DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's Amendment and Remarks filed on 8/21/2025. This Action is made FINAL.
Claims 1-7 were canceled.
Claims 8-22 are pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/6/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
(A) Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed “Applicant has amended claims 8-12 to recite "electronic control unit," as is consistent with the Office Action's interpretation and the current specification. Because overtly structural limitations (in particular, an electronic control unit, or "ECU") are added to the claims to define the structure, Applicant respectfully submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the terms to be structurally defined and "to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure"” on 8/21/2025, with respect to Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive.
As to point (A), the Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) of 8-12 has been withdrawn.
(B) Applicant's arguments filed “With regard to the primary and secondary motors being both electric motors, Falkenstein does not quite disclose this. Falkenstein discloses that the first drive train 5 includes a combination of an electric motor 11 and an internal combustion engine 7. While Falkenstein technically discloses a first electric motor (e.g., 11), the Office Action does not rely on this motor 11 to read on the other recited elements of the claim. Instead, the Office Action cites to characteristics of the internal combustion engine 7 to read on characteristics of the recited primary motor. Falkenstein's internal combustion engine 7 does not meet the claimed requirement that the primary motor is an electric motor. Also, as discussed below in more detail, neither Falkenstein's internal combustion engine 7 nor first electric motor 11 properly read on the other limitations of the independent claims” on 8/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to point (B), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner further notes previous Non-Final Office Action dated on 4/25/2025 clearly recited Falkenstein: Fig. 1 Elements 11 and 19 directing to first drive motor and second drive motor. Furthermore, Falkenstein Para 20 recited “In the case of hybrid vehicles having a plurality of powered axles 3, 4, unit 15, which is made up of internal combustion engine 7, transmission 14 and electric machine(s) 11, acts on one of powered axles 3 in most cases, while one or a plurality of additional powered axle(s) 4 is driven by units 24 implemented as electro machine transmission units”. The amended limitation of “the all-wheel drive vehicle has at least one first electric drive motor(electric machine 11) as a primary motor(Transmission 14, internal combustion engine 7 and first electric machine 11 make up a unit 15) assigned to a primary axle” would be fully encompassed by the cited reference.
(C) Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed “With regard to the "first" limitation, Falkenstein is absent as to any target all-wheel drive factor. The claim now recites that "the target all-wheel drive factor defines a target percentage of a total torque output by the combination of the primary motor and the secondary motor that is output by the primary motor." In the rejection, the Office Action cites to Falkenstein's paragraph 0021. However, this paragraph, as well as the remainder of Falkenstein, fails to discloses any such percentage (or other value that would represent such a percentage or ratio or the like)” on 8/21/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 8-9, 11, 13-14, 16, 18-19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
As to point (C), upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bramson(US20150298574A1).
(D) Applicant's arguments filed “With regard to the "second" limitation ("a gradient limitation for a maximum permissible adjustment of a torque of the primary motor is limited to be no more than a gradient of a torque request from the driver-input signal"), Falkenstein is again absent any such disclosure” and “Falkenstein's FIG. 3 shows that the torque from the internal combustion engine 7 (Eng_trqBs), which is treated in the Office Action as the primary motor, has a higher torque gradient than the desired torque from the driver (trqDesFlt), which is expressly disclosed also in paragraph 0028 ("base torque Eng_trqBs rises more rapidly than summed setpoint torque trqDesFlt"). A similar effect is shown in FIG. 4. Thus, it is clear that Falkenstein provides no limiting of the torque to any particular motor (7, 11, or 19) that limits its maximum gradient to that of the (filtered) torque request from the driver” on 8/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to point (D), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner further notes Fig. 3 included trqDes(driver-input signal) and trqDesFlt(torque of the primary motor). Falkenstein Para 21 recited “The driver-desired torque trqDes indicated via drive pedal 27 is applied at the inputs of the reference forming units of internal combustion engine 7 (block 28) and the summed torque of the first drive train (block 29)” which encompasses the driver-input signal while Falkenstein Para 21 further recited “From driver-desired torque trqDes, a filtered summed setpoint torque trqDesFlt is determined in the reference forming unit of the summed torque of the first drive train (block 29)” which encompasses the torque of the primary motor.
(E) Applicant's arguments filed “In the rejection of claims 9, 14, and 19, the Office Action relies on Falkenstein FIG. 3 and paragraph 0021. The Office Action refers to Eng_trqBs as the primary torque. While this torque is shown to be in the same direction as the requested torque from the driver (trqDes), it is torque from an internal combustion engine 7, which does not read on the limitation of the claim that the primary motor be an electric motor. Further, FIG. 3 shows that torque that is actually applied to the first electric motor 11 (trqDesEIMl) is in fact applied in a direction that is in the opposite direction to the requested torque from the driver. Thus, Falkenstein fails to disclose the limitations of these dependent claims.” on 8/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to point (E), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner further notes the primary motor would be encompassed by unit 15 made up of transmission 14, internal combustion engine 7 and first electric machine 11. The requested torque from the driver (trqDes) and filtered summed setpoint torque (trqDesFlt) will be in the same direction same direction.
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, 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 8-9, 11, 13-14, 16, 18-19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falkenstein (US20100167869A1) in view of Bramson (US20150298574A1).
In regards to claim 8, Falkenstein teaches A control device for operating an all-wheel drive vehicle,
wherein the all-wheel drive vehicle has at least one first electric drive motor as a primary motor assigned to a primary axle(Falkenstein: Fig. 1 Elements 15; Para 20 “In the case of hybrid vehicles having a plurality of powered axles 3, 4, unit 15, which is made up of internal combustion engine 7, transmission 14 and electric machine(s) 11, acts on one of powered axles 3 in most cases, while one or a plurality of additional powered axle(s) 4 is driven by units 24 implemented as electro machine transmission units”) and at least one second electric drive motor as a secondary motor assigned to a secondary axle(Falkenstein: Fig. 1 Elements 19; Para 18 “A second electric machine 19 is situated in a second drive train 18, which drives second powered axle 4”),
wherein the control device comprises at least one electronic control unit (Falkenstein: Fig. 1 Elements 26; Para 18 “A control unit 26 connected to control devices (not shown) of internal combustion engine 7 and electric machines 11, 19 coordinates their torques and/or torque gradients”) configured to:
carry out a torque gradient limiting function such that, in response to a change in a target all-wheel drive factor due to a defined driver-input signal(Falkenstein: Para 5 “in rapid torque changes or high torque gradients, the torque requested by the driver via the driving pedal is filtered, using a low-pass filter, with the aid of a reference-forming unit, and/or its torque gradient is restricted to a maximum torque gradient”; Para 10 “the total torque of the drive machines of the first drive train is adapted within specified limits of change, by adjusting the torque and/or power of the first electric machine and/or by modifying the ignition angle of the internal combustion engine. The adaptation is preferably implemented by a torque and/or power adaptation of the first electric machine”; Para 18 “The two units 15, 24 are part of a hybrid drive 25 of vehicle 2. Electric machines 11, 19 are able to be operated in engine-driven manner as electric motor and, in generator-driven manner, as generator. A control unit 26 connected to control devices (not shown) of internal combustion engine 7 and electric machines 11, 19 coordinates their torques and/or torque gradients”);
second, in the course of a subsequent adjustment of the all-wheel drive factor, a gradient limitation for a maximum permissible adjustment of a torque of the primary motor is limited to be no more than a gradient of a torque request from the driver-input signal (Falkenstein: Fig. 3 Element trqDes and trqDesFlt; Para 7 “a restriction of the torque gradient to a maximum torque gradient always refers to the restriction to a maximum amount of the torque gradient. For this purpose, the restriction takes place in particular with the aid of at least one reference forming unit, which in rapid torque changes or at high torque gradients, filters the torque requested by the driver via the driving pedal by means of a low-pass filter, and/or which restricts its torque gradient to a maximum torque gradient”; Para 5 “For comfort-related reasons, this transition should be a “smooth” transition, which is achieved by restricting the gradient of the resulting total torque of the drive machines of the first drive train during its zero crossing. This, too, is the task of the reference-forming element. It coordinates the drive machines, especially the drive torques of the drive machines (internal combustion engine and first electric machine) of the first drive train”; Para 28 “FIG. 3 shows simulation results for a jump in driver-desired torque trqDes from −20 Nm to 100 Nm in a diagram, in which a torque M is plotted on the ordinate and time t on the abscissa. The transfer of lead setpoint torque trqLeadEng to base torque Eng_trqBs is described with the aid of a series connection of a dead-time element and a delay element of the first order (PT1) in block 7; the base torque follows lead setpoint torque with a corresponding delay. Immediately following the jump, block 29 increases filtered summed setpoint torque trqDesFlt, which has an effect on setpoint torque trQDesElM1 of first electric machine 11 and leads to a rapid response”; i.e. a gradient limitation for a maximum permissible adjustment of a torque of the primary motor(filters the torque requested by the driver via the driving pedal by means of a low-pass filter, and/or which restricts its torque gradient to a maximum torque gradient resulting in filtered summed setpoint torque trqDesFlt) is limited to be no more than a gradient of a torque request from the driver-input signal(driver-desired torque trqDes)).
Yet Falkenstein do not explicitly teach first, a new target all-wheel drive factor is abruptly predefined, wherein the target all-wheel drive factor defines a target percentage of a total torque output by the combination of the primary motor and the secondary motor that is output by the primary motor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Falkenstein945 teaches first, a new target all-wheel drive factor is abruptly predefined, wherein the target all-wheel drive factor defines a target percentage of a total torque output by the combination of the primary motor and the secondary motor that is output by the primary motor (Bramson: Fig. 8; Para 34 “For any particular value (or range) of total torque demand, different proportional splits of the torque between the two motors can be utilized. The efficiencies obtained at each of the potential relative contributions (i.e., ratios) can be examined in table 53 in order to identify the contribution ratio which corresponds to the highest overall efficiency. For each total torque demand value, the possible combinations of torque contributions appear as a chain running across table 53. For example, a first chain 54 of highlighted cells in table 53 correspond to a total torque generation of 30 N-m. The highest efficiency in chain 54 occurs with a 90.9% efficiency when the first motor/generator contribution is 30 N-m and the second motor/generator contribution is zero. Thus, the corresponding ratio of torque to be contributed by the second motor/generator under these conditions would be 0.0”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control device for operating an all-wheel drive vehicle of Falkenstein with the feature of first, a new target all-wheel drive factor is abruptly predefined, wherein the target all-wheel drive factor defines a target percentage of a total torque output by the combination of the primary motor and the secondary motor that is output by the primary motor disclosed by Bramson. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of “provide the requested torque at the best-possible efficiency, which can be higher than the efficiency of the single motor solution for most operating points” (Bramson: Para 22).
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Falkenstein and Bramson teaches The control device according to claim 8, and Falkenstein further teaches wherein the at least one electronic control unit is configured to: control the torque of the primary motor such that a direction of the gradient for adjusting the torque of the primary motor in the course of a change in the target all-wheel drive factor does not proceed counter to a direction of the gradient of the driver-input signal(Falkenstein: Fig. 3 Element trqDes and trqDesFlt ; Para 21 “From driver-desired torque trqDes, a filtered summed setpoint torque trqDesFlt is determined in the reference forming unit of the summed torque of the first drive train (block 29). Base torque Eng_trqBs is deducted from filtered summed setpoint torque trqDesFlt for first powered axle 3 and output to first electric machine 11 as first torque request”; i.e. the figure indicted that both the driver-desired torque trqDes (the gradient of the driver-input signal) and filtered summed setpoint torque trqDesFlt (the gradient for adjusting the torque of the primary motor) are both positive during the change of the in the course of a change in the target all-wheel drive factor).
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Falkenstein and Bramson teaches The control device according to claim 8, and Falkenstein further teaches wherein the at least one electronic control unit is configured to: at a constant driver-input signal, adjust the torque of the primary motor and/or the torque of the secondary motor with a higher gradient than that of the driver-input signal(Falkenstein: Fig. 3 Element trqDes and trqDesFlt; Para 28 “Immediately following the jump, block 29 increases filtered summed setpoint torque trqDesFlt, which has an effect on setpoint torque trqDesElM1 of first electric machine 11 and leads to a rapid response”; i.e. following the jump setpoint(at a constant driver-input signal) torque trqDesFlt (the torque of the primary motor) followed a positive gradient (a higher gradient than that of the driver-input signal)).
As per claim 13, it recites A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a program for an electronic control unit that, when executed by the electronic control unit, causes the electronic control unit to perform a method having limitations similar to those of claim 8 and therefore is rejected on the same basis. Falkenstein further teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a program for an electronic control unit that, when executed by the electronic control unit , causes the electronic control unit to perform a method(Falkenstein: Para 12 “The present invention also provides a control unit for implementing at least one of the aforementioned methods. The control unit coordinates especially the torques and/or the torque gradients of the drive machines of the first drive train, and the torque and the torque gradient of the second electric machine”; i.e. control unit would have a computer readable medium which stores instruction for the control unit to perform the methods)
As per claim 14, it recites A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a program for an electronic control unit that, when executed by the electronic control unit, causes the electronic control unit to perform a method having limitations similar to those of claim 9 and therefore is rejected on the same basis. Falkenstein further teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a program for an electronic control unit that, when executed by the electronic control unit , causes the electronic control unit to perform a method(Falkenstein: Para 12 “The present invention also provides a control unit for implementing at least one of the aforementioned methods. The control unit coordinates especially the torques and/or the torque gradients of the drive machines of the first drive train, and the torque and the torque gradient of the second electric machine”; i.e. control unit would have a computer readable medium which stores instruction for the control unit to perform the methods)
As per claim 16, it recites A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a program for an electronic control unit that, when executed by the electronic control unit, causes the electronic control unit to perform a method having limitations similar to those of claim 11 and therefore is rejected on the same basis. Falkenstein further teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a program for an electronic control unit that, when executed by the electronic control unit , causes the electronic control unit to perform a method(Falkenstein: Para 12 “The present invention also provides a control unit for implementing at least one of the aforementioned methods. The control unit coordinates especially the torques and/or the torque gradients of the drive machines of the first drive train, and the torque and the torque gradient of the second electric machine”; i.e. control unit would have a computer readable medium which stores instruction for the control unit to perform the methods)
As per claim 18, it recites A method for operating an all-wheel drive vehicle having limitations similar to those of claim 8 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 19, it recites A method for operating an all-wheel drive vehicle having limitations similar to those of claim 9 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 21, it recites A method for operating an all-wheel drive vehicle having limitations similar to those of claim 11 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 10, 12, 15, 17, 20, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falkenstein ( US20100167869A1) in view of Bramson (US20150298574A1) fruther in view of Falkenstein945 (US20090133945A1).
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Falkenstein and Bramson teaches The control device according to claim 8.
Yet the combination of Falkenstein and Bramson do not explicitly teach wherein the at least one electronic control unit is configured to: hold the torque of the secondary motor constant in response to a limiting effect on the adjustment of the torque of the primary motor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Falkenstein945 teaches wherein the at least one electronic control unit is configured to: hold the torque of the secondary motor constant in response to a limiting effect on the adjustment of the torque of the primary motor(Falkenstein945: Fig. 3 Element tDEl1 and tDEl2; Para 25 “Via an output 18, torque-gradient restricter block 16 outputs a torque-gradient-restricted first electric machine setpoint torque tDEl1 also to second differential block 17 and additionally to a second summing block 19”; Para 26 “Electric machine setpoint torque tDE1 is also denoted as second electric machine setpoint torque tDEl2 for better differentiation from first electric machine setpoint torque tDEl1”; i.e. the figure indicted second electric machine setpoint torque tDEl2 holding constant while first electric machine setpoint torque tDEl1 being adjusted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control device for operating an all-wheel drive vehicle of the combination of Falkenstein and Bramson with the feature of wherein the at least one electronic control unit is configured to: hold the torque of the secondary motor constant in response to a limiting effect on the adjustment of the torque of the primary motor disclosed by Falkenstein945. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of “the combustion engine is operated at the ideal basic torque, for efficiency- and emission-related reasons, in particular, and/or the torque gradient of the setpoint torque of the electric machine is restricted for reasons related to service life” (Falkenstein945: Para 10).
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Falkenstein and Bramson teaches The control device according to claim 8, and Falkenstein945 further teaches wherein the at least one electronic control unit is configured to: as the target all-wheel drive factor increases in a negative torque range, hold the torque of the primary motor constant until a negative torque of the secondary motor has been increased in order to reach the new target all-wheel drive factor(Falkenstein945: Fig.3; Para 8 “For example, if the first power unit in a coordination stage is unable to satisfy the demands, then the following coordination stage will be applied. It has a broader operating range than the preceding coordination stage. In order to satisfy the sum of the demands on the power units, one of the other power units, e.g., the second power unit, must satisfy a higher demand. Thus, there results at least one “cross path”, which forwards a torque component unable to be set by the one power unit, to another power unit. If the setpoint torque of the one power unit is restricted because of an operating limit of an operating range in one coordination stage, then the difference of unrestricted and restricted setpoint torque, in particular, is switched to the other power unit in addition”; Para 24 “First differential block 12 outputs this electro-machine torque demand 1DEl to an input 15 of a torque-gradient restricter block 16 and a second differential block 17. Via an output 18, torque-gradient restricter block 16 outputs a torque-gradient-restricted first electric machine setpoint torque tDEl1 also to second differential block 17 and additionally to a second summing block 19”; i.e. Figure 3 indicated the electro-machine torque demand 1DEl increases in a negative torque range; i.e. the one power unit is restricted because of an operating limit of an operating range(hold the torque of the primary motor constant) then the difference of unrestricted and restricted setpoint torque, in particular, is switched to the other power unit in addition(a negative torque of the secondary motor has been increased in order to reach the new target all-wheel drive factor)). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Falkenstein, Bramson, and Falkenstein945 as in Claim 10 above.
As per claim 15, it recites A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a program for an electronic control unit that, when executed by the electronic control unit, causes the electronic control unit to perform a method having limitations similar to those of claim 10 and therefore is rejected on the same basis. Falkenstein further teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a program for an electronic control unit that, when executed by the electronic control unit , causes the electronic control unit to perform a method(Falkenstein: Para 12 “The present invention also provides a control unit for implementing at least one of the aforementioned methods. The control unit coordinates especially the torques and/or the torque gradients of the drive machines of the first drive train, and the torque and the torque gradient of the second electric machine”; i.e. control unit would have a computer readable medium which stores instruction for the control unit to perform the methods)
As per claim 17, it recites A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a program for an electronic control unit that, when executed by the electronic control unit, causes the electronic control unit to perform a method having limitations similar to those of claim 12 and therefore is rejected on the same basis. Falkenstein further teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a program for an electronic control unit that, when executed by the electronic control unit , causes the electronic control unit to perform a method(Falkenstein: Para 12 “The present invention also provides a control unit for implementing at least one of the aforementioned methods. The control unit coordinates especially the torques and/or the torque gradients of the drive machines of the first drive train, and the torque and the torque gradient of the second electric machine”; i.e. control unit would have a computer readable medium which stores instruction for the control unit to perform the methods)
As per claim 20, it recites A method for operating an all-wheel drive vehicle having limitations similar to those of claim 10 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 22, it recites A method for operating an all-wheel drive vehicle having limitations similar to those of claim 12 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion
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.
/W.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
12/8/25