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 communication is in response to Application 18/029,853 filed on 11/18/2025. Claims 1, 3-5, 7 and 11 have been amended. Claims 1-11 are pending and examined in the instant office action. The rejections are as stated below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/18/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims, thereby rendering previous rejections moot.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/18/2025, with respect to the objection to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the specification, thereby rendering previous objections moot.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/18/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are unpersuasive.
With respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1, Applicant argues the cited art of record fails to disclose a control method for an electric four-wheel drive vehicle" that includes: "acquiring a driving direction;" "acquiring an actual moving direction;" and "when the electric four-wheel drive vehicle is located on a sloped road surface having an incline and an accelerator position is zero, setting a basic driving force for the front wheel and the rear wheel to suppress rollback along the sloped road surface" and when a "front wheel" or a "rear wheel" is "... positioned on a section of the sloped road surface having a relatively low surface resistance" such that "... a road surface resistance between the front wheel and the rear wheel is different, applying a first driving force to the one wheel by implementing a limit for setting an upper limit value for a driving force generated in the one wheel.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to “acquiring a driving direction” and “acquiring an actual moving direction,” Kodama discloses determining vehicle operating state based on shift position and wheel behavior as part of its drive control system. Determining shift position necessarily constitutes acquiring a driving direction, and detecting wheel behavior and vehicle motion for control purposes necessarily constitutes acquiring an actual moving direction of the vehicle. The claim does not require any particular acquisition technique beyond obtaining this information, which Kodama does. Regarding the limitation of setting a basic driving force when the vehicle is located on a slope road surface, Kodama discloses vehicle start control on a sloping (uphill) road, including setting an acceleration “as1” for vehicle start on the slope. Setting acceleration for slope start requires generating a driving force sufficient to counteract gravitational force and prevent rollback. Thus, Kodama discloses setting a driving force when the vehicle is located on a sloped road surface (See at least ¶98). Further, Kodama discloses “upper limiting values for the acceleration ‘as1’” calculated such that no slip occurs (See at least ¶103). Kodama discloses that the upper limiting values decreases as the coefficient of friction decreases as road gradient increases. This constitutes an implementation of an upper limit value to prevent slip under differing surface resistance. Because vehicle acceleration is directly produced by wheel driving force (i.e. motor torque), setting an upper limiting acceleration implements an upper limit value for the driving force generated at the wheel. Accordingly, Kodama discloses each disputed limitations of amended independent claim 1. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 is therefore maintained.
Examiner notes same arguments apply to independent claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kodama et al., US 20090063000A1, hereinafter referred to as Kodama.
Regarding claim 1, Kodama discloses a control method for an electric four-wheel drive vehicle including a front drive source for driving a front wheel and a rear drive source for driving a rear wheel independently of the front wheel, the control method comprising (Power-train system having the engine and the automatic transmission apparatus is explained as a power generating device, which applies a positive torque to the vehicle (more exactly, to the driving wheels, i.e. front wheels and rear wheels) in case of acceleration control operation. However, an electric motor may be used as the power generating device (power-train system) – See at least ¶170):
acquiring a driving direction of the electric four-wheel drive vehicle based on an input state of a shift lever (The user interface has a switch for an automatic vehicle travel control, by which a vehicle driver outputs a command for the vehicle automatic travel. Furthermore, the user interface has a direction indicating device (such as a shift lever) for indicating a vehicle traveling direction – See at least ¶60);
acquiring an actual moving direction of the electric four-wheel drive vehicle (The vehicle traveling condition means a condition in which a vehicle is traveling in a direction required by the vehicle driver when the vehicle is required to change to the vehicle traveling condition – See at least ¶8); and
when the electric four-wheel drive vehicle is located on a sloped road surface having an incline and an accelerator position is zero, setting a basic driving force for the front wheel and the rear wheel to suppress rollback along the sloped road surface (A process for setting an acceleration (an acceleration “as1” for vehicle start on the sloping road), which is outputted from the vehicle start control portion for the sloping (uphill) road. Forces, i.e. basic driving force, applied to the vehicle on the sloping road are shown. As shown in FIG. 9, the force of gravity “Mg”, reaction force “Fry” to the driving wheel 16, (i.e. insufficient to advance the vehicle), in a direction perpendicular to the road surface, reaction force “Ffy” to the driven wheel 18, (i.e. but sufficient to maintain position of the vehicle on the inclined road surface), in a direction perpendicular to the road surface, and the driving force “Fx” are applied to the vehicle – See at least ¶98), and
when one wheel of the front wheel and the rear wheel is positioned on a section of the sloped road surface having a relatively low surface resistance such that a road surface resistance between the front wheel and the rear wheel is different, applying a driving force to the one wheel by implementing a limit for setting an upper limit value for a driving force generated in the one wheel (In FIG. 10, the upper limiting values for the acceleration “as1” for vehicle start on the sloping road, which are calculated based on the above formula (c4) and in which no slip may occur, are indicated by solid lines for respective sloping roads having road gradients of 8%, 12% and 18%. As shown in FIG. 10, the upper limiting values for the acceleration “as1” becomes smaller, as the coefficient of friction “μ” is smaller. Furthermore, the upper limiting values for the acceleration “as1” becomes smaller, as the road gradient is larger. In FIG. 10, one-dot-chain lines likewise show the upper limiting values for the acceleration “as1” for a vehicle of a front-wheel-driven type, whereas two-dot-chain lines likewise show the upper limiting values for the acceleration “as1” for a vehicle of a four wheel-driven type. In each of the cases, the upper limiting values for the acceleration “as1” becomes smaller, as the coefficient of friction “μ” becomes smaller or as the road gradient becomes larger – See at least ¶103 and FIG 10).
Regarding claim 2, Kodama discloses wherein the upper limit value is set for the driving force generated in the one wheel of the front wheel and the rear wheel in the actual moving direction (The upper limiting value (the guard value “ag” for the upper limit) is set based on the information regarding the road surface, and the actual vehicle acceleration is controlled to be lower than the guard value “ag”. As a result, the wheel slips can be also properly avoided when the operation for the vehicle start control is carried out – See at least ¶147).
Regarding claim 3, Kodama discloses driving an other of the front wheel and the rear wheel with a second driving force larger than the basic driving force (On the other hand, when the determination of the step S68 c is NO, the vehicle start control portion M6 determines at a step S68 e whether the manually required acceleration torque, i.e. driving force, based on the acceleration pedal stroke operated by the vehicle driver is larger than the electronically required power-train torque, i.e. basic driving force – See at least ¶115).
Regarding claim 8, Kodama discloses wherein the upper limit value is set in accordance with a vehicle speed (The vehicle start control portion calculates an upper limit of a guard value “ag” (the upper limiting value) for the acceleration “as1” for vehicle start on the sloping road, based on the formula (c4). The vehicle start control portion reads the actual vehicle speed “V”, and calculates, the acceleration “as1” for vehicle start on the sloping road based on the actual vehicle speed – See at least ¶119).
Regarding claim 9, Kodama discloses wherein the limit is implemented when an accelerator position is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value, and the limit is released when the accelerator position is larger than the predetermined threshold value (According to a still further feature of the invention, the automatic vehicle traveling means has an upper limit setting portion for setting an upper limit for vehicle acceleration based on the road information, and an acceleration control portion for controlling actual vehicle acceleration to be lower than the upper limit – See at least ¶19. The vehicle start control portion determines whether the acceleration “as1” for vehicle start on the sloping road is lower than the upper limit of the guard value “ag”. In case of NO, the acceleration “as1” for vehicle start on the sloping road is made to be an amount equal to the upper limit of the guard value “ag” – See at least ¶120).
Regarding claim 11, Kodama discloses a control device for an electric four-wheel drive vehicle including a front drive source for driving a front wheel and a rear drive source for driving a rear wheel independently of the front wheel (power-train system having the engine and the automatic transmission apparatus is explained as a power generating device, which applies a positive torque to the vehicle (more exactly, to the driving wheels, i.e. front wheels and rear wheels) in case of acceleration control operation. However, an electric motor may be used as the power generating device (power-train system) – See at least ¶170), wherein
a driving direction of the electric four-wheel drive vehicle is acquired based on an input state of a shift lever (The user interface has a switch for an automatic vehicle travel control, by which a vehicle driver outputs a command for the vehicle automatic travel. Furthermore, the user interface has a direction indicating device (such as a shift lever) for indicating a vehicle traveling direction – See at least ¶60),
an actual moving direction of the electric four-wheel drive vehicle is acquired (The vehicle traveling condition means a condition in which a vehicle is traveling in a direction required by the vehicle driver when the vehicle is required to change to the vehicle traveling condition – See at least ¶8), and
when the electric four-wheel drive vehicle is located on a sloped road surface having an incline and an accelerator position is zero, a basic driving force is set for the front wheel and the rear wheel to suppress rollback along the sloped road surface (an acceleration “as1” for vehicle start on the sloping road), which is outputted from the vehicle start control portion for the sloping (uphill) road. Forces, i.e. basic driving force, applied to the vehicle on the sloping road are shown. As shown in FIG. 9, the force of gravity “Mg”, reaction force “Fry” to the driving wheel 16, (i.e. insufficient to advance the vehicle), in a direction perpendicular to the road surface, reaction force “Ffy” to the driven wheel 18, (i.e. but sufficient to maintain position of the vehicle on the inclined road surface), in a direction perpendicular to the road surface, and the driving force “Fx” are applied to the vehicle – See at least ¶98), and
when one wheel of the front wheel and the rear wheel is positioned on a section of the sloped road surface having a relatively low surface resistance such that a road surface resistance between the front wheel and the rear wheel is different, applying a driving force to the one wheel by implementing a limit for setting an upper limit value for a driving force generated in the one wheel (In FIG. 10, the upper limiting values for the acceleration “as1” for vehicle start on the sloping road, which are calculated based on the above formula (c4) and in which no slip may occur, are indicated by solid lines for respective sloping roads having road gradients of 8%, 12% and 18%. As shown in FIG. 10, the upper limiting values for the acceleration “as1” becomes smaller, as the coefficient of friction “μ” is smaller. Furthermore, the upper limiting values for the acceleration “as1” becomes smaller, as the road gradient is larger. In FIG. 10, one-dot-chain lines likewise show the upper limiting values for the acceleration “as1” for a vehicle of a front-wheel-driven type, whereas two-dot-chain lines likewise show the upper limiting values for the acceleration “as1” for a vehicle of a four wheel-driven type. In each of the cases, the upper limiting values for the acceleration “as1” becomes smaller, as the coefficient of friction “μ” becomes smaller or as the road gradient becomes larger – See at least ¶103 and FIG 10).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodama et al., US 20090063000 A1, in view of Akio Sugawara et al., JP2021120254A, hereinafter referred to as Kodama and Sugawara, respectively.
Regarding claim 4, Kodama fails to explicitly disclose wherein an other wheel is driven with a third driving force larger than the basic driving force by adding at least a part of a reduced driving force of the one wheel to a driving force generated in the other wheel.
However, Sugawara teaches wherein an other wheel is driven with a third driving force larger than the basic driving force by adding at least a part of a reduced driving force of the one wheel to a driving force generated in the other wheel (A first driving force source connected to the front wheels and a second driving force source connected to the rear wheels – See at least ¶6. When there is a possibility that a vehicle configured to be driven by different driving force sources for the front wheels and the rear wheels may vibrate, the output torque of one driving force source is reduced. It is configured to increase the output torque of the other driving force source, in other words, to change the driving force ratio from a predetermined ratio while maintaining the driving force of the vehicle as a whole – See at least ¶7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kodama and include the feature of wherein an other wheel is driven with a third driving force larger than the basic driving force by adding at least a part of a reduced driving force of the one wheel to a driving force generated in the other wheel, as taught by Sugawara, to reduce vehicle vibration while suppressing a decrease in a vehicle driving force (See at least ¶6 of Akio).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodama et al., US 20090063000 A1, in view of Takayama et al., JP2008132892A, hereinafter referred to as Kodama and Takayama, respectively.
Regarding claim 5, Kodama fails to explicitly disclose wherein a total amount of the basic driving force is kept constant by driving the other wheel with third driving force, which is obtained by subtracting the driving force generated in the one wheel for which the upper limit value is set from the total amount of the basic driving force generated in the front wheel and the rear wheel.
However, Takayama teaches wherein a total amount of the basic driving force is kept constant by driving the other wheel with third driving force, which is obtained by subtracting the driving force generated in the one wheel for which the upper limit value is set from the total amount of the basic driving force generated in the front wheel and the rear wheel (The rear wheel driving force command value determining unit and the front wheel driving force command value determining unit set the rear wheel driving force output to the rear wheel driving force command value, and calculate the rear wheel driving force command from the total driving force. The value obtained by subtracting the value is used as the front wheel drive force command value – See at least ¶56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kodama and include the feature of wherein a total amount of the basic driving force is kept constant by driving the other wheel with third driving force, which is obtained by subtracting the driving force generated in the one wheel for which the upper limit value is set from the total amount of the basic driving force generated in the front wheel and the rear wheel, as taught by Takayama, to provide a driving force distribution control device for a four-wheel drive vehicle capable of improving acceleration while improving slip convergence (See at least ¶4 of Takayama).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodama et al., US 20090063000 A1, in view of Masataka Mita, et al., JP2008230465A, hereinafter referred to as Kodama and Mita, respectively.
Regarding claim 6, Kodama fails to explicitly disclose wherein the basic driving force is calculated based on a rotation speed of the other wheel.
However, Mita teaches wherein the basic driving force is calculated based on a rotation speed of the other wheel (In the conventional driving force, i.e. basic driving force, distribution device, when differential rotation occurs between the front wheels and the rear wheels in the accelerator off state, the command torque is calculated only by the second torque calculated based on the vehicle speed and the differential rotation speed – See at least ¶21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kodama and include the feature of wherein the basic driving force is calculated based on a rotation speed of the other wheel, as taught by Mita, to improve traction performance when the main driving wheel is on a low road surface (See at least ¶5 of Mita).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodama et al., US 20090063000 A1, in view of Masahito Taira et al., JP5708822B2, hereinafter referred to as Kodama and Taira, respectively.
Regarding claim 7, Kodama fails to explicitly disclose wherein the upper limit value is set within a range in which the one wheel grips all the sloped road surface.
However, Taira teaches wherein the upper limit value is set within a range in which the one wheel grips all the sloped road surface (Grip limit torque can be output under the current road surface condition is estimated according to the estimated road surface friction coefficient. The grip limit torque corresponds to an upper limit value that can suppress the slip tendency of the rear wheels 1RL and 1RR under the current road surface condition, i.e. inclined road surface – See at least ¶24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kodama and include the feature of wherein the upper limit value is set within a range in which the one wheel grips all the sloped road surface, as taught by Taira, to improve acceleration performance of a vehicle by reliably recovering the grip when a slip tendency of a drive wheel is detected (See at least ¶4 of Taira).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodama et al., US 20090063000 A1, in view of Leibbrandt et al., US 20090127012 A1, hereinafter referred to as Kodama and Leibbrandt, respectively.
Regarding claim 10, Kodama fails to explicitly disclose wherein the limit is released when the one wheel rotates in a direction opposite to the driving direction.
However, Leibbrandt teaches wherein the limit is released when the one wheel rotates in a direction opposite to the driving direction (The method according to the invention provides that in case a rollback action is detected when the brakes of a vehicle are released, i.e. a movement of the vehicle in opposite direction as the predetermined direction of movement, the torque transmission is influenced such that a torque is transmitted via the drive train acting against the rollback direction so that the rollback acceleration is decreased depending on the incline of the road and or the torque is reduced to zero, and finally accelerates the vehicle into the opposite direction, i.e. into the desired direction of movement – See at least ¶7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kodama and include the feature of wherein the limit is released when the one wheel rotates in a direction opposite to the driving direction, as taught by Leibbrandt, to prevent an uncontrolled rollback of a motor vehicle by influencing the torque transmission by the drive train (See at least ¶6 of Leibbrandt).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Han et al., (US 20190176827 A1) discloses “a system for controlling braking energy regeneration step variably and a method thereof, in which driving conditions depending on a road gradient are determined along with a paddle shift manual input of a driver to control a regeneration step variably to thereby minimize unnecessary paddle shift input, acceleration, and braking operations, thereby improving driving convenience and fuel efficiency on a real road.”
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 MAHMOUD M KAZIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-3436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm.
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 5712703713. 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.
/M.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/David P. Merlino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665