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 action is in reply to the amendments filed on 01/26/2026 for Application No. 17/949,913.
Claims 1 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 have been amended. Claims 4, 10, 13, 16 and 17 have been cancelled.
This action is made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 – 3, 6 – 9, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 18 – 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the simple model speed" and “the corrected model speed” in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1, 8 and 11 all state a “computational model” however within the specification, the term “computational model” is not explicitly stated and is directed towards a “drive torsion speed calculator” (Specification: Paragraph 0031). As the specification states multiple different calculators (i.e. motor speed calculator, model speed calculator, vibration-inducted portion calculator), it is unclear what calculator is defined as the “computational model”.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14 and 18 – 20 are also objected per their dependency on the objected claims.
Appropriate action is required.
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.
Claims 8, 9, 14, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oono et al. (US 9315114 B2) in view of Ko et al. (US 20210163012 A1).
Regarding claim 8, a method of reducing vibration of an electric vehicle (EV) (Oono: Abstract: “A device for controlling an electric vehicle includes:”: Col. 1, lines 42 – 44: “An object of the present invention is to achieve both the acquisition of the stability of a control system and a vibration suppression function.”)
by being executed by a processor in the electric vehicle, the method including: (Oono: Col. 2, lines 39 – 46 :“An electric motor controller 2 inputs, as digital signals, signals indicating the state of the vehicle such as a vehicle speed V, an accelerator opening θ, the rotor phase α of an electric motor 4 and the currents iu, iv and iw of the electric motor 4, and generates, based on the input signals, a PWM signal for controlling the electric motor 4. The electric motor controller 2 also generates a drive signal for an inverter 3 according to the generated PWM signal.”; Claim 1: “A device for controlling an electric vehicle that is configured to set a motor torque instruction value based on vehicle information and control a torque of a motor connected to a drive wheel, the device comprising: a feedforward computation unit that is configured to input the motor torque instruction value without inputting a detection value of a sensor provided in the electric vehicle and compute a first torque target value by feedforward computation; and a motor torque control unit that is configured to control the motor torque according to the first torque target value, wherein the feedforward computation unit includes: a vehicle model which is configured to input the motor torque instruction value to model a characteristic from the motor torque to a drive shaft torsional angular velocity; and a drive shaft torsional angular velocity feedback model which is configured to feed back the drive shaft torsional angular velocity output from the vehicle model to the motor torque instruction value to compute the first torque target value.”,
Supplemental Note: the device for controlling the vehicle components is interpreted as a processor)
determining, by the processor, an actual motor speed of the electric vehicle; (Oono: “The rotor phase α (rad) of the electric motor 4 is acquired from the rotation sensor 6. The rotation rate Nm (rpm) of the electric motor 4 is determined as follows: the angular velocity ω (electric angle) of the rotor is divided by the number of pole pairs in the electric motor 4, and thus the motor rotation speed ωm (rad/s) that is the mechanical angular velocity of the electric motor 4 is determined, and the determined motor rotation speed ωm is multiplied by 60/(2π). The angular velocity ω (rad/s) of the rotor is determined by differentiating the rotor phase α.”; Col. 3, lines 44 – 48: “In step S202, a first torque instruction value Tm1* is set. Specifically, based on the accelerator opening θ and the vehicle speed V input in step S201, an accelerator opening-torque table shown in FIG. 3 is referenced, and thus the first torque instruction value Tm1* is set.”)
determining, by the processor, a drivetrain torsion speed which is a speed of a torsion angle of a driveshaft and generated when the electric vehicle is accelerated or decelerated; (Oono: Col. 2, lines 39 – 44: “An electric motor controller 2 inputs, as digital signals, signals indicating the state of the vehicle such as a vehicle speed V, an accelerator opening θ, the rotor phase α of an electric motor 4 and the currents iu, iv and iw of the electric motor 4, and generates, based on the input signals, a PWM signal for controlling the electric motor 4”; Col. 5, lines 11 – 37: “
PNG
media_image1.png
701
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“,
Supplemental Note: Td represents the driveshaft torque which is found by the torsional angle of the drive shaft that encompasses velocity (speed) into its calculation)
… generating, by the processor, an anti-jerk torque by applying a predetermined gain value to the vibration-induced portion (Oono: Col. 10, lines 1 – 21: “As described above, in the device for controlling the vehicle according to the first embodiment, the F/F compensator 401 that inputs the motor torque instruction value and that computes the first torque target value by feedforward computation and the electric motor controller 2 (motor torque control unit) that controls the motor torque according to the first torque target value are provided. The F/F compensator 401 includes: the vehicle model 501 that inputs the motor torque instruction value to model the characteristic from the motor torque to the drive shaft torsional angular velocity; and the drive shaft torsional angular velocity feedback model 502 that feeds back the drive shaft torsional angular velocity output from the vehicle model 501 to the motor torque instruction value and that thereby computes the first torque target value. In this way, since it is not necessary to set the gain of the drive shaft torsional angular velocity feedback model 502 low with consideration given to safety, it can be set at a feedback gain that satisfies vibration suppression performance. When there is no lag or disturbance in the control system, with the first torque target value, which is a feedforward compensation value, it is possible to reduce drive shaft torsional vibrations.”,
Supplemental Note: a gain is applied to reduce the corresponding vibrations).
In sum, Oono teaches a method of reducing vibration of an electric vehicle (EV) by being executed by a processor in the electric vehicle, the method including: determining, by the processor, an actual motor speed of the electric vehicle; determining, by the processor, a drivetrain torsion speed which is a speed of a torsion angle of a driveshaft and generated when the electric vehicle is accelerated or decelerated; generating, by the processor, an anti-jerk torque by applying a predetermined gain value to the vibration-induced portion. Oono however does not teach determining, by the processor, a corrected model speed, wherein the corrected model speed is a value applying the drivetrain torsion speed to a model speed by adding the drivetrain torsion speed to the model speed, wherein the model speed is a value obtained through a computational model that is not applied a vibration of a motor and the drivetrain torsion speed; determining, by the processor, a vibration-induced portion based on the actual motor speed and the corrected model speed.
Ko teaches determining, by the processor, a corrected model speed, wherein the corrected model speed is a value applying the drivetrain torsion speed to a model speed by adding the drivetrain torsion speed to the model speed, (Ko: Paragraph 0076: “As described above, when the disturbance torque estimation value d′ is estimated, the speed calculation unit 127 computes a drive shaft model input torque Tm for model speed computation using the estimated disturbance torque estimation value d′ and the drive shaft output request torque Tnet′. The speed calculation unit 127 computes, using the estimated disturbance torque estimation value d′, the drive shaft model input torque Tm that results from adding the disturbance torque estimation value d′ to the drive shaft output request torque Tnet′.”; Paragraph 0077: “The speed calculation unit 127 computes the model speed ω using a drive shaft model in which the drive shaft model input torque Tm is set to be an input. As described above, when the drive shaft model input torque Tm is calculated, the speed calculation unit 127 computes the model speed ω.”)
wherein the model speed is a value obtained through a computational model that is not applied a vibration of a motor and the drivetrain torsion speed; (Ko: Paragraph 0041: “a model speed that is a virtual drive shaft speed in which a vibration component is not included. The vehicle signals include at least one of a vehicle speed, a value of an accelerator pedal position sensor (APS), and a value of a brake pedal sensor (BPS). An ideal model for the drive shaft, i.e., a model for calculating an ideal drive shaft speed (model speed) in which vibration is ignored, is designed in order to extract the free vibration component of the drive shaft.”)
determining, by the processor, a vibration-induced portion based on the actual motor speed and the corrected model speed; and (Ko: Paragraph 0038: “a control system 1 for reducing drive shaft vibration of an environment-friendly vehicle includes a free vibration compensation torque calculation unit 100 that calculates a free vibration compensation torque for reducing free vibration.”; Paragraph 0039: “In this case, a drive shaft speed is the same as a drive motor speed, and therefore, the free vibration compensation torque calculation unit 100 extracts a free vibration component on the basis of the drive shaft speed instead of the drive motor speed. A drive shaft speed sensor 51 measures an actual drive shaft speed that rotates with driving by the drive motor. The actual drive shaft speed is used as a variable in a process of computing a model speed and in a process of extracting the free vibration component. The free vibration compensation torque calculation unit 100 includes a drive shaft speed extraction unit 110, a model speed computation unit 120, a free vibration computation unit 130, and a first torque computation unit 140.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Oono with the teachings of Ko with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Oono and Ko teach methods of reducing vibrations of a vehicle by adjusting the torque of the drive shaft. Ko further teaches utilizes a free vibration computation unit (Ko: Paragraph 0044 - 0045) to obtain the free vibration reduction compensation torque. To one of ordinary skill in the art, the teaches of Oono and Ko can both be used to teach reducing vehicle vibrations and combining the prior art elements of both will yield to predictable results. For example, whether or not a vehicle utilizes the method of Oono or Ko, each with their respective calculations of identifying the amount of compensating torque to apply.
Regarding claim 9, Oono, as modified, teaches wherein the determining the drivetrain torsion speed includes determining the drivetrain torsion speed by use of an output torque of a motor of the electric vehicle, a torsion coefficient of the driveshaft of the vehicle, and a torsion angle of the driveshaft (Oono: Col. 5, lines 11 – 37
PNG
media_image1.png
701
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
Supplemental Note: Td represents the driveshaft torque which is found by the torsional angle of the drive shaft that encompasses velocity (speed) into its calculation).
Regarding claim 14, Oono, as modified, teaches further including generating a final output torque by adding the anti-jerk torque to a driver demand torque (Oono: Col. 3, lines 44 – 48: “In step S202, a first torque instruction value Tm1* is set. Specifically, based on the accelerator opening θ and the vehicle speed V input in step S201, an accelerator opening-torque table shown in FIG. 3 is referenced, and thus the first torque instruction value Tm1* is set.”; Col. 4, lines 17 – 38: “FIG. 4 is an example of a control block diagram for performing processing that sets a final torque instruction value Tm2*. A vibration suppression control computation unit 400 that sets the final torque instruction value Tm2* includes a feedforward compensator 401 (hereinafter referred to as an “F/F compensator 401”), a feedback compensator 402 (hereinafter referred to as an “F/B compensator 402”) and an adder 403. The F/F compensator 401 inputs the first torque instruction value Tm1*, and outputs a first torque target value and a motor rotation rate estimation value for the first torque target value. The F/B compensator 402 inputs the motor rotation rate estimation value for the first torque target value and a motor rotation rate detection value, and outputs a second torque target value. The adder 403 adds the first torque target value output from the F/F compensator 401 and the second torque target value output from the F/B compensator 402, and outputs the final torque instruction value Tm2*.”).
Regarding claim 15, Oono, as modified, teaches wherein the drivetrain torsion speed is determined by use of a differential of an output torque of the motor and a torsion coefficient of the driveshaft (Oono: Col. 5, lines 11 – 37
PNG
media_image1.png
701
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
Supplemental Note: Td represents the driveshaft torque which is found by the torsional angle of the drive shaft that encompasses velocity (speed) into its calculation).
Regarding claim 18, Oono, as modified, teaches wherein the vibration-induced portion is obtained by use of a difference between the actual motor speed and the corrected model speed (Ko: Paragraph 0038: “a control system 1 for reducing drive shaft vibration of an environment-friendly vehicle includes a free vibration compensation torque calculation unit 100 that calculates a free vibration compensation torque for reducing free vibration.”; Paragraph 0039: “In this case, a drive shaft speed is the same as a drive motor speed, and therefore, the free vibration compensation torque calculation unit 100 extracts a free vibration component on the basis of the drive shaft speed instead of the drive motor speed. A drive shaft speed sensor 51 measures an actual drive shaft speed that rotates with driving by the drive motor. The actual drive shaft speed is used as a variable in a process of computing a model speed and in a process of extracting the free vibration component. The free vibration compensation torque calculation unit 100 includes a drive shaft speed extraction unit 110, a model speed computation unit 120, a free vibration computation unit 130, and a first torque computation unit 140.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Oono with the teachings of Ko with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 8 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oono et al. (US 9315114 B2) and Ko et al. (US 20210163012 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Park et al. (KR 101117970 B1).
Regarding claim 20, Oono, as modified, does not teach wherein the gain value is generated based on a traveling mode, gear shifting information, and a traveling status of the electric vehicle.
Park teaches wherein the gain value is generated based on a traveling mode, gear shifting information, and a traveling status of the electric vehicle (Park: Page 6, Paragraph 6: “In particular, the gain is characterized in that it is previously set to a different value depending on the clutch release, the gear shift, the tip-in / out, the braking time that requires anti-jerk.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Oono with the teachings of Park with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Oono and Park teach various methods of reducing the vibrations of the vehicle caused by the vehicle components when driving. Both teach the reduction in the vibrations are due to an applied gain. Parks further teaches the gain value adjusts depending on the clutch release, gear shift, the tip-in/out and the braking time as to reduce jerk. One with knowledge in the art would find both of the gains from Oono and Parks to be simple substitution as both apply gain to the vehicle to obtain the predictable result of reducing the vibrations of the vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12 and 19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Independent claim 1 states the allowable subject matter of “the corrected motor speed is a value applying the drivetrain torsion speed to the simple motor speed by subtracting the drivetrain torsion speed from the simple motor speed” and “wherein the vibration-induced portion is determined based on… the corrected motor speed and the simple model speed.”, followed by the remaining limitations of claim 1. Independent claim 11 states similar allowable subject matter of “the corrected motor speed is a value applying the drivetrain torsion speed to the actual motor speed by subtracting the drivetrain torsion speed to the actual motor speed” and “determining, by the processor, a vibration-induced portion based on the corrected motor speed and the model speed”, followed by the remaining limitations of claim 11. The closest prior art found are:
Oono et al. (US 9315114 B2) – teaches gathering the motor speed and drivetrain torsion speed, however it doesn’t use them to calculate the simple or corrected motor speed.
Park et al. (KR 101117970 B1) – teaches using a model in which no vibrations are found and compares it with the actual motor speed for a speed deviation to determine vibration reduction (Park: Page 3, Paragraph 6). Park however is comparing, in terms of the claim language, the “simple motor speed” and the “simple model speed”, not “simple motor speed and the corrected model speed, or based on the corrected motor speed and the simple model speed.”.
Shin et al. (US 20180099654 A1) – teaches calculating a model speed and determining a deviation between the model speed and the actual speed for generating vibration reduction. However it did not go further into the calculation and therefore does not properly teaches the claim limitations.
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
Applicant’s arguments, see section Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 of the REMARKS, filed 01/26/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) indefiniteness rejection of claims 1 – 4, 6 – 16 and 18 – 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) indefiniteness rejection of claims 1 – 4, 6 – 16 and 18 – 20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 of the REMARKS, filed 01/26/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 prior art rejection of claims 1 – 4, 6 – 16 and 18 – 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Regarding claims 1, 8 and 11, Applicant states that the prior art of Oono, Park and Suzuki, individually or in view of each other do not teach the amended claim limitations of calculating a “simple model speed” through a “computational model”, calculating a “corrected model speed” by adding the “drivetrain torsion speed” to the “model speed” and calculating a “vibration-induced portion” based on the “simple motor speed and the corrected model speed” or on the “corrected motor speed and the simple model speed”. Regarding independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 3, 6 and 7, Examiner states the amended claim limitations introduced allowable subject matter and therefore the arguments are persuasive. Regarding independent claim 8, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ko (US 20210163012 A1). Regarding independent claim 11 and its dependent claims 12 and 19, Examiner states the amended claim limitations introduced allowable subject matter and therefore the arguments are persuasive.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIVAM SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-1726. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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 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.
/SHIVAM SHARMA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights