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 with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 4, 6-7, 9-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikami, et al., hereinafter Mikami (U.S. Patent No. 6,549,840) in view of Yang, et al., hereinafter Yang (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2016/0325744), and further in view of Minh, et al., hereinafter Minh (Minh, et al., “Development of a real-time clutch transition strategy for a parallel hybrid electric vehicle”, June 2011, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part 1, Pages 188-203).
Regarding Claim 1, Mikami teaches: A vehicle including a slope driving assist function (Mikami, Col. 8 Lines 42-60 – a “vehicle control apparatus” that is “adapted to apply an assisting drive force to the automotive vehicle upon starting of the automotive vehicle on an uphill road surface”), the vehicle comprising:
a clutch including a first end and a second end (Mikami, Col. 5 Lines 48-54 and Col. 66 Lines 18-38 – “a drive force distributing clutch”),
an engine connected to the first end of the clutch (Mikami, Col. 23 Line 52-Col. 24 Line 11 – wherein the “engine 14” is connected to a “first clutch C1” through different mechanical components of a “continuously variable transmission”);
a first motor and a second motor (Mikami, Col. 8 Lines 6-33 and Col. 42 Line 55-Col. 43 Line 46 – “first and second electric motors”; specifically where one motor is a front motor generator, or “MG”, and the other motor is a rear motor generator, or “RMG”, as they will be referred to hereon); and
a control unit configured to determine a compensation torque based on a gradient resistance according to a gradient of a driving road on which the vehicle is driving (Mikami, Col. 56 Line 34-Col. 57 Line 21 – a “hybrid control device” which is “arranged to control the vehicle drive force such that the assisting drive force dF corresponding to the gradient of the uphill road surface as represented by the longitudinal acceleration value”, or gradient resistance, is “applied to the drive wheels”) and allocate a total required torque including the compensation torque and driver's required torque to at least one of the first motor and the second motor based on whether the total required torque where an “increased desired drive force”, which is a sum of the “assisting drive force” and an “operator's desired vehicle drive force”, is applied to “the front wheels” and “the rear wheels” based on a “ratio of front-rear distribution of the vehicle drive force during starting of the vehicle is determined by the gradient of the uphill road surface”; where the front wheels are operated by the MG and the rear wheels are operated by the RMG),
While Mikami teaches allocate a total required torque including the compensation torque and driver's required torque to at least one of the first motor and the second motor according to whether the total required torque is outputted from the second motor, Mikami does not fully teach allocate a total required torque to at least one of the first motor and the second motor based on whether the total required torque can be fully outputted from the second motor. Additionally, while Mikami teaches a clutch, and an engine connected to the first end of the clutch, Mikami does not teach a clutch including a first end and a second end, and selectively engages the first end and the second end, wherein the first motor is connected to the engine and the first end of the clutch, and wherein the second motor is connected to the second end of the clutch.
However, Yang teaches allocate a total required torque to at least one of the first motor and the second motor based on whether the total required torque can be fully outputted from the second motor (Yang, Fig. 23 and Para. 0285-0292 – where the “the required torque Tc of the current cruise mode of the vehicle with the output torque upper limit Tm2 of the second motor generator, to determine the range of the required torque Tc of the current cruise mode”, and when “it is determined that the output torque upper limit Tm2 of the second motor generator is greater than or equal to the required torque Tc”, the “second motor generator” is controlled to output “the required torque Tc”; however, if the second motor generator is unable to output the required torque, i.e. “the output torque upper limit Tm2 of the second motor generator is less than the required torque Tc”, the “second motor generator and the first motor generator” are controlled to “successively perform torque compensation output” such that “the second motor generator performs output according to the output torque upper limit Tm2 of the second motor generator, and the first motor generator compensates for the remaining torque”; See Fig. 23 for visualization of the process). Additionally, Yang teaches a clutch including a first end and a second end, and selectively engages the first end and the second end (Yang, Fig. 1 and Para. 0045-0046, 0054, 0061, 0149 – a “power transmission system” including a “power switching device”, wherein the power switching device may either be a “a synchronizer 6” or “a clutch 9”, to “selectively output a power generated by the engine unit 1 to the transmission unit 2a via the clutch 9”).
PNG
media_image1.png
330
804
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yang, Fig. 1
PNG
media_image2.png
2344
1857
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yang, Fig. 23
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 vehicle of Mikami to include a clutch including a first end and a second end, and selectively engages the first end and the second end, and allocate a total required torque to at least one of the first motor and the second motor based on whether the total required torque can be fully outputted from the second motor, as taught by Yang, in order to only utilize a singular motor when the torque required does not required both motors to reduce costs and energy consumption for lower torque maneuvers.
Mikami in view of Yang does not explicitly teach the structure wherein the first motor is connected to the engine and the first end of the clutch, and wherein the second motor is connected to the second end of the clutch.
Minh teaches wherein the first motor is connected to the engine and the first end of the clutch, and wherein the second motor is connected to the second end of the clutch (Minh, Fig. 1 and Page 189 – a “configuration of a very common parallel HEV system” including an “automatically controllable clutch separates the drivetrain into two parts: part 1 comprising ICE with EM1 and part 2 comprising EM2 and the rest of the transmission”, where the clutch can be engaged or disengaged depending on the situation, for example in “critical times on the demand of the driver under very heavy loads or in emergency cases where needed, both EM1 and EM2 can be automatically turned on to join with the ICE to propel the vehicle”; where as shown on Fig. 1, the first electric motor EM1 is located on one end of the clutch and the second electric motor EM2 is located on the other end).
PNG
media_image3.png
413
827
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Minh, Fig. 1
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 vehicle including the above limitations of Mikami in view of Yang to include wherein the first motor is connected to the engine and the first end of the clutch, and wherein the second motor is connected to the second end of the clutch, as taught by Minh, in order to provide torque compensation strategies to “very common parallel HEV system[s]” to enhance driving comfort and reduce jerk for parallel HEVs.
In regards to Claim 4, Mikami in view of Yang and Minh teaches the vehicle of Claim 1, and Mikami further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to determine the compensation torque in further consideration of a road surface condition of the driving road, and wherein the road surface condition is determined based on a preset value or a road type (Mikami, Col. 2 Lines 47-63, Col. 61 Lines 1-20, and Col. 62 Lines 6-36 – “the vehicle can be driven in the four-wheel driving mode with the operator's desired vehicle drive force or torque” with “the front and rear drive forces” being determined “so as to reflect the static and dynamic states of the vehicle and the road surface condition”, such as a “low friction coefficient”; where “the operator's desired value of the vehicle drive force is calculated on the basis” of “the road surface condition such as the friction coefficient and gradient of the road surface” such that “the sum of the front and rear drive forces is equal to the calculated operator's desired value of the vehicle drive force”).
In regards to Claim 6, Mikami in view of Yang and Minh teaches the vehicle of Claim 1, and Mikami further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to check driving behavior of the vehicle according to outputting of the total required torque by at least one of the first motor and the second motor, determine a degree of matching between the driving behavior and a preset target behavior, and adjust the compensation torque so that the degree of matching is equal to or greater than a preset value when the degree of matching is less than the preset value (Mikami, Col. 42 Lines 55-64 and Col. 49 Lines 23-44 – where when providing the total required torque by the MG and the RMG, a “comparatively high degree of running stability of the vehicle”, is maintained, where the running stability is the vehicle behavior; for example, gradually reducing the drive force of the RMG to maintain the running stability of the vehicle, while still obtaining the “the desired total vehicle drive force”).
In regards to Claim 7, Mikami in view of Yang and Minh teaches the vehicle of Claim 6, and Mikami further teaches wherein the target behavior is determined based on the driving behavior of the vehicle at a predetermined gradient (Mikami, Col. 9 Lines 24-50 and Col. 56 Line 34-Col. 57 Line 21 – “the vehicle drive force may be determined on the basis of the gradient of the road surface” for a “predetermined range” of the gradient).
In regards to Claim 9, Mikami in view of Yang and Minh teaches the vehicle of Claim 1, and Mikami further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to allocate the total required torque so that the total required torque is outputted through the second motor (Mikami, Col. 49 Lines 23-44 and Col. 51 Line 57-Col. 53 Line 9 – where for example, the drive force of a RMG is limited and determined to be unnecessary, such that the drive force of the RMG is zeroed and the front wheel motor generator, MG, or second motor, provides the “desired total vehicle drive force”).
In regards to Claim 10, Mikami in view of Yang and Minh teaches the vehicle of Claim 9, and Mikami further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to control so that the first motor charges a battery according to a state of charge (SOC) value of the battery if the first motor generates power when the total required torque is outputted from the second motor (Mikami, Col. 26 Line 44-Col. 27 Line 25 – where an inverter may provide “an electric current to be generated by the RMG 70 to charge the electric energy storing device” on the basis of “an amount of electric energy SOC stored in the electric energy storing device”, and etc., where vehicle “is driven in the forward direction primarily by the MG”).
In regards to Claim 11, Mikami in view of Yang and Minh teaches the vehicle of Claim 1, and Mikami further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to allocate the total required torque so that output of the total required torque is split between the first motor and the second motor when all the total required torque is not outputted from the second motor (Mikami, Col. 56 Line 34-Col. 57 Line 21 and Col. 57 Line 44-Col. 58 Line 3 – where a desired total vehicle drive force is provided by a front motor generator MG and a rear motor generator RMG, where a “ratio of front-rear distribution of the vehicle drive force during starting of the vehicle is determined by the gradient of the uphill road surface, that is, determined by the assisting drive force dF, which is applied to the rear wheels, for instance”).
In regards to Claim 12, Mikami in view of Yang and Minh teaches the vehicle of Claim 11, and Mikami further teaches wherein in a case that a torque output of the first motor or the second motor is limited when all the total required torque is not outputted from the second motor (Mikami, Col. 10 Lines 8-22 – where the rear motor generator RMG is operated “such that the output torque” is “held within one of the output torque ranges which is selected by the output-torque-range selecting means on the basis of the operating state of the vehicle”), the control unit is configured to allocate the compensation torque to a motor among the first and second motors with limited torque output and the driver's required torque to another motor among the first and second motors (Mikami, Col. 56 Line 34-Col. 57 Line 21 and Col. 63 Line 39-56 – where it is determined at what “output torque range” the RMG is operated at based on a gradient; where the vehicle is driven in a “four-wheel driving mode with the RMG 70 being operated within the first output torque range to drive the rear wheels”, such that the front motor generator MG is driving the front wheels, to provide the “desired vehicle drive force”).
In regards to Claim 13, Mikami in view of Yang and Minh teaches the vehicle of Claim 12, and Mikami further teaches wherein the case in which the torque output of the first motor or the second motor is limited includes at least one of failure of the first motor or the second motor and overheating of the first motor or the second motor (Mikami, Col. 10 Lines 8-22 – where the rear motor generator RMG is operated “such that the output torque” is “held within one of the output torque ranges which is selected by the output-torque-range selecting means on the basis of the operating state of the vehicle”, where the limit is based on “an overheating or a temperature rise” of the RMG).
Regarding Claim 15, Mikami teaches: A method of controlling a vehicle including a slope driving assist function (Mikami, Col. 8 Lines 42-60 – a “vehicle control apparatus” that is “adapted to apply an assisting drive force to the automotive vehicle upon starting of the automotive vehicle on an uphill road surface”), the method comprising:
determining, by a control unit, compensation torque based on a gradient resistance according to a gradient of a driving road on which the vehicle is driving (Mikami, Col. 56 Line 34-Col. 57 Line 21 – a “hybrid control device” which is “arranged to control the vehicle drive force such that the assisting drive force dF corresponding to the gradient of the uphill road surface as represented by the longitudinal acceleration value”, or gradient resistance, is “applied to the drive wheels”);
and allocating, by the control unit, a total required torque including the compensation torque and driver's required torque to at least one of a first motor and a second motor based on whether the total required torque where an “increased desired drive force”, which is a sum of the “assisting drive force” and an “operator's desired vehicle drive force”, is applied to “the front wheels” and “the rear wheels” based on a “ratio of front-rear distribution of the vehicle drive force during starting of the vehicle is determined by the gradient of the uphill road surface”; where the front wheels are operated by the MG and the rear wheels are operated by the RMG),
wherein the engine is connected to the first end of the clutch (Mikami, Col. 23 Line 52-Col. 24 Line 11 – wherein the “engine 14” is connected to a “first clutch C1” through different mechanical components of a “continuously variable transmission”).
While Mikami teaches allocate a total required torque including the compensation torque and driver's required torque to at least one of the first motor and the second motor according to whether the total required torque is outputted from the second motor, Mikami does not fully teach allocate a total required torque to at least one of the first motor and the second motor based on whether the total required torque can be fully outputted from the second motor. Additionally, while Mikami teaches the clutch, Mikami does not teach wherein the first motor is connected to an engine and a first end of a clutch, wherein the second motor is connected to a second end of the clutch, wherein the clutch selectively engages the first end and the second end.
However, Yang teaches allocate a total required torque to at least one of the first motor and the second motor based on whether the total required torque can be fully outputted from the second motor (Yang, Fig. 23 and Para. 0285-0292 – where the “the required torque Tc of the current cruise mode of the vehicle with the output torque upper limit Tm2 of the second motor generator, to determine the range of the required torque Tc of the current cruise mode”, and when “it is determined that the output torque upper limit Tm2 of the second motor generator is greater than or equal to the required torque Tc”, the “second motor generator” is controlled to output “the required torque Tc”; however, if the second motor generator is unable to output the required torque, i.e. “the output torque upper limit Tm2 of the second motor generator is less than the required torque Tc”, the “second motor generator and the first motor generator” are controlled to “successively perform torque compensation output” such that “the second motor generator performs output according to the output torque upper limit Tm2 of the second motor generator, and the first motor generator compensates for the remaining torque”; See Fig. 23 for visualization of the process). Additionally, Yang teaches the clutch selectively engages a first end and a second end (Yang, Fig. 1 and Para. 0045-0046, 0054, 0061, 0149 – a “power transmission system” including a “power switching device”, wherein the power switching device may either be a “a synchronizer 6” or “a clutch 9”, to “selectively output a power generated by the engine unit 1 to the transmission unit 2a via the clutch 9”).
PNG
media_image1.png
330
804
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yang, Fig. 1
PNG
media_image2.png
2344
1857
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yang, Fig. 23
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 Mikami to include the clutch selectively engages a first end and a second end, and allocate a total required torque to at least one of the first motor and the second motor based on whether the total required torque can be fully outputted from the second motor, as taught by Yang, in order to only utilize a singular motor when the torque required does not required both motors to reduce costs and energy consumption for lower torque maneuvers.
Mikami in view of Yang does not explicitly teach the structure wherein the first motor is connected to the engine and the first end of the clutch, and wherein the second motor is connected to the second end of the clutch.
Minh teaches wherein the first motor is connected to an engine and a first end of a clutch, wherein the second motor is connected to a second end of the clutch, wherein the clutch selectively engages the first end and the second end (Minh, Fig. 1 and Page 189 – a “configuration of a very common parallel HEV system” including an “automatically controllable clutch separates the drivetrain into two parts: part 1 comprising ICE with EM1 and part 2 comprising EM2 and the rest of the transmission”, where the clutch can be engaged or disengaged depending on the situation, for example in “critical times on the demand of the driver under very heavy loads or in emergency cases where needed, both EM1 and EM2 can be automatically turned on to join with the ICE to propel the vehicle”; where as shown on Fig. 1, the first electric motor EM1 is located on one end of the clutch and the second electric motor EM2 is located on the other end).
PNG
media_image3.png
413
827
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Minh, Fig. 1
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 vehicle including the above limitations of Mikami in view of Yang to include wherein the first motor is connected to an engine and a first end of a clutch, wherein the second motor is connected to a second end of the clutch, wherein the clutch selectively engages the first end and the second end, as taught by Minh, in order to provide torque compensation strategies to “very common parallel HEV system[s]” to enhance driving comfort and reduce jerk for parallel HEVs.
In regards to Claim 16, Mikami in view of Yang and Minh teaches the method of Claim 15, and Mikami teaches wherein the control unit is configured to determine the compensation torque in further consideration of at least one of a compensation coefficient applied to the gradient resistance, a weight condition of the vehicle, wherein the weight condition is determined based on driving behavior of the vehicle related to a preset value or an output torque for each vehicle, and a road surface condition of the driving road, wherein the road surface condition is determined based on a preset value or a road type (Mikami, Col. 2 Lines 47-63, Col. 61 Lines 1-20, and Col. 62 Lines 6-36 – “the vehicle can be driven in the four-wheel driving mode with the operator's desired vehicle drive force or torque” with “the front and rear drive forces” being determined “so as to reflect the static and dynamic states of the vehicle and the road surface condition”, such as a “low friction coefficient”; where “the operator's desired value of the vehicle drive force is calculated on the basis” of “the road surface condition such as the friction coefficient and gradient of the road surface” such that “the sum of the front and rear drive forces is equal to the calculated operator's desired value of the vehicle drive force”).
In regards to Claim 17, Mikami in view of Yang and Minh teaches the method of Claim 15, and Mikami teaches, wherein the control unit is configured to check driving behavior of the vehicle according to outputting of the total required torque by at least one of the first motor and the second motor, determine a degree of matching between the driving behavior and a preset target behavior, and adjust the compensation torque so that the degree of matching is equal to or greater than a preset value when the degree of matching is less than the preset value (Mikami, Col. 42 Lines 55-64 and Col. 49 Lines 23-44 – where when providing the total required torque by the MG and the RMG, a “comparatively high degree of running stability of the vehicle”, is maintained, where the running stability is the vehicle behavior; for example, gradually reducing the drive force of the RMG to maintain the running stability of the vehicle, while still obtaining the “the desired total vehicle drive force”).
In regards to Claim 19, Mikami in view of Yang and Minh teaches the method of Claim 15, and Mikami further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to allocate the total required torque so that the total required torque is outputted through the second motor (Mikami, Col. 49 Lines 23-44 and Col. 51 Line 57-Col. 53 Line 9 – where for example, the drive force of a RMG is limited and determined to be unnecessary, such that the drive force of the RMG is zeroed and the front wheel motor generator, MG, or second motor, provides the “desired total vehicle drive force”).
In regards to Claim 20, Mikami in view of Yang and Minh teaches the method of Claim 15, and Mikami further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to allocate the total required torque so that output of the total required torque is split between the first motor and the second motor when all the total required torque is not outputted from the second motor (Mikami, Col. 56 Line 34-Col. 57 Line 21 and Col. 57 Line 44-Col. 58 Line 3 – where a desired total vehicle drive force is provided by a front motor generator MG and a rear motor generator RMG, where a “ratio of front-rear distribution of the vehicle drive force during starting of the vehicle is determined by the gradient of the uphill road surface, that is, determined by the assisting drive force dF, which is applied to the rear wheels, for instance”).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikami in view of Yang and Minh, and further in view of Park (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2016/0214504).
In regards to Claim 2, Mikami in view of Yang and Minh teaches the vehicle of Claim 1, and Mikami teaches wherein the control unit is configured to determine the compensation torque (Mikami, Para. 148 – the “hybrid control device” is “arranged to control the vehicle drive force such that the assisting drive force dF corresponding to the gradient of the uphill road surface” is applied), but Mikami in view of Yang does not teach determine the compensation torque in further consideration of a compensation coefficient applied to the gradient resistance.
However, Park teaches determine the compensation torque in further consideration of a compensation coefficient applied to the gradient resistance (Park, Para. 0192-0194 – calculating a “force Ff for stopping the vehicle” based on a “skid force Fr is applied to the electric vehicle” by gravity multiplied by a coefficient “α [which] is a preset momentum weighted value” when determining a “reference torque”; where the “skid force” is the gradient resistance and the force Ff is represented by the equation αmgsinθ).
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 vehicle including the above limitations of Mikami in view of Yang and Minh to include determine the compensation torque in further consideration of a compensation coefficient applied to the gradient resistance, as taught by Park, in order to compensate for a gradient resistance force acting on a vehicle caused by gravity when calculating an assisting, or compensation, torque, to be generated when the vehicle is on a road with a gradient.
In regards to Claim 3, Mikami in view of Yang and Minh teaches the vehicle of Claim 1, and Mikami teaches wherein the control unit is configured to determine the compensation torque (Mikami, Para. 148 – the “hybrid control device” is “arranged to control the vehicle drive force such that the assisting drive force dF corresponding to the gradient of the uphill road surface” is applied), but Mikami in view of Yang does not teach determine the compensation torque in further consideration of a weight condition of the vehicle, and wherein the weight condition is determined based on driving behavior of the vehicle related to a preset value or an output torque for each vehicle.
However, Park teaches determine the compensation torque in further consideration of a weight condition of the vehicle, and wherein the weight condition is determined based on driving behavior of the vehicle related to a preset value or an output torque for each vehicle (Park, Para. 0177 and 0194 – “the reference torque generating unit 183 included in the control unit 180 may correct the reference torque by reflecting the total weight m of the electric vehicle 100”; where the total weight is determined by a weight sensor which detects “empty vehicle weight, passenger weight, and cargo weight”).
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 vehicle including the above limitations of Mikami in view of Yang and Minh to include determine the compensation torque in further consideration of a weight condition of the vehicle, and wherein the weight condition is determined based on driving behavior of the vehicle related to a preset value or an output torque for each vehicle, as taught by Park, in order to account for the total vehicle weight when calculating an assisting, or compensation torque, when a vehicle is on an gradient, or incline, as the weight of the vehicle affects the gradient resistance force acting upon the vehicle.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikami in view of Yang and Minh, and further in view of Kim, et al., hereinafter Kim (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2011/0106427).
In regards to Claim 5, Mikami in view of Yang and Minh teaches the vehicle of Claim 4, but Mikami in view of Yang does not teach further including an audio/video/navigation/telematics (AVNT) terminal for identifying a current location of the vehicle, wherein the road type is determined based on the current location of the vehicle identified through the AVNT terminal.
However, Kim teaches further including an audio/video/navigation/telematics (AVNT) terminal for identifying a current location of the vehicle (Kim, Para. 0029, 0034, and 0062 – “a vehicle navigation system”, including a “telematics terminal”, and a “mobile communication terminal”, including a “wireless communication module” having a “location information module”, for determining a location of the mobile terminal), wherein the road type is determined based on the current location of the vehicle identified through the AVNT terminal (Kim, Para. 0062, 0065, 0096, and 0121 – where the telematics terminal receives “traffic information through a long-range wireless communication network” and provides “a road guide service based on a GPS signal received through a satellite 10 and the traffic information”; where the traffic information includes “road conditions”, such as “a raining or wet road section, a snowing, ice or slick road section, a foggy road section”).
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 vehicle including the above limitations of Mikami in view of Yang and Minh to include further including an audio/video/navigation/telematics (AVNT) terminal for identifying a current location of the vehicle, wherein the road type is determined based on the current location of the vehicle identified through the AVNT terminal, as taught by Kim, in order to provide a method of obtaining detailed road information by utilizing known information from communications such that the vehicle torque output can be adjusted according to more accurate road information.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikami in view Yang and Minh, and further in view of Kim, hereinafter Kim 2 (Korean Patent No. 10-1826674).
In regards to Claim 8, Mikami in view of Yang and Minh teaches the vehicle of Claim 1, and Mikami teaches the first motor and the second motor and the compensation torque is outputted through at least one of the first motor and the second motor (Mikami, Col. 56 Line 34-Col. 58 Line 52 – where an “increased desired drive force”, which is a sum of the “assisting drive force” and an “operator's desired vehicle drive force”, is applied to “the front wheels” and “the rear wheels” based on a “ratio of front-rear distribution of the vehicle drive force during starting of the vehicle is determined by the gradient of the uphill road surface”; where the front wheels are operated by the MG and the rear wheels are operated by the RMG) but Mikami does not teach wherein the control unit is configured to reserve at least a portion of an available torque of a motor, which is to output the compensation torque according to the allocation until the compensation torque is outputted through the motor.
However, Kim 2 teaches wherein the control unit is configured to reserve at least a portion of an available torque of a motor, which is to output the compensation torque according to the allocation until the compensation torque is outputted through the motor (Kim 2, Para. 0013-0020 and 0049 – where a “strategy of securing the power generation torque of the power generation machine element as reserve torque can secure reserve torque” and the reserve torque is used to “quickly provide the secured reserve torque when a demand torque is generated”, for example where the demand torque is “the torque required when starting off on a slope”, where the motor can then provide the demand torque following the reserve torque).
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 vehicle including the above limitations of Mikami in view of Yang and Minh to include wherein the control unit is configured to reserve at least a portion of an available torque of a motor, which is to output the compensation torque according to the allocation until the compensation torque is outputted through the motor, as taught by Kim 2, in order to provide a method of providing the compensation torque at a faster speed to meet a user’s demands due to a slope.
In regards to Claim 18, Mikami in view of Yang and Minh teaches the method of Claim 15, and Mikami teaches the first motor and the second motor and the compensation torque is outputted through at least one of the first motor and the second motor (Mikami, Col. 56 Line 34-Col. 58 Line 52 – where an “increased desired drive force”, which is a sum of the “assisting drive force” and an “operator's desired vehicle drive force”, is applied to “the front wheels” and “the rear wheels” based on a “ratio of front-rear distribution of the vehicle drive force during starting of the vehicle is determined by the gradient of the uphill road surface”; where the front wheels are operated by the MG and the rear wheels are operated by the RMG) but Mikami does not teach wherein the control unit is configured to reserve at least a portion of an available torque of a motor, which is to output the compensation torque according to the allocation until the compensation torque is outputted through the motor.
However, Kim 2 teaches wherein the control unit is configured to reserve at least a portion of an available torque of a motor, which is to output the compensation torque according to the allocation until the compensation torque is outputted through the motor (Kim 2, Para. 0013-0020 and 0049 – where a “strategy of securing the power generation torque of the power generation machine element as reserve torque can secure reserve torque” and the reserve torque is used to “quickly provide the secured reserve torque when a demand torque is generated”, for example where the demand torque is “the torque required when starting off on a slope”, where the motor can then provide the demand torque following the reserve torque).
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 Mikami in view of Yang and Minh to include wherein the control unit is configured to reserve at least a portion of an available torque of a motor, which is to output the compensation torque according to the allocation until the compensation torque is outputted through the motor, as taught by Kim 2, in order to provide a method of providing the compensation torque at a faster speed to meet a user’s demands due to a slope.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikami in view of Yang and Minh, and further in view of Smith (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2021/0188238).
In regards to Claim 14, Mikami in view of Yang teaches the vehicle of Claim 1, and Mikami teaches the control unit is configured to control so that the compensation torque is outputted through at least one of the first motor and the second motor, but Mikami in view of Yang does not teach wherein the control unit is configured to control so that the compensation torque is outputted when a request for activation of the slope driving assist function is inputted.
However, Smith teaches wherein the control unit is configured to control so that the compensation torque is outputted when a request for activation of the slope driving assist function is inputted (Smith, Para. 0045 – “the microcontroller 126 can also be communicatively coupled to a hill assist selector 220, such as, for example, a button, switch, or other user operated or selected input device”, for enabling a “hill assist feature” to generate “torque that is sufficient to prevent… movement or rolling”).
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 vehicle including the above limitations of Mikami in view of Yang and Minh to include wherein the control unit is configured to control so that the compensation torque is outputted when a request for activation of the slope driving assist function is inputted, as taught by Smith, in order to provide a method to enable slope driving assistance to the user such that slope driving is easier comparatively for the user with the help of automated torque compensation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Larsson (WIPO Patent Pub. No. 2010/144042) teaches system for controlling an electrical machine in a hybrid vehicle which comprises a combustion engine and a battery which is connected to said electrical machine comprising a clutch “which can jointly disconnect the combustion engine from the rest of the power train”.
Hoffmeister, et al. (European Patent App. Pub. No. 2 757 005) teaches a method for temporarily holding a motor vehicle on a gradient, wherein the motor vehicle has a drive train which has an internal combustion engine, a clutch connected to the internal combustion engine, a transmission connected to the clutch and having at least two gear stages, a drive axle connected to the transmission and a control device, wherein an electric machine is connected or can be connected to an input of the transmission.
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