EXAMINER’S AMENDMENT
An examiner’s amendment to the record appears below. Should the changes and/or additions be unacceptable to applicant, an amendment may be filed as provided by 37 CFR 1.312. To ensure consideration of such an amendment, it MUST be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee.
Authorization for this examiner’s amendment was given in an interview with Christopher Lutz on 01/16/2025.
Claims 8 and 10 have been amended as follows:
8. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 7, further comprising determining the predetermined amount based on an operational parameter of the vehicle.
10. (Currently Amended) A vehicle system comprising:
one or more data processors; and
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium containing instructions which, when executed on the one or more data processors, cause the one or more data processors to perform actions including:
receiving a plurality of sets of technical parameters associated with a wheel power of at least one wheel of a vehicle on a terrain, each set of technical parameters comprising a first technical parameter and a second technical parameter, wherein the first technical parameter of each set comprises a wheel circumferential force and the second technical parameter of each set comprises a velocity;
estimating an actual mobility performance for each set of technical parameters and based on the first technical parameter and the second technical parameter for each set of technical parameters, therefore generating estimated actual mobility performances;
generating a mobility performance index based on a comparison of the estimated actual mobility performances with a maximum mobility performance for the vehicle on the terrain;
determining an optimal tire slippage for at least one wheel on the terrain based on the mobility performance index; [[and]]
generating a control signal for controlling the vehicle based on the optimal tire slippage; and
controlling the vehicle based on the control signal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 and 21 are allowed.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
CHOI (KR 20180049576, provided by Applicant on 08/10/2023 IDS) is the closest prior art of record.
Regarding claim 1, CHOI discloses a method comprising:
receiving a set of technical parameters associated with wheel power (implied, “associated with wheel power” is broad) of at least one wheel (front wheel, pg. 2 line 44)(S2, Fig. 3, pg. 4 lines 14-15) of a vehicle (Fig. 1) on a terrain (implied), the set of technical parameters comprising a first technical parameter and a second technical parameter, wherein the first technical parameter comprises a wheel circumferential force (pg. 3 line 18) and the second technical parameter comprises a velocity (wheel speed, pg. 3 line 19).
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the limitation “estimating an actual mobility performance based on the received set of technical parameters; determining a maximum mobility performance for the vehicle comprising the at least one wheel on the terrain; comparing the actual mobility performance to the maximum mobility performance; and controlling the vehicle based on a difference between the actual mobility performance and the maximum mobility performance” in the manner defined by claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, CHOI discloses a method comprising:
receiving a plurality of sets of technical parameters associated with wheel power (implied, “associated with wheel power” is broad) of at least one wheel (front wheels, pg. 2 line 44)(S2, Fig. 3, pg. 4 lines 14-15) for a vehicle (Fig. 1) on a terrain (implied), each set of technical parameters comprising a first technical parameter and a second technical parameter, wherein the first technical parameter of each set comprises a wheel circumferential force (pg. 3 line 18) and the second technical parameter of each set comprises a velocity (wheel speed, pg. 3 line 19).
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the limitation “estimating an actual mobility performance for each set of technical parameters and based on the first technical parameter and the second technical parameter for each set of technical parameters; determining a maximum mobility performance for the vehicle comprising the at least one wheel on the terrain; generating a mobility performance index based on a comparison of the estimated actual mobility performances with the maximum mobility performance; determining an optimal tire slippage for the at least one wheel on the terrain based on the mobility performance index; and controlling the vehicle based on the optimal tire slippage” in the manner defined by claim 5.
Regarding claim 10, CHOI discloses a vehicle system comprising:
one or more data processors (implied by controller 20); and
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (implied by controller 20) containing instructions which, when executed on the one or more data processors, cause the one or more data processors to perform actions including:
receiving a plurality of sets of technical parameters associated with wheel power (implied, “associated with wheel power” is broad) of at least one wheel (wheels, pg. 2 line 44)(S2, Fig. 3, pg. 4 lines 14-15) of a vehicle (Fig. 1) on a terrain, each set of technical parameters comprising a first technical parameter and a second technical parameter, wherein the first technical parameter of each set comprises a wheel circumferential force (pg. 3 line 18) and the second technical parameter of each set comprises a velocity (wheel speed, pg. 3 line 19).
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the limitation “estimating an actual mobility performance for each set of technical parameters and based on the first technical parameter and the second technical parameter for each set of technical parameters; generating a mobility performance index based on a comparison of the estimated actual mobility performances with a maximum mobility performance for the vehicle on the terrain; determining an optimal tire slippage for the at least one wheel on the terrain based on the mobility performance index; and generating a control signal for controlling the vehicle based on the optimal tire slippage” in the manner defined by claim 10.
Regarding claim 15, CHOI discloses a method comprising:
receiving a set of technical parameters associated with wheel power (implied, “associated with wheel power” is broad) for each of a first wheel and a second wheel (pair of front wheels, pg. 2 line 44; i.a. pg. 6 line 38 and pg. 7 lines 12-13 imply that control is performed for each wheel; also both wheels connected to controller 20 in Fig. 1)(S2, Fig. 3, pg. 4 lines 14-15) of a vehicle (Fig. 1), the set of technical parameters comprising a first technical parameter and a second technical parameter, wherein the first technical parameter comprises a wheel circumferential force (pg. 3 line 18) and the second technical parameter comprises a velocity (wheel speed, pg. 3 line 19).
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the limitation “determining an optimal vehicle mobility performance by determining an optimal tire slippage for the first wheel based on the set of technical parameters and on a mobility performance index for the first wheel and individually determining an optimal tire slippage for the second wheel based on the set of technical parameters and on a mobility performance index for the second wheel; and individually controlling the first wheel and the second wheel such that the vehicle operates at the determined optimal vehicle mobility performance” in the manner defined by claim 15.
Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.
Conclusion

CITED REFERENCE SUMMARIES: Ref KR20180049576: Claims:
A force estimator for estimating a longitudinal force of the tire; A slip estimator for estimating a wheel slip of the tire; And An optimum wheel slip point is calculated using the longitudinal force of the tire estimated by the force estimator and the wheel slip estimated by the slip estimator, and the calculated optimal slip point is used And a track control controller for controlling the operation of the in-wheel motor of the front wheels. Wherein the track control controller generates map data by mapping the correlation between the longitudinal force of the tire estimated by the force estimator and the wheel slip estimated by the slip estimator, A track control system configured to produce an optimum wheel slip point. Wherein the track control controller oscillates the wheel slip of the front wheel by a predetermined amount by adjusting the driving torque of the front wheel of the front wheel when the current slip of the tire is equal to or greater than a preset maximum slip value. Estimates the longitudinal force of the tire and the wheel slip of the tire, Generates map data indicating the relationship between the estimated longitudinal force of the tire and the wheel slip of the tire, Calculates an optimum wheel slip point based on the map data, Controls the wheel slip of the front wheel to fluctuate when the current wheel slip of the tire is equal to or greater than a set maximum slip value, The road surface friction coefficient is calculated using the maximum longitudinal force and the vertical load of the front wheel during the control while varying the wheel slip of the front wheel, And calculating a maximum torque value that the rear wheel of the vehicle can generate using the calculated road surface friction coefficient. Wherein the map data is generated as a curved line of a predetermined shape, and an optimal wheel slip point is calculated when the curve of the map data is a normal shape having an inflection point. And setting a point where a tangent slope is '0' in the curve of the map data as an optimum wheel slip point. And controlling the drive torque of the front wheels to change the wheel slip of the front wheels when the current wheel slip of the tire is equal to or greater than a set maximum slip value. And controlling the driving torque of the rear wheels based on the calculated road surface friction coefficient and the maximum torque value.
A force estimator for estimating a longitudinal force of the tire; A slip estimator for estimating a wheel slip of the tire; And An optimum wheel slip point is calculated using the longitudinal force of the tire estimated by the force estimator and the wheel slip estimated by the slip estimator, and the calculated optimal slip point is used And a track control controller for controlling the operation of the in-wheel motor of the front wheels.
Wherein the track control controller generates map data by mapping the correlation between the longitudinal force of the tire estimated by the force estimator and the wheel slip estimated by the slip estimator, A track control system configured to produce an optimum wheel slip point.
Wherein the track control controller oscillates the wheel slip of the front wheel by a predetermined amount by adjusting the driving torque of the front wheel of the front wheel when the current slip of the tire is equal to or greater than a preset maximum slip value.
Estimates the longitudinal force of the tire and the wheel slip of the tire, Generates map data indicating the relationship between the estimated longitudinal force of the tire and the wheel slip of the tire, Calculates an optimum wheel slip point based on the map data, Controls the wheel slip of the front wheel to fluctuate when the current wheel slip of the tire is equal to or greater than a set maximum slip value, The road surface friction coefficient is calculated using the maximum longitudinal force and the vertical load of the front wheel during the control while varying the wheel slip of the front wheel, And calculating a maximum torque value that the rear wheel of the vehicle can generate using the calculated road surface friction coefficient.
Wherein the map data is generated as a curved line of a predetermined shape, and an optimal wheel slip point is calculated when the curve of the map data is a normal shape having an inflection point.
And setting a point where a tangent slope is '0' in the curve of the map data as an optimum wheel slip point.
And controlling the drive torque of the front wheels to change the wheel slip of the front wheels when the current wheel slip of the tire is equal to or greater than a set maximum slip value.
And controlling the driving torque of the rear wheels based on the calculated road surface friction coefficient and the maximum torque value.