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 the Application
This Office Action is in response to amendments and arguments received on 11 September 2025. Claims 1-2, 4, 10, 12, 15-19, and 23 have been amended. Claim 26 has been cancelled. Claims 1-25 are now pending. This communication is the second Office Action on the Merits.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary the by Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
Drawings
Replacement drawings were received on 11 September 2025. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: emulation component and emulation controller in claims 1 and 19, interpreted as emulation component 406 and emulation controller 420 of Fig. 4, respectively.
MPEP § 2181, I. A. provides a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354, 80 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1886–87; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214-1215, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Note that there is no fixed list of generic placeholders that always result in 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation, and likewise there is no fixed list of words that always avoid 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. Every case will turn on its own unique set of facts.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claims 1 and 19: Applicant claims an emulation component and emulation controller in claims 1 and 19, interpreted as emulation component 406 and emulation controller 420 of Fig. 4, respectively. However, Applicant disclosure is silent with regards to what these are structurally. While one of ordinary skill would understand these to be processor-related components performing emulation using software, it is unclear if applicant is claimed separate processors with separate software components, a singular processor performing emulation functions related to the claimed emulation component and emulation controller, or some under undisclosed structure. Corrective action or clarification is required.
All other dependent claims of the indefinite claims detailed above are also indefinite at least by virtue of depending on the indefinite claims detailed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 14, 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vangelov et al. (US 20210053487 A1) herein “Vangelov”.
In regards to Claim 1, as best understood, Vangelov discloses the following:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by an emulation component of an electric vehicle (EV), a user selection of a first vehicle type from among multiple vehicle types each having an internal combustion engine, (see at least Fig. 1, computing platform 104, [0004] “selectable vehicle profile for an electrified vehicle (EV)”, [0007] “a plurality of vehicle profiles each associated with a different model of a non-electrified vehicle” and [0022] “Various embodiments of the disclosure include an engine sound profile within the non-electric vehicle profile”) the user selection made with regard to an emulation operation mode of the EV, (see at least [0027] “PCM 152 may be configured to control operation of at least one of an electric motor and a transmission to provide vehicle acceleration based on an acceleration profile contained within the vehicle profile to emulate the selected non-electrified vehicle”)
the EV further including a torque controller (see at least [0027] “powertrain control module (PCM) 152”) and an emulation controller, (see at least [0021]-[0022] “computing platform 104”) wherein each of the emulation component, torque controller and emulation controller is generated by at least one processor executing computer readable instructions; (see at least {0022] “processor 106”, [0048] “CPU” and [0047] “controller 140”)
receiving, by the torque controller and the emulation component and with the first vehicle type selected for the emulation operation mode, a first input made by a driver using an accelerator pedal of the EV; (see at least [0008] “an accelerator pedal and the controller controls the electric machine to provide, for a constant accelerator pedal position, a first acceleration up to a first vehicle speed threshold” and [0009] “controlling the audio system in response to a vehicle accelerator pedal position”)
outputting, based on the first input, a first acceleration value by the torque controller to the emulation controller; (see at least Fig. 2, pedal 252 and PCU 140, and [0048] “accelerator pedal position (PPS)”, see also [0050] “depressing and releasing the pedal 252 generates an accelerator pedal position signal that may be interpreted by the controller 140 as a demand for increased power or decreased power”)
outputting, based on the user selection and the first input, a second acceleration value by the emulation component to the emulation controller; (see at least previous citations, and [0050] “Based at least upon input from the pedal, the controller 140 commands torque from the engine 214 and/or the M/G 218. The controller 140 may also control the timing and/or feel of gear shifts within the gearbox 224 based on the downloaded vehicle profile” and [0052] “Alternatively, or in combination, the non-EV profile may be generated based on vehicle specifications such as vehicle acceleration”, see also Fig. 3, items 370 and 372)
generating, based on the first acceleration value and the second acceleration value, an output by the emulation controller; (see at least Fig. 3, items 370 and 372 and [0052])
and in response to the first input, providing the output by the emulation controller to a powertrain of the EV, (see at least [0054] The EV is then controlled to emulate the look and feel and/or performance characteristics of a selected non-EV based on the selected vehicle profile as represented at 370.)
wherein the powertrain provides the EV with an acceleration based on the output by the emulation controller. (see at least [0027] “PCM 152 may be configured to control operation of at least one of an electric motor and a transmission to provide vehicle acceleration based on an acceleration profile contained within the vehicle profile to emulate the selected non-electrified vehicle”)
Vangelov discloses a user selection of a profile via mobile device 126, and this selection is communicated (and therefore received, as claimed) by computing platform 104. (see Fig. 1) This computing platform, as best understood, meets the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of an emulation controller, as claimed. Computing platform 104 wirelessly receives a vehicle profile 170 including at least an acceleration profile, an instrument cluster profile, and an engine sound profile of a non-electric vehicle 164, storing the vehicle profile 170 in a memory 110 that includes software components that meet the BRI of an emulation component, as claimed and best understood.
Vangelov discloses computing platform 104 “may be further configured to communicate with vehicle controllers that may include various electronic control units (ECUs) 140 via one or more in-vehicle networks 142.” (see [0025]) Further, PCU 140 receives the first (accelerator) input, and therefore meets the BRI of the torque controller, as claimed. It is the position of the office that Vangelov discloses identical functionality.
However, the difference between Vangelov and claim 1 is essentially that Vangelov provides the emulation controller (i.e. computing platform 104) before the torque controller (i.e. PCU 140), where Applicant claim 1 provides emulation controller output to the powertrain after the torque controller, and therefore does not explicitly disclose providing the output by the emulation controller to a powertrain of the EV, as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reconfigure the control architecture of Vangelov such that the EV’s baseline (non-emulated) propulsion response is first determined by the vehicle’s standard torque/propulsion controller (i.e. the same controller used for normal pedal-to-torque operation) prior to applying emulation processing downstream, because rearranging the order of known control modules is a routine implementation choice in vehicle powertrain control where feature modules are commonly implemented as both data pre-processing and data post-processing before or after a baseline controller, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of achieving predictable advantages, such as emulation control of an existing torque validated torque controller, useful for applications such as aftermarket modification of an existing electric vehicle functionality. Further, the results of this modification would have been predictable.
In regards to Claim 2, Vangelov discloses the following:
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein providing the EV with the acceleration comprises emulating an acceleration of the first vehicle type. (see at least [0027] “PCM 152 may be configured to control operation of at least one of an electric motor and a transmission to provide vehicle acceleration based on an acceleration profile contained within the vehicle profile to emulate the selected non-electrified vehicle”)
In regards to Claim 3, Vangelov discloses the following:
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein emulating the acceleration of the first vehicle type comprises applying an acceleration reduction to the EV. (see at least [0008] “the controller may provide a higher acceleration to emulate a lower gear (higher gear ratio) of a step ratio transmission, followed by a short decrease in acceleration for a predetermined time period similar to a torque hole or dip of a conventional transmission gear shift”)
In regards to Claim 5, Vangelov discloses the following:
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein emulating the acceleration of the first vehicle type comprises emulating gearshifts of the first vehicle type. (see at least [0008] “simulate shifting of a step-ratio transmission”)
In regards to Claim 6, Vangelov discloses the following:
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein emulating the acceleration of the first vehicle type comprises applying at least the first input to a model corresponding to the first vehicle type. (see at least [0008] “an accelerator pedal and the controller controls the electric machine to provide, for a constant accelerator pedal position, a first acceleration up to a first vehicle speed threshold” and [0009] “controlling the audio system in response to a vehicle accelerator pedal position”)
In regards to Claim 7, Vangelov discloses the following:
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising emulating, on a display device of the EV, an instrument cluster of the first vehicle type. (see at least [0021] ‘HMI 112 is configured to display an instrument cluster based on a downloaded and stored vehicle profile corresponding to a non-electrified vehicle.” and [0052] “the non-EV profile may be generated based on vehicle specifications such as… the look and feel of vehicle features such as the instrument cluster, for example.” and “instrument cluster profile 314”)
In regards to Claim 8, Vangelov discloses the following:
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising emulating, using a speaker of the EV, a sound of the first vehicle type. (see at least [0022] “engine sound profile within the non-electric vehicle profile. The processor 106 may control the vehicle audio system to broadcast engine sounds through the speaker(s) 119 based on current vehicle operating parameters or conditions, such as an accelerator pedal position, vehicle speed, and/or transmission actual or simulated gear, for example”)
In regards to Claim 9, Vangelov discloses the following:
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the sound of the first
vehicle type includes a motor sound. (see at least [0022] “engine sound profile within the non-electric vehicle profile. The processor 106 may control the vehicle audio system to broadcast engine sounds through the speaker(s) 119 based on current vehicle operating parameters or conditions, such as an accelerator pedal position, vehicle speed, and/or transmission actual or simulated gear, for example”)
In regards to Claim 14, Vangelov discloses the following:
14. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first vehicle type is a non-road vehicle. (see at least [0017] “vehicle 102 generally represents various types of passenger vehicles, such as crossover utility vehicle (CUV or XUV), sport utility vehicle (SUV), truck, recreational vehicle (RV)”)
In regards to Claim 17, Vangelov discloses the following:
17. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the second acceleration value is based on a scaling of an acceleration capability of the first vehicle type. (see at least [0027] “PCM 152 may be configured to control operation of at least one of an electric motor and a transmission to provide vehicle acceleration based on an acceleration profile contained within the vehicle profile to emulate the selected non-electrified vehicle”)
In regards to Claim 18, Vangelov discloses the following:
18. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein providing the EV with the acceleration comprises changing a torque crossover, (see at least [0008] “the controller may provide a higher acceleration to emulate a lower gear (higher gear ratio) of a step ratio transmission, followed by a short decrease in acceleration for a predetermined time period similar to a torque hole or dip of a conventional transmission gear shift”) wherein in the torque controller, positions of the accelerator pedal greater than a certain value correspond to positive torque and positions of the accelerator pedal smaller than the certain value correspond to regenerative braking by negative torque, the torque controller having the torque crossover between the positive torque and the negative torque. (see at least [0034] “vehicle profile 170 may include PCM profile or configuration data including settings of the PCM 152 to control electric machine torque and speed, engine torque and speed (for hybrids), and powertrain operations such as transmission shifting, clutch pressure control for shift feel, engine start/stop, driving modes, or the like… The vehicle profile 170 may further include the ESC configuration or profile data including, settings for traction control, electronic stability control, ABS, electric machine regenerative braking or coast down control,”)
In regards to claims 19-21: Claims 19-21 are the electric vehicles performing the methods of claims 1 and 7-8, respectively, and are rejected per claims 1 and 7-8 and above.
In regards to Claim 23, Vangelov discloses the following:
23. The EV of claim 19, wherein the model has inputs including acceleration pedal input, (see at least [0008] “an accelerator pedal and the controller controls the electric machine to provide, for a constant accelerator pedal position, a first acceleration up to a first vehicle speed threshold” and [0009] “controlling the audio system in response to a vehicle accelerator pedal position”) gearshift requests, (see at least [0008] “simulate shifting of a step-ratio transmission”) and vehicle state, (see at least [0006] “engine sounds may be based on the accelerator pedal position, transmission gear or state, and/or vehicle speed”, [0021] “HMI 112 may include one or more video screens or displays to present information from various vehicle sensors to the driver/occupants, such as vehicle speed, outside temperature, cooling system temperature, etc.”)
and wherein the model generates outputs including a longitudinal acceleration target, (see at least [0027] “PCM 152 may be configured to control operation of at least one of an electric motor and a transmission to provide vehicle acceleration based on an acceleration profile contained within the vehicle profile to emulate the selected non-electrified vehicle”) sound, (see at least [0022] “Various embodiments of the disclosure include an engine sound profile within the non-electric vehicle profile”) and metrics to be presented as an image of an instrument cluster on a display device. (see at least [0052] “non-EV profile may be generated based on vehicle specifications such as vehicle acceleration, transmission shift schedules, engine torque, maximum engine RPM, maximum vehicle speed, and the look and feel of vehicle features such as the instrument cluster, for example. The vehicle profile may include various performance profiles as well as look and feel profiles such as an acceleration profile 312, instrument cluster profile 314, suspension profile 316, transmission shift schedule profile 318, transmission shift feel profile 320, infotainment profile 322, and engine sounds profile 324.”)
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vangelov in view of Draganic (US 20150199955 A1).
In regards to Claim 4, Vangelov is silent, but Draganic teaches the following:
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein emulating the acceleration of the first vehicle type comprises taking into account at least one characteristic of the first vehicle type selected from the group consisting of: turbocharger rotation speed, boost control, anti-lag control, or a blow- off valve. (see at least [0026] “The different types can also include different types of engines, such as 4-cylinder, boxer, V-6, 1-6, V8, V-10, rotary, diesel, propane, natural gas, turbo charged”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Draganic with the invention of Vangelov, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing a traditional automotive driving experience. (Draganic, [0002])
In regards to Claim 10, Vangelov is silent, but Draganic teaches the following:
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the sound of the first vehicle type includes a non-motor sound including at least one non-motor sound selected from the group consisting of brake-related sound, wheel sound, or a friction sound. (see at least [0031] “during hard driving and turning the system and method can provide simulated tire screeching even when the tires are not actually screeching”, see also [0044] “tire noises”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Draganic with the invention of Vangelov, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing a traditional automotive driving experience. (Draganic, [0002])
Claims 11-12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vangelov in view of Duo et al. (US 20220063494 A1) herein “Duo”.
In regards to Claim 11, Vangelov is silent, but Duo teaches the following:
11. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a second input in the EV, and applying the second input in emulating the first vehicle type. (see at least [0193]-[0195] “gear shift selector 102”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Duo with the invention of Vangelov, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of offering the traditional sound experience of any type of vehicle, even if it is different from the driven electric vehicle. (Duo, [0006])
In regards to Claim 12, Vangelov is silent, but Duo teaches the following:
12. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein the second input includes a gearshift request made using a hardware control of the EV, and wherein applying the second input in emulating the first vehicle type comprises adjusting the acceleration based on the second input. (see at least [0193]-[0195] “gear shift selector 102”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Duo with the invention of Vangelov, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of offering the traditional sound experience of any type of vehicle, even if it is different from the driven electric vehicle. (Duo, [0006])
In regards to Claim 22: Claim 22 is the electric vehicles performing the method of claim 12, and is rejected per claim 12, above.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vangelov in view of Jian. (US 20220379738 A1).
In regards to Claim 13, Vangelov is silent, but Jian teaches the following:
13. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first vehicle type is a track vehicle. (see at least Abstract, [0031] “racing car simulator mode”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Jian with the invention of Vangelov, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing an electric vehicle driver with two distinct functions at any given time, in order to operate a racing game. (Jain, [0004])
Claims 15-16 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vangelov in view of Duo, and further in view of Jordan, III et al. (US 20190118815 A1) herein “Jordan”.
In regards to Claim 15, Vangelov is silent, but Jordan teaches the following:
15. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising capping, in providing the EV with the acceleration, the second acceleration value by the first acceleration value at least once. (see at least [0021] “If the engine torque profile of the particular vehicle or internal combustion engine model exceeds a torque output limit of the electric machine 14, the controller 38 may be programmed to adjust the torque of the electric machine 14 to emulate a scaled down version of the engine torque profile that does not exceed the torque output limit of the electric machine 14.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Jordan with the invention of Vangelov, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing a maximum potential engine torque profile that does not exceed the torque profile 46 of the electric machine 14 (Jordan, [0021]) which one of ordinary skill would understand to prevent damage to said electric machine.
In regards to Claim 16, Vangelov discloses the following:
16. The computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the second acceleration is capped by the first acceleration value in response to a magnitude of the second acceleration value exceeding a limit. (see at least [0021] “If the engine torque profile of the particular vehicle or internal combustion engine model exceeds a torque output limit of the electric machine 14, the controller 38 may be programmed to adjust the torque of the electric machine 14 to emulate a scaled down version of the engine torque profile that does not exceed the torque output limit of the electric machine 14.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Jordan with the invention of Vangelov, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing a maximum potential engine torque profile that does not exceed the torque profile 46 of the electric machine 14 (Jordan, [0021]) which one of ordinary skill would understand to prevent damage to said electric machine.
In regards to claims 24-25: Claims 24-25 are the electric vehicles performing the methods of claims 15-16, respectively, and are rejected per claims 15-16 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are accepted, and persuasive. The rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. The Office respectfully reminds the applicant that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to arguments on page 13 of 14 that “Vangelov is predominantly geared toward ICE vehicles, not EVs,”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Vangelov provides a plurality of embodiments, see at least [0018] “battery electric vehicle (BEV) powered only by a battery and one or more electric machines that may be operated as a motor/generator selectively drawing power from or charging a high voltage battery (not shown). In other embodiments electrified vehicle 102 may be a hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) powered by an internal combustion engine in combination with one or more electric machines that may each operate as a motor and/or generator.”. Vangelov discloses emulation features for all embodiments.
In response to arguments on page 13 of 14 that Vangelov does not teach or suggest features of claim 1, specifically “the EV includes an emulation component, a torque controller and an emulation controller, where both the emulation component and the torque controller sense the accelerator input and generate their respective acceleration commands”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Vangelov clearly discloses or makes obvious the emulation component and the torque controller sense the accelerator input and generate their respective acceleration commands.
As a preliminary matter, Applicant should note that the metes and bounds of Applicant claims recite any limitation that excludes an internal combustion engine (ICE) or is exclusively battery-electric. Merely characterizing the apparatus as an electric vehicle does not import a negative limitation into the claim. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the term “electric vehicle” reasonably encompasses vehicles propelled at least in part by an electric traction motor, including hybrid vehicles.
Applicant further argues that there is no disclosure or even suggestion in Vangelov that the accelerator input should go to both an emulation component and a torque controller for an EV powertrain, immediately after stating PCU 140 shares input with M/G 214 and M/G 218. This argument is unsubstantiated by the facts, not least of which are clearly stated by the Applicant.
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 Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
December 12, 2025
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669