DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the amendments filed on February 19, 2026. Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-20 are currently pending, with Claims 1, 8-9, and 15-16 being amended, and Claims 6 and 14 being canceled.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments, filed February 19, 2026, the Examiner withdraws the previous claim objections, maintains the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 10, 2025, regarding the teachings of subtracting and multiplying values to obtain torque (see page 8 of instant arguments), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Itabashi teaches that the torque value is determined by subtracting the state variable vector t) from the driver request torque and that the value of t) is fed back to the torque model, and the system multiplies the state variable vector by the gain and subtracts U(t) from the driver request torque (see at least Paragraph [0032] of Itabashi). Itabashi teaches that the state and gain values are multiplied and/or subtracted from the requested torque. As such, the Examiner is unpersuaded, and maintains the corresponding 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections.
The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for essentially the same reasons. Therefore, the corresponding rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Patent Publication No. 2008100605 A, to Itabashi (hereinafter referred to as Itabashi; previously of record).
As per Claim 1, Itabashi discloses the features of a torque control apparatus (e.g. Paragraphs [0020], [0022]; where a wheel torque estimation device or vibration suppression control device is mounted on an automobile for correcting torque for a driver request) comprising:
at least one input device (e.g. Paragraph [0021]; where the driving device (20) may include an input/output pot device);
a driving device including at least one of a motor, engine, or any combination thereof for driving a host vehicle (e.g. Paragraph [0020]; where the vehicle (10) has a driving device (20) which is mounted on the vehicle, is configured for transmitting driving torque or rotational driving force from the engine to the wheels; and where the driving device (20) may include an electric motor or an engine for driving the vehicle);
a memory including one or more instructions (e.g. Paragraph [0021]; where the driving device (20) is controlled by an electronic control device (50) which includes a microcomputer having a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, and an input/output port device); and
a controller operatively connected to the at least one input device, the driving device, and the memory (e.g. Paragraph [0021]; where the driving device (20) is controlled by an electronic control device (50) which includes a microcomputer having a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, and an input/output port device), wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the torque control apparatus to:
obtain an input related to acceleration of the host vehicle from a user by use of the at least one input device (e.g. Paragraphs [0022]; where the target output torque (driver required torque) of the drive device is requested by the user);
determine user requirement torque based on the input (e.g. Paragraph [0022]; where the target output torque (driver required torque) of the drive device requested by the driver is based on the accelerator pedal depression amount);
generate a first requirement torque to be input to the driving device for the acceleration of the host vehicle based on at least part of the user requirement torque (e.g. Paragraph [0022]; where the target output torque (driver required torque) of the drive device requested by the driver is based on the accelerator pedal depression amount);
generate an estimation rate value through the first requirement torque (e.g. Paragraph [0022]; where an estimated wheel torque of the driving wheel is calculated) by
use of a pitch rate estimation model (e.g. Paragraph [0023]; where a motion model of the pitch/ bounce vibration of the vehicle body is constructed, in which the driver’s required torque and the current wheel torque are calculated), into which the first requirement torque is input (e.g. Paragraphs [0025], [0032]; where an driver requested torque is input to the motion model portion);
correct the estimation rate by use of at least one of a longitudinal acceleration, a driving speed, or any combination thereof, of the host vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0021]-[0022], [0024]-[0025], [0035]; where the operation of the driving device (20) is controlled by the electronic control device (50), and the electronic control device (50) receives signals indicative of engine rotation speed (Er), transmission rotation speed (Dr), and accelerator depression amount to operate the drive control unit (50a); and the estimated wheel torque is determined for the acceleration of the vehicle, and corrected based on the speed value of the driving wheel),
subtract the estimation rate value from a target pitch rate (e.g. Paragraph [0032]; where the state variable vector X(t) is calculated, and t) is subtracted from the driver request torque) and then
subtract a value obtained by multiplying a predetermined gain to a result of the subtracting, from the user requirement torque (e.g. Paragraph [0032]; where the value of t) is fed back to the torque input value of the motion model, and U() is obtained my multiplying the state variable vector X(t) by the gain (K) determined to converge to the state variable vector X(t) to 0; and U(t) is subtracted from the driver request torque), and
generate a second requirement torque by use of at least one of the estimation rate value, a requirement rate value, the user requirement torque, or a combination of the estimation rate value, the requirement rate value, and the user requirement torque (e.g. Paragraphs [0022]-[0023], [0025]; where the driver torque value is obtained by the controller and is provided as an input to the response state variable of the vehicle body to provide a torque correction amount (i.e. second requirement torque) by using a wheel torque estimated value), to be input to the driving device (e.g. Paragraph [0025]; where after the correction, the signal is converted to a control command and given to the driving device).
As per Claim 9, and similarly for Claim 16, Itabashi discloses the features of a torque control method (e.g. Paragraphs [0020], [0022]; where a wheel torque estimation device or vibration suppression control device is mounted on an automobile for correcting torque for a driver request), the method comprising:
obtaining, by a controller (e.g. Paragraph [0021]; where the driving device (20) is controlled by an electronic control device (50) which includes a microcomputer having a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, and an input/output port device)
an input related to acceleration of a host vehicle from a user by use of an input device (e.g. Paragraphs [0022]; where the target output torque (driver required torque) of the drive device is requested by the user);
a driving device for driving a host vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0020]; where the vehicle (10) has a driving device (20) which is mounted on the vehicle, is configured for transmitting driving torque or rotational driving force from the engine to the wheels);
determining, by the controller, user requirement torque based on the input (e.g. Paragraph [0022]; where the target output torque (driver required torque) of the drive device requested by the driver is based on the accelerator pedal depression amount);
generating, by the controller, a first requirement torque to be input to a driving device for the acceleration of the host vehicle based on at least part of the user requirement torque (e.g. Paragraph [0022]; where the target output torque (driver required torque) of the drive device requested by the driver is based on the accelerator pedal depression amount);
generating, by the controller, an estimation rate value through the first requirement torque (e.g. Paragraph [0022]; where an estimated wheel torque of the driving wheel is calculated) by
use of a pitch rate estimation model (e.g. Paragraph [0023]; where a motion model of the pitch/ bounce vibration of the vehicle body is constructed, in which the driver’s required torque and the current wheel torque are calculated), into which the first requirement torque is input (e.g. Paragraphs [0025], [0032]; where an driver requested torque is input to the motion model portion);
correcting, by the controller, the estimation rate by use of at least one of a longitudinal acceleration, a driving speed, or any combination thereof, of the host vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0021]-[0022], [0024]-[0025], [0035]; where the operation of the driving device (20) is controlled by the electronic control device (50), and the electronic control device (50) receives signals indicative of engine rotation speed (Er), transmission rotation speed (Dr), and accelerator depression amount to operate the drive control unit (50a); and the estimated wheel torque is determined for the acceleration of the vehicle, and corrected based on the speed value of the driving wheel), and
subtract the estimation rate value from a target pitch rate (e.g. Paragraph [0032]; where the state variable vector X(t) is calculated, and t) is subtracted from the driver request torque) and then
subtract a value obtained by multiplying a predetermined gain to a result of the subtracting, from the user requirement torque (e.g. Paragraph [0032]; where the value of t) is fed back to the torque input value of the motion model, and U() is obtained my multiplying the state variable vector X(t) by the gain (K) determined to converge to the state variable vector X(t) to 0; and U(t) is subtracted from the driver request torque), and
generating, by the controller, a second requirement torque by use of at least one of the estimation rate value, a requirement rate value, the user requirement torque, or a combination of the estimation rate value, the requirement rate value, and the user requirement torque (e.g. Paragraphs [0022]-[0023], [0025]; where the driver torque value is obtained by the controller and is provided as an input to the response state variable of the vehicle body to provide a torque correction amount (i.e. second requirement torque) by using a wheel torque estimated value), to be input to the driving device (e.g. Paragraph [0025]; where after the correction, the signal is converted to a control command and given to the driving device).
As per Claim 2, and similarly for Claims 10 and 17, Itabashi discloses the features of Claims 1, 9, and 16, respectively, and Itabashi further discloses the features of wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the torque control apparatus to:
input the first requirement torque in the pitch rate estimation model (e.g. Paragraph [0022]; where the target output torque is applied to the drive device (20) to determine the estimated wheel torque); and
generate the estimation rate value by use of at least one transfer function included in the pitch rate estimation model (e.g. Paragraphs [0022]-[0023]; where the target output torque is applied to the drive device (20) to determine the estimated wheel torque; and the estimated wheel torque value is calculated based on the wheel speed value to and the motion control model).
As per Claim 3, and similarly for Claim 18, Itabashi discloses the features of Claims 2 and 17, respectively, and Itabashi further discloses the features of wherein the at least one transfer function includes a second-order system related to the acceleration of the host vehicle (e.g. Paragraph [0032]; Figure 4; where the state equation is represented as a differential equation).
As per Claim 4, and similarly for Claims 12 and 19, Itabashi discloses the features of Claims 1, 9, and 16, respectively, and Itabashi further discloses the features of wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the torque control apparatus to
generate corrected requirement torque (e.g. Paragraph [0022]; where the driver requested torque is corrected to execute the pitch/ bounce vibration damping control) by
subtracting the estimation rate value generated from the pitch rate estimation model from the requirement rate value, multiplying a result of the subtracting by a predetermined gain, and adding a result of the multiplying to the user requirement torque (e.g. Paragraphs [0029], [0032]; where the motion model is solved by use of a differential equation, where the state equation (2a) is expressed as dX(t)/dt = (A-Bk)*X(t), where X(t) is the state variable vector, k is the gain, and A and B are the variables of the torque estimation, where the converted value (t) is subtracted from the driver request torque, which is multiplied by the gain (k), and added back to the torque input value of the motion model).
As per Claim 7, Itabashi discloses the features of Claim 1, and Itabashi further discloses the features of wherein
the at least one input device includes at least one of an accelerator pedal, a cruise control device, or a combination of the accelerator pedal and the cruise control device (e.g. Paragraphs [0020]-[0021]; where the driving device (20) generates a driving force on the rear wheels according to the depression of the accelerator pedal (14) by the driver), and wherein
the input related to the acceleration of the host vehicle includes at least one of a pressure input of the user to the accelerator pedal included in the at least one input device, an acceleration input of the host vehicle by use of the cruise control device, or a combination of the pressure input of the user and the acceleration input of the host vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0021]; where signals are received regarding the engine speed, transmission rotation speed, and the accelerator depression amount).
As per Claim 8, Itabashi discloses the features of Claim 1, and Itabashi further discloses the features of further including:
a sensor device operatively connected to the controller (e.g. Paragraphs [0021], [0034]; where the driving device (20) receives signals from wheel speed and torque sensors mounted on each wheel) wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the torque control apparatus to
generate the estimation rate value by use of at least one of the longitudinal acceleration of the host vehicle, the driving speed of the host vehicle, or a combination of the longitudinal acceleration and the driving speed, which is obtained by use of the sensor device (e.g. Paragraphs [0021]-[0022], [0024]-[0025], [0035]; where the operation of the driving device (20) is controlled by the electronic control device (50), and the electronic control device (50) receives signals indicative of engine rotation speed (Er), transmission rotation speed (Dr), and accelerator depression amount to operate the drive control unit (50a); and the estimated wheel torque is determined for the acceleration of the vehicle, and corrected based on the speed value of the driving wheel).
As per Claim 11, Itabashi discloses the features of Claim 10, and Itabashi further discloses the features of wherein the at least one transfer function includes a quadratic function related to the acceleration of the host vehicle (e.g. Paragraph [0032]; Figure 4; where the state equation is represented as a differential equation).
As per Claim 15, Itabashi discloses the features of Claim 9, and Itabashi further discloses the features of wherein the input related to the acceleration of the host vehicle includes: at least one of a pressure input of the user to an accelerator pedal included in the input unit, an acceleration input of the host vehicle by use of a cruise control device, or a combination of the pressure input of the user and the acceleration input of the host vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0020]-[0021]; where the driving device (20) generates a driving force on the rear wheels according to the depression of the accelerator pedal (14) by the driver; and where signals are received regarding the engine speed, transmission rotation speed, and the accelerator depression amount).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Publication No. 2008100605 A, to Itabashi (hereinafter referred to as Itabashi), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0067154 A1, to Yu, et al (hereinafter referred to as Yu).
As per Claim 5, and similarly for Claims 13 and 20, Itabashi discloses the features of Claims 4, 12, and 19, respectively, but Itabashi fails to disclose every feature of wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the torque control apparatus to generate the second requirement torque by applying at least one of a perceptual-based filter, a gradient limiting function, or a combination of the perceptual-based filter and the gradient limiting function to the corrected requirement torque.
However, Yu, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a kinematic road estimation model for determining pitch and torque control for a vehicle, where the static road grade estimation (RGE) algorithm (422) estimates road gradient based on the longitudinal acceleration input, and compensates (i.e. corrects) for the vehicle pitch angle; and where the vehicle system estimates an initial value for the road gradient based on the road gradient estimates and then filters the longitudinal acceleration signal using a low pass filter (e.g. Paragraphs [0052], [0079], [0096]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the torque estimating device of Itabashi, with the feature of using a gradient limiting function in the system of Yu, in order to increase sensitivity and improve estimation accuracy of the algorithm when estimating torque (see at least Paragraphs [0008] and [0176] of Yu).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
MacDermott, et al (U.S. 6,301,534 B1), which teaches a method for correcting torque values to command a change in acceleration.
Nishimura (U.S. 2019/0023311 A1), which teaches a steering control apparatus for correcting torque values on a vehicle.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERRITT LEVY whose telephone number is (571)270-5595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0630-1600.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-9855. 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.
/MERRITT LEVY/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/KYLE J KINGSLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights