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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to the applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks pages 6-8, the applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach the feature “in response to a measured value of a vehicle body speed not satisfying an allowable accuracy, set the arbitration target torque to the first target torque when the first target torque is equal to or greater than the second target torque, and set the arbitration target torque to the second target torque when the first target torque is less than the second target torque” as recited in independent claim 1 and similar claims 9 and 10.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments presented. Specifically, the applicant’s arguments are directed towards the teachings of the “first target torque… for achieving the target rotational speed” and the “second target torque… for achieving the target driving force” by Kuwahara. However, the previous rejection of the claim limitation in view of Kuwahara does not equate the “third target value” to the “first target torque” and the “fourth target value” to the “second target torque”, as argued to do so by the applicant (see page 7 of the remarks). Specifically, the previously cited section of Kuwahara recites “a state in which the larger of the third target value and the fourth target value is selected as the fifth target value” (Kuwahara, Para. 0015). In the case of Kuwahara, the “fourth target value” is derived from a “rotation speed difference”, such that the fourth target value acts as the “first target torque” of the pending claims (Kuwahara, Para. 0018), while the “third target value” of Kuwahara is derived based on “the output value [torque] of the driving source”, such that the “third target value” acts as the “second target torque” of the pending claims (Kuwahara, Para. 0007-0008). Therefore, by selecting the “larger of the third target value and the fourth target value”, Kuwahara teaches the limitation “in response to a measured value of a vehicle body speed not satisfying an allowable accuracy, set the arbitration target torque to the first target torque when the first target torque is equal to or greater than the second target torque, and set the arbitration target torque to the second target torque when the first target torque is less than the second target torque”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato, et al., hereinafter Kato (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 20150112508) in view of Wozniak, et al., hereinafter Wozniak (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2008/0208420), and further in view of Kuwahara, et al., hereinafter Kuwahara (Japanese Patent No. 5136653 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Kato teaches: A traction controller for an electric vehicle that drives a wheel by a motor (Kato, Para. 0015, 0048, and 0074 – “a traction control device” for a vehicle “having a driving wheel which is driven by a motor”; where the vehicle is an “electric automobile”), the traction controller comprising:
at least one memory storing at least one program (Kato, Para. 0187-0188 – “a program” that is stored in a “storage unit”, or memory); and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (Kato, Para. 0187-0188 – a “central processing device” which executes the program stored in the storage unit, or memory), wherein the at least one program is configured to cause the at least one processor to:
set a target slip based on an operating state of the electric vehicle (Kato, Fig. 3 and Para. 0077 and 0113 – where based on a “operational mode in correspondence to the road state” a gain coefficient is determined in order to obtain a desired slip ratio such that the vehicle is in a “stable state”);
calculate a target rotational speed of the wheel based on the target slip (Kato, Fig. 1 and Para. 0048, 0064, and 0082– where an “output of a rotational speed” of a driving wheel is determined in a control system; where the determining using the control system includes a desired slip ratio dependent transfer function);
calculate a first target torque that is a motor torque for achieving the target rotational speed (Kato, Para. 0015 and 0049 – a “torque command value calculation part” for calculating the “the torque command value to be outputted to the motor for driving said driving wheel”; where the output of a rotational speed, omega, corresponds to “the torque command value”, such that the command value achieves the rotational speed);
set a target driving force of the wheel based on an estimated friction coefficient of a road surface and a ground contact load (Kato, Para. 0013, 0073-0074, 0112, and 0123 – where a drive force is proportional to the friction coefficient of the road surface and the normal force, and based on a road surface condition it is ensured that a “sufficient drive force” is reached);
calculate a second target torque that is a motor torque for achieving the target driving force (Kato, Para. 0050-0053 – a “motor torque” block in the control system which is used in controlling to obtain the torque command value, or target torque, provided to the driving wheel);
in response to execution of stability control for stabilizing behavior of the electric vehicle, set an arbitration target torque to the first target torque when the first target torque is equal to or less than the second target torque, and set the arbitration target torque to the second target torque when the first target torque is greater than the second target torque;
in response to a measured value of a vehicle body speed (Kato, Para. 0074 – “a rotational speed sensor that detects the rotational speed of the driving wheel”) not satisfying an allowable accuracy, set the arbitration target torque to the first target torque when the first target torque is equal to or greater than the second target torque, and set the arbitration target torque to the second target torque when the first target torque is less than the second target torque; and
control the motor based on the arbitration target torque (Kato, Para. 0070 and 0202 – sending “motor drive signals” to the motors to “perform rotational motion” to apply the actual torque value).
While Kato teaches a measured value of a vehicle body speed, Kato does not teach in response to execution of stability control for stabilizing behavior of the electric vehicle, set an arbitration target torque to the first target torque when the first target torque is equal to or less than the second target torque, and set the arbitration target torque to the second target torque when the first target torque is greater than the second target torque, and in response to a vehicle body speed not satisfying an allowable accuracy, set the arbitration target torque to the first target torque when the first target torque is equal to or greater than the second target torque, and set the arbitration target torque to the second target torque when the first target torque is less than the second target torque.
However, Wozniak teaches in response to execution of stability control for stabilizing behavior of the electric vehicle, set an arbitration target torque to the first target torque when the first target torque is equal to or less than the second target torque (Wozniak, Para. 0042 – executing “torque control arbitration within an arbitration domain”, where control determines whether a TMAXLO, or first target torque, is “not greater than” TMAXHI, or a second target torque, and if so, “forwards TMAXLO as TRAD”, or arbitration target torque, “and control ends”), and set the arbitration target torque to the second target torque when the first target torque is greater than the second target torque (Wozniak, Para. 0042 – executing “torque control arbitration within an arbitration domain”, where control determines whether a TMAXLO, or first target torque, is “greater than” TMAXHI, or a second target torque, and if so, “forwards TMAXHI as TRAD”, or arbitration target torque, “and control ends”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the traction controller of Kato to include in response to execution of stability control for stabilizing behavior of the electric vehicle, set an arbitration target torque to the first target torque when the first target torque is equal to or less than the second target torque, and set the arbitration target torque to the second target torque when the first target torque is greater than the second target torque, as taught by Wozniak, in order to regulate the torque output of a vehicle powertrain to ensure stability of the vehicle and prevent potential damage.
Kato in view of Wozniak does not teach in response to a vehicle body speed not satisfying an allowable accuracy, set the arbitration target torque to the first target torque when the first target torque is equal to or greater than the second target torque, and set the arbitration target torque to the second target torque when the first target torque is less than the second target torque.
However, Kuwahara teaches in response to a vehicle body speed not satisfying an allowable accuracy (Kuwahara, Para. 0015-0017 and 0134 – determining that there is “a difference between the target rotational speed and either the actual output rotational speed of the drive source or the actual input rotational speed of the transmission”), set the arbitration target torque to the first target torque when the first target torque is equal to or greater than the second target torque, and set the arbitration target torque to the second target torque when the first target torque is less than the second target torque (Kuwahara, Para. 0007, 0015-0017, and 0134 – a state in “which the larger of the third target value and the fourth target value is selected as the fifth target value”; where the target values are “target engine torque[s]” and the “fifth target engine torque” is “used to control the engine” in order to “meet the requirements for engine output torque, i.e., the requirements for the driving force of the vehicle”, where there is a difference from the “target rotational speed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the traction controller including the above limitations of Kato in view of Wozniak to include in response to a vehicle body speed not satisfying an allowable accuracy, set the arbitration target torque to the first target torque when the first target torque is equal to or greater than the second target torque, and set the arbitration target torque to the second target torque when the first target torque is less than the second target torque, as taught by Kuwahara, in order to “prevent the output of the drive source from becoming excessive or insufficient” (Kuwahara, Para. 0016).
In regards to Claim 2, Kato in view of Wozniak and Kuwahara teaches the traction controller of Claim 1, and Kato further teaches wherein the at least one program is configured to cause the at least one processor to correct the target driving force based on at least one of a deviation between the target slip and an actual slip and a deviation between a target wheel acceleration calculated from a target wheel speed for achieving the target slip and an actual wheel acceleration (Kato, Para. 0006 and 0015 – where a “torque applied to the driving wheel” is corrected by a calculated “correction amount” to, for example, decrease a slip ratio in the case where slip becomes nonzero).
In regards to Claim 8, Kato in view of Wozniak and Kuwahara teaches the traction controller of Claim 1, and Kato further teaches wherein the electric vehicle includes the motor for each driving wheel (Kato, Fig. 13 and Para. 0177-0178 – where the vehicle has “four driving wheels” and each driving wheel has a motor, depicted as motors FL (front left) thru RR (rear right) in Fig. 13), and the at least one program (Kato, Para. 0001 and 0187-0188 – “a traction control program”) is configured to cause the at least one processor to:
calculate the target rotational speed for each driving wheel (Kato, Fig. 1 and Para. 0048, 0064, 0082, and 0177-0182 – where an “output of a rotational speed” of a driving wheel is determined in a control system; where the determining using the control system includes a desired slip ratio dependent transfer function; where controlling is done for each wheel);
calculate the first target torque for each driving wheel (Kato, Para. 0015, 0049, and 0177-0182 – a “torque command value calculation part” for calculating the “the torque command value to be outputted to the motor for driving said driving wheel”; where the output of a rotational speed, omega, corresponds to “the torque command value”, such that the command value achieves the rotational speed; where controlling is done for each wheel);
set the target driving force for each driving wheel (Kato, Para. 0013, 0073-0074, 0112, 0123, and 0177-0182 – where a drive force is proportional to the friction coefficient of the road surface and the normal force, and based on a road surface condition it is ensured that a “sufficient drive force” is reached; where controlling is done for each wheel);
calculate the second target torque for each driving wheel (Kato, Para. 0050-0053 and 0177-0182 – a “motor torque” block in the control system which is used in controlling to obtain the torque command value, or target torque, provided to the driving wheel; where controlling is done for each wheel );
determine the arbitration target torque for each driving wheel (Kato, Para. 0050-0053 and 0177-0182 – where the motor torque and torque command value, or target torque, are controlled and are provided to the driving wheel “as an actual torque value Tr”; where torque is provided for each wheel); and
control the motor for each driving wheel (Kato, Para. 0070, 0202, and 0177-0182 – sending “motor drive signals” to the motors to “perform rotational motion” to apply the actual torque value; where driving is done for each wheel).
Regarding Claim 9, Kato teaches: A method for traction control for an electric vehicle that drives a wheel by a motor (Kato, Para. 0014-0015, 0048, and 0074 – “a traction control method” for a vehicle “having a driving wheel which is driven by a motor”; where the vehicle is an “electric automobile”), the method comprising:
setting a target slip based on an operating state of the electric vehicle (Kato, Fig. 3 and Para. 0077 and 0113 – where based on a “operational mode in correspondence to the road state” a gain coefficient is determined in order to obtain a desired slip ratio such that the vehicle is in a “stable state”);
calculating a target rotational speed of the wheel based on the target slip (Kato, Fig. 1 and Para. 0048, 0064, and 0082– where an “output of a rotational speed” of a driving wheel is determined in a control system; where the determining using the control system includes a desired slip ratio dependent transfer function);
calculating a first target torque that is a motor torque for achieving the target rotational speed (Kato, Para. 0015 and 0049 – a “torque command value calculation part” for calculating the “the torque command value to be outputted to the motor for driving said driving wheel”; where the output of a rotational speed, omega, corresponds to “the torque command value”, such that the command value achieves the rotational speed);
setting a target driving force of the wheel based on an estimated friction coefficient of a road surface and a ground contact load (Kato, Para. 0013, 0073-0074, 0112, and 0123 – where a drive force is proportional to the friction coefficient of the road surface and the normal force, and based on a road surface condition it is ensured that a “sufficient drive force” is reached);
calculating a second target torque that is a motor torque for achieving the target driving force (Kato, Para. 0050-0053 – a “motor torque” block in the control system which is used in controlling to obtain the torque command value, or target torque, provided to the driving wheel);
in response to execution of stability control for stabilizing behavior of the electric vehicle, set an arbitration target torque to the first target torque when the first target torque is equal to or less than the second target torque, and set the arbitration target torque to the second target torque when the first target torque is greater than the second target torque;
in response to a measured value of a vehicle body speed (Kato, Para. 0074 – “a rotational speed sensor that detects the rotational speed of the driving wheel”) not satisfying an allowable accuracy, set the arbitration target torque to the first target torque when the first target torque is equal to or greater than the second target torque, and set the arbitration target torque to the second target torque when the first target torque is less than the second target torque; and
controlling the motor based on the arbitration target torque (Kato, Para. 0070 and 0202 – sending “motor drive signals” to the motors to “perform rotational motion” to apply the actual torque value).
While Kato teaches a measured value of a vehicle body speed, Kato does not teach in response to execution of stability control for stabilizing behavior of the electric vehicle, set an arbitration target torque to the first target torque when the first target torque is equal to or less than the second target torque, and set the arbitration target torque to the second target torque when the first target torque is greater than the second target torque, and in response to a vehicle body speed not satisfying an allowable accuracy, set the arbitration target torque to the first target torque when the first target torque is equal to or greater than the second target torque, and set the arbitration target torque to the second target torque when the first target torque is less than the second target torque.
However, Wozniak teaches in response to execution of stability control for stabilizing behavior of the electric vehicle, set an arbitration target torque to the first target torque when the first target torque is equal to or less than the second target torque (Wozniak, Para. 0042 – executing “torque control arbitration within an arbitration domain”, where control determines whether a TMAXLO, or first target torque, is “not greater than” TMAXHI, or a second target torque, and if so, “forwards TMAXLO as TRAD”, or arbitration target torque, “and control ends”), and set the arbitration target torque to the second target torque when the first target torque is greater than the second target torque (Wozniak, Para. 0042 – executing “torque control arbitration within an arbitration domain”, where control determines whether a TMAXLO, or first target torque, is “greater than” TMAXHI, or a second target torque, and if so, “forwards TMAXHI as TRAD”, or arbitration target torque, “and control ends”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kato to include in response to execution of stability control for stabilizing behavior of the electric vehicle, set an arbitration target torque to the first target torque when the first target torque is equal to or less than the second target torque, and set the arbitration target torque to the second target torque when the first target torque is greater than the second target torque, as taught by Wozniak, in order to regulate the torque output of a vehicle powertrain to ensure stability of the vehicle and prevent potential damage.
Kato in view of Wozniak does not teach in response to a vehicle body speed not satisfying an allowable accuracy, set the arbitration target torque to the first target torque when the first target torque is equal to or greater than the second target torque, and set the arbitration target torque to the second target torque when the first target torque is less than the second target torque.
However, Kuwahara teaches in response to a vehicle body speed not satisfying an allowable accuracy (Kuwahara, Para. 0015-0017 and 0134 – determining that there is “a difference between the target rotational speed and either the actual output rotational speed of the drive source or the actual input rotational speed of the transmission”), set the arbitration target torque to the first target torque when the first target torque is equal to or greater than the second target torque, and set the arbitration target torque to the second target torque when the first target torque is less than the second target torque (Kuwahara, Para. 0007, 0015-0017, and 0134 – a state in “which the larger of the third target value and the fourth target value is selected as the fifth target value”; where the target values are “target engine torque[s]” and the “fifth target engine torque” is “used to control the engine” in order to “meet the requirements for engine output torque, i.e., the requirements for the driving force of the vehicle”, where there is a difference from the “target rotational speed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method including the above limitations of Kato in view of Wozniak to include in response to a vehicle body speed not satisfying an allowable accuracy, set the arbitration target torque to the first target torque when the first target torque is equal to or greater than the second target torque, and set the arbitration target torque to the second target torque when the first target torque is less than the second target torque, as taught by Kuwahara, in order to “prevent the output of the drive source from becoming excessive or insufficient” (Kuwahara, Para. 0016).
Regarding Claim 10, Kato teaches: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program (Kato, Para. 0001 and 0187-0188 – “a traction control program” that is stored in a “storage unit”, or memory, that is “upon a transportable recording medium such as a CD-ROM, a DVD, or the like”) for traction control for an electric vehicle that drives a wheel by a motor (Kato, Para. 0015, 0048, and 0074 – “a traction control” for a vehicle “having a driving wheel which is driven by a motor”; where the vehicle is an “electric automobile”), the program being configured to cause a computer (Kato, Para. 0187-0188 – a “central processing device”) to execute processing comprising:
setting a target slip based on an operating state of the electric vehicle (Kato, Fig. 3 and Para. 0077 and 0113 – where based on a “operational mode in correspondence to the road state” a gain coefficient is determined in order to obtain a desired slip ratio such that the vehicle is in a “stable state”);
calculating a target rotational speed of the wheel based on the target slip (Kato, Fig. 1 and Para. 0048, 0064, and 0082– where an “output of a rotational speed” of a driving wheel is determined in a control system; where the determining using the control system includes a desired slip ratio dependent transfer function);
calculating a first target torque that is a motor torque for achieving the target rotational speed (Kato, Para. 0015 and 0049 – a “torque command value calculation part” for calculating the “the torque command value to be outputted to the motor for driving said driving wheel”; where the output of a rotational speed, omega, corresponds to “the torque command value”, such that the command value achieves the rotational speed);
setting a target driving force of the wheel based on an estimated friction coefficient of a road surface and a ground contact load (Kato, Para. 0013, 0073-0074, 0112, and 0123 – where a drive force is proportional to the friction coefficient of the road surface and the normal force, and based on a road surface condition it is ensured that a “sufficient drive force” is reached);
calculating a second target torque that is a motor torque for achieving the target driving force (Kato, Para. 0050-0053 – a “motor torque” block in the control system which is used in controlling to obtain the torque command value, or target torque, provided to the driving wheel);
in response to execution of stability control for stabilizing behavior of the electric vehicle, set an arbitration target torque to the first target torque when the first target torque is equal to or less than the second target torque, and set the arbitration target torque to the second target torque when the first target torque is greater than the second target torque;
in response to a measured value of a vehicle body speed (Kato, Para. 0074 – “a rotational speed sensor that detects the rotational speed of the driving wheel”) not satisfying an allowable accuracy, set the arbitration target torque to the first target torque when the first target torque is equal to or greater than the second target torque, and set the arbitration target torque to the second target torque when the first target torque is less than the second target torque; and
controlling the motor based on the arbitration target torque (Kato, Para. 0070 and 0202 – sending “motor drive signals” to the motors to “perform rotational motion” to apply the actual torque value).
While Kato teaches a measured value of a vehicle body speed, Kato does not teach in response to execution of stability control for stabilizing behavior of the electric vehicle, set an arbitration target torque to the first target torque when the first target torque is equal to or less than the second target torque, and set the arbitration target torque to the second target torque when the first target torque is greater than the second target torque, and in response to a vehicle body speed not satisfying an allowable accuracy, set the arbitration target torque to the first target torque when the first target torque is equal to or greater than the second target torque, and set the arbitration target torque to the second target torque when the first target torque is less than the second target torque.
However, Wozniak teaches in response to execution of stability control for stabilizing behavior of the electric vehicle, set an arbitration target torque to the first target torque when the first target torque is equal to or less than the second target torque (Wozniak, Para. 0042 – executing “torque control arbitration within an arbitration domain”, where control determines whether a TMAXLO, or first target torque, is “not greater than” TMAXHI, or a second target torque, and if so, “forwards TMAXLO as TRAD”, or arbitration target torque, “and control ends”), and set the arbitration target torque to the second target torque when the first target torque is greater than the second target torque (Wozniak, Para. 0042 – executing “torque control arbitration within an arbitration domain”, where control determines whether a TMAXLO, or first target torque, is “greater than” TMAXHI, or a second target torque, and if so, “forwards TMAXHI as TRAD”, or arbitration target torque, “and control ends”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Kato to include in response to execution of stability control for stabilizing behavior of the electric vehicle, set an arbitration target torque to the first target torque when the first target torque is equal to or less than the second target torque, and set the arbitration target torque to the second target torque when the first target torque is greater than the second target torque, as taught by Wozniak, in order to regulate the torque output of a vehicle powertrain to ensure stability of the vehicle and prevent potential damage.
Kato in view of Wozniak does not teach in response to a vehicle body speed not satisfying an allowable accuracy, set the arbitration target torque to the first target torque when the first target torque is equal to or greater than the second target torque, and set the arbitration target torque to the second target torque when the first target torque is less than the second target torque.
However, Kuwahara teaches in response to a vehicle body speed not satisfying an allowable accuracy (Kuwahara, Para. 0015-0017 and 0134 – determining that there is “a difference between the target rotational speed and either the actual output rotational speed of the drive source or the actual input rotational speed of the transmission”), set the arbitration target torque to the first target torque when the first target torque is equal to or greater than the second target torque, and set the arbitration target torque to the second target torque when the first target torque is less than the second target torque (Kuwahara, Para. 0007, 0015-0017, and 0134 – a state in “which the larger of the third target value and the fourth target value is selected as the fifth target value”; where the target values are “target engine torque[s]” and the “fifth target engine torque” is “used to control the engine” in order to “meet the requirements for engine output torque, i.e., the requirements for the driving force of the vehicle”, where there is a difference from the “target rotational speed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including the above limitations of Kato in view of Wozniak to include in response to a vehicle body speed not satisfying an allowable accuracy, set the arbitration target torque to the first target torque when the first target torque is equal to or greater than the second target torque, and set the arbitration target torque to the second target torque when the first target torque is less than the second target torque, as taught by Kuwahara, in order to “prevent the output of the drive source from becoming excessive or insufficient” (Kuwahara, Para. 0016).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Wozniak and Kuwahara, and further in view of Schmalholz, et al., hereinafter Schmalholz (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2014/0309825).
In regards to Claim 7, Kato in view of Wozniak and Kuwahara teaches the traction controller of Claim 1, and Kato teaches wherein the electric vehicle (Kato, Para. 0074 – “electric automobile”) includes the motor for each driving axle that transmits a driving force to left and right driving wheels, and the at least one program (Kato, Para. 0001 and 0187-0188 – “a traction control program”) is configured to cause the at least one processor to:
calculate the target rotational speed (Kato, Fig. 1 and Para. 0048, 0064, and 0082– where an “output of a rotational speed” of a driving wheel is determined in a control system; where the determining using the control system includes a desired slip ratio dependent transfer function) for each driving axle;
calculate the first target torque (Kato, Para. 0015 and 0049 – a “torque command value calculation part” for calculating the “the torque command value to be outputted to the motor for driving said driving wheel”; where the output of a rotational speed, omega, corresponds to “the torque command value”, such that the command value achieves the rotational speed) for each driving axle;
set the target driving force (Kato, Para. 0013, 0073-0074, 0112, and 0123 – where a drive force is proportional to the friction coefficient of the road surface and the normal force, and based on a road surface condition it is ensured that a “sufficient drive force” is reached) for each driving axle;
calculate the second target torque (Kato, Para. 0050-0053 – a “motor torque” block in the control system which is used in controlling to obtain the torque command value, or target torque, provided to the driving wheel) for each driving axle;
determine the arbitration target torque (Kato, Para. 0050-0053 – where the motor torque and torque command value, or target torque, are controlled and are provided to the driving wheel “as an actual torque value Tr”) for each driving axle; and
control the motor (Kato, Para. 0070 and 0202 – sending “motor drive signals” to the motors to “perform rotational motion” to apply the actual torque value) for each driving axle.
Kato does not teach wherein the vehicle includes the motor for each driving axle that transmits a driving force to left and right driving wheels, and calculating, determining, and controlling for each driving axle.
However, Schmalholz teaches wherein the vehicle includes the motor for each driving axle that transmits a driving force to left and right driving wheels (Schmalholz, Para. 0013 – where “each axle [is] driven by an electric machine”, or motor, “of the drive unit”), and calculating, determining, and controlling for each driving axle (Schmalholz, Claim 1 – determining a setpoint slip for each driven axle, and controlling the drive unit including each electric machines, dependent on the setpoint slip).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the traction controller including the above limitations of Kato in view of Wozniak to include wherein the vehicle includes the motor for each driving axle that transmits a driving force to left and right driving wheels and calculating, determining, and controlling for each driving axle, as taught by Schmalholz, in order to implement traction controlling to prevent slip and improve stability when operating a vehicle which has two driving axle motors, where it is less costly and unnecessary to have a motor for each wheel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kuwahara, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2008/0140283) teaches arbitrating in driving force between the target driving force of the manipulating system "A" and the target driving force of the supporting system "B" and outputting the selected target driving force as the target engine torque to the engine ECU.
Phillips, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2005/0060076) teaches resolving torque requests by arbitrating between a plurality of requested torques at two or more levels in order to satisfy the requests.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HELEN LI whose telephone number is (703)756-4719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9am to 5pm eastern.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665