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
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Application No. 18/163,141 filed on 02/01/2023 were examined. Examiner filed a non-final rejection on 02/12/2025.
Applicant filed remarks and amendments on 05/01/2025. Claims 1-2, 7-9, 11, 14-16 and 18 were amended. Claims 1-20 are presented and pending examination.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the objections to drawings: applicant’s remarks filed 05/01/2025 have resolved the objections previously indicated in the non-final office action. Accordingly, the previously given objections are withdrawn.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 103: Applicant's arguments filed 05/01/2025 with respect to HUBER et al. (US 20240253474 A1) in view of Artail et al. (US 20210171015 A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that, “Huber does not teach or suggest the features of monitoring a control axle torque at a transmission control module associated with a first transmission, receiving a transmission control module torque request from the transmission control module indicative of the control axle torque, and coordinating, at the first motor processor, an allocation of the torque command into a first motor torque at the first motor and a transmission torque at the first transmission to fulfill the transmission control module torque request, as specified in amended claim 1” (emphasis applicant’s) (See at least Page 12-13 in the Remarks).
However, this argument is not persuasive, Huber discloses a first motor processor associated with a first motor vehicle that manages torque commands, stating, “wherein pairs of operating points of the first and second electric motors are selected in such a way that, while remaining within the threshold value for torque and/or the threshold value for power, an optimised operation in terms of efficiency is achieved in at least one of the two electric motors” (Huber, ¶ [0068]), which a skilled artisan would recognize as capable of interfacing with control systems, including those managing torque distribution. Artail teaches a hybrid electric vehicle with torque transfer between axles, noting, “The vehicle may still be propelled via the second electrical path 206. To decelerate the vehicle in response to a braking request, third electric machine 49 may be used to provide negative torque to rear wheels 130 for regenerative braking, and a braking distribution between front axle 124 and rear axle 128 may be maintained via the use of friction braking (e.g. friction brakes 115) applied to front wheels 36. The amount of positive torque provided to rear wheels 130 may be a continuously variable amount, subject to lateral stability considerations, similar to that mentioned above. Along similar lines, the amount of negative torque provided to rear wheels 130 in response to a request for vehicle deceleration may be another continuously variable amount.” (Artail, ¶ [0053]), which inherently suggests the use of a transmission control module to monitor and manage axle torque. The combination provides a clear motivation to integrate Huber’s processor with Artail’s torque monitoring system to enhance gear shift performance, consistent with MPEP § 2143(A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUBER et al. (US 20240253474 A1) in view of Artail et al. (US 20210171015 A1), hereinafter referred to as HUBER and Artail respectively.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, HUBER discloses A control system for operating a vehicle, (“The invention relates to a method and system for controlling two electrically driven axles of a vehicle,” [0001]) comprising:
a transmission control module that monitors a control axle torque of a first transmission associated with a first motor of the vehicle (“Preferably, the inverters 12, 13 each contain a control unit which is specified a target torque for each electric motor EM1, EM2 by the so-called E-axle control unit 14 (EACU). The currently applied torque as well as the current speed of the electric motors EM1, EM2 are provided by the E-axle control unit 14.” [0093]);
a first motor processor associated with the first motor (“herein the first electric motor is connected to a first output via at least one first power transmission path and the second electric motor is connected to a second output via at least one second power transmission path, or for controlling an electrically driven axle with two electric motors which jointly drive an output,” [0008]),
HUBER does not explicitly teach the first motor processor configured to: receive a torque command,
receive a transmission control module torque request indicative of the control axle torque from the transmission control module;
coordinate an allocation of the torque command into a first motor torque at the first motor and a transmission torque at the first transmission to fulfill the transmission control module torque request;
and control the first motor to apply the first motor torque at the first motor
However, Artail does teach receive a transmission control module torque request indicative of the control axle torque from the transmission control module (“a method comprises propelling a vehicle at least in part via a first electric machine that provides torque to front wheels and/or via a second electric machine that provides torque to rear wheels of the vehicle, where the front wheels selectively receive torque from an engine, and responsive to an indication of a torque degradation event, adjusting operation of both the first and the second electric machine, and continuing to propel the vehicle. In this way, a vehicle shut down event may be avoided responsive to a torque degradation event being determined.” [0004]);
the first motor processor configured to: determine a torque command (“). It may be understood that a degraded torque event may be determined responsive to an indication that delivered torque does not match commanded torque within a threshold margin.” [0047]);
coordinate an allocation of the torque command into a first motor torque at the first motor and a transmission torque at the first transmission to fulfill the transmission control module torque request (“At time t0, the vehicle operator requests additional propulsive torque (not shown) and the controller allocates at least a portion of the request to the third electric machine. Accordingly, between time t2 and t3, the third electric machine provides positive propulsive torque to the rear wheels (plot 915). However, between time t2 and t3, actual torque provided via the third electric machine (plot 915) begins to differ from the expected torque commanded to the third machine (plot 916), and at time t3 the third electric machine can no longer provide positive torque.” [0106]);
and control the first motor to apply the first motor torque at the first motor (“At time t1, propulsive torque is requested via the vehicle operator (e.g. via depression of the accelerator pedal), and because the degradation associated with the first inverter is specific to the first charging circuit such that the first discharging circuit remains non-degraded, the propulsive torque is provided to the front wheels via the first electric machine.” [0093]). Both HUBER and Artail teach methods for controlling electric vehicle transmission torque. However, only Artail explicitly teaches the first motor processor configured to: determine a torque command, coordinate an allocation of the torque command into a first motor torque at the first motor and a transmission torque at a first transmission associated with the first motor and control the first motor to apply the torque command at the first motor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission torque control method of HUBER to also include the first motor processor configured to: determine a torque command, coordinate an allocation of the torque command into a first motor torque at the first motor and a transmission torque at a first transmission associated with the first motor and control the first motor to apply the torque command at the first motor, as in Artail. Doing so improves efficiency of controlling transmission torque to electric vehicle motors (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Artail, 0005 - 0007]).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, HUBER discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising sending a torque assistance request from the first motor to a second motor associated with the first motor when the transmission control module torque request cannot be fulfilled by the first motor (“If a torque requested on the first electric motor EM1 exceeds an active torque limitation Tlim in relation to this first electric motor EM1 or to the first power transmission path 3, then the excessively requested torque is passed on to the second electric motor EM2, as shown in FIGS. 9 b and 9 d .” [0168]).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, HUBER discloses The method of claim 2,
HUBER does not explicitly teach further comprising receiving, at the first motor processor, at least one of the transmission control module request, a current gear state, and a current shift operation of the first transmission
However, Artail does teach further comprising receiving, at the first motor processor, at least one of the transmission control module request, a current gear state, and a current shift operation of the first transmission (“The vehicle powertrain 11 includes engine 12 and second electric machine 14 coupled to the engine via a gear set. Engine 12 and second electric machine 14 are connected through a power transfer unit or transmission, which in this embodiment is implemented by a planetary gear set 16. As such, other types of power transfer units, including other gear sets and transmissions, may be used to connect engine 12 to second electric machine 14. Planetary gear set 16 includes a ring gear 18, a carrier 20, planet gears 22, and a sun gear 24.” [0025]). Both HUBER and Artail teach methods for controlling electric vehicle transmission torque. However, only Artail explicitly teaches receiving, at the first motor processor, at least one of the transmission control module request, a current gear state, and a current shift operation of the first transmission.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission torque control method of HUBER to also include receiving, at the first motor processor, at least one of the transmission control module request, a current gear state, and a current shift operation of the first transmission, as in Artail. Doing so improves efficiency of controlling transmission torque to electric vehicle motors (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Artail, 0005 - 0007]).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, HUBER discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising determining, at the first motor processor, an amount of torque assistance needed from a second motor and sending a torque assistance request indicative of the amount to a second motor processor associated with the second motor (“The two electric motors are preferably in each case connected via a multi-speed transmission with a first output or a second output. At each of the outputs, the power and torque of each of the individual power transmission paths is input. In such an arrangement, the distribution of power or torque between the power transmission paths may be freely selected and varied, within certain limits, provided that no maximum power is required.” [0018]).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, HUBER discloses The method of claim 4, further comprising wherein the second motor processor adjusts a second torque at the second motor in response to receipt of the torque assistance request(“The two electric motors are preferably in each case connected via a multi-speed transmission with a first output or a second output. At each of the outputs, the power and torque of each of the individual power transmission paths is input. In such an arrangement, the distribution of power or torque between the power transmission paths may be freely selected and varied, within certain limits, provided that no maximum power is required.” [0018]).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, HUBER discloses The method of claim 4, further comprising sending the torque assistance request when at least one of: (i) the first motor is unable to fulfill a transmission control module request; and (ii) the first torque at the first motor is equal to or greater than a torque limit for the first motor (“If a torque requested on the first electric motor EM1 exceeds an active torque limitation T.sub.lim in relation to this first electric motor EM1 or to the first power transmission path 3, then the excessively requested torque is passed on to the second electric motor EM2, as shown in FIGS. 9b and 9d. This must deliver a greater torque T during the specified times t.sub.1, t.sub.2, t.sub.3 so that the first electric motor EM1 can reduce its provided torque T. This is no longer possible at the later times t.sub.4, t.sub.5, t.sub.6, since the second electric motor EM2 is also already delivering at the power limit or torque limit T.sub.max. In this case, in order to provide the required torque, a torque redistribution is preferably avoided and the active torque limitation T.sub.lim is ignored.” [0168]).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, HUBER discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising controlling the first motor to apply the first motor torque to fulfill, in order of priority request, a speed control, an active damping at the vehicle, and the transmission control module request (“The vehicle may still be propelled via the first electrical path 202, alone or in combination with the mechanical path 204. To decelerate the vehicle in response to a braking request, first electric machine 40 may be used to provide negative torque to front wheels 36 for regenerative braking, and a braking distribution between front axle 124 and rear axle 128 may be maintained via the use of friction braking (e.g. friction brakes 115) applied to rear wheels 130. The amount of positive torque provided to front wheels 36 may be a continuously variable amount, subject to lateral stability considerations, where lateral stability may be assessed at least in part based on information pertaining to lateral stability via a lateral rate sensor (e.g. roll stability sensor 118 at FIG. 1). Along similar lines, the amount of negative torque provided to front wheels 36 in response to a request for vehicle deceleration may be another continuously variable amount.” [0050]).
Conclusion
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED ALKIRSH whose telephone number is (703) 756-4503. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
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, FADEY JABR can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
AHMED ALKIRSHExaminer, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights