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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 12/18/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the braking torque commanded to the front right wheel is greater than the braking commanded to the rear right wheel” should be changed to --wherein the braking torque commanded to the front right wheel is greater than the braking torque commanded to the rear right wheel—. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the driving mode is a pivot-assist mode” should be changed to -- wherein the off-road driving mode is a pivot-assist mode. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 & 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0148255A1 (“Korsch”), in view of US 2021/0253162A1 (“Thompson”).
As per claim 1 Thompson discloses
A vehicle comprising (see at least Korsch, para. [0028]: vehicle 100…):
a front axle including left and right front wheels and operably coupled to a first powerplant (see at least Korsch, para. [0029]: In some embodiments, front left wheel 102 and front right wheel 104 may be connected via drive shaft 122. In some embodiments, drive shaft 122 may include a differential 120 (e.g. , a locking differential). In some embodiments, vehicle 100 may include motor 124. Motor 124 may be connected to drive shaft 122 (e.g., via a belt, chains, gears, or any other connection device).);
a rear axle including left and right rear wheels operably coupled to a second powerplant (see at least Korsch, para. [0030]: In some embodiments, back left wheel 102 and back right wheel 104 may be connected via drive shaft 132. In some embodiments, drive shaft 132 may include a differential 130 (e.g., a locking differential). In some embodiments, vehicle 100 may include a motor 134. Motor 134 maybe connected to drive shaft 132 (e.g., via a belt, chains, gears, or any other connection device).);
a steering wheel (see at least Korsch, para. [0055]: FIG. 5 shows a front view of an illustrative steering wheel 500 of a vehicle (e.g., vehicle 100 or 200)…);
at least one driver-actuatable input including at least a first state and a second state (see at least Korsch, para. [0036]: For example , a user may press a button or turn a lever to request the front dig mode. & para. [0048]: For example, a user may press a button, turn a lever, or turn the steering wheel to request the tank-turn mode.); and
a controller programmed to, in response to (i) the vehicle being in an off-road driving mode, (ii) the input being in the first position, and (iii) the steering wheel being turned right beyond a threshold (see at least Korsch, para. [0048]: In some embodiments, the processing circuitry of vehicle 200 may engage the tank-turn mode when certain conditions are met. For example, a user may press a button, turn a lever, or turn the steering wheel to request the tank-turn mode. For example, the tank-turn mode may be activated from the front dig mode when the user turns the steering wheel even further.);
command braking torques to the front and rear right wheels, respectively (see at least Korsch, para. [0024-0025]: At the same time, a resistance (e.g., braking or backwards torque) is provided to the inner back wheel of the vehicle… For example, during a right turn, the right wheels of the vehicle may be considered “inner wheels," while the left wheels of the vehicle may be considered "outer wheels.” In another example, during a left turn, the left wheels of the vehicle may be considered “inner wheels," while the right wheels of the vehicle may be considered “outer wheels." para. [0047]: In some embodiments, vehicle 200 may operate in a tank-turn mode during a turn. A left turn is described herein, however those skilled in the art will recognize that a similar technique may be used to perform a right turn. & para. [0053]: At the same time, as shown, left wheels 406 and 408 are not turned (e.g., the wheels are kept straight) and are being provided with backwards torque. [Examiner Note: Since the example is left turn, if you do a right turn the opposite occurs, so the right front and rear wheels would be provided with backwards torque].),
command a forward torque to the second powerplant based on a driver demanded torque (see at least Korsch, para. [0043]: In some embodiments, the processing circuitry of vehicle 200 may be capable of directly controlling features of vehicle 200 with or without user input. In another example, control circuitry may be able to actuate motor 212 to provide specified amount of backwards or forward torque to wheel 202. Similar, control circuitry may be able to actuate any of motors 214 , 216 , 218 to provide a specified amount of backwards or forward torque to wheels 204, 206, 208, respectively. para. [0053]: In some embodiments, the vehicle 400 is operating in a left tank-turn mode. As shown, right wheels 402 and 404 are not turned (e.g., the wheels are kept straight) and are being provided with forward torque. [Examiner Note: Since the example is left turn, in a right turn it would be the opposite and forward torque would be to the left front and rear wheels.).
However Korsch does not explicitly disclose
command zero torque to the first powerplant.
Thompson teaches
command braking torques to the front and rear right wheels (see at least Thompson, para. [0036]: FIG. 7 illustrates an example Rear Left Dig operation where the right front wheel 34 becomes a pivot point 'P' for rotation of the vehicle 10 by braking the front right wheel 34 and driving rear wheels 22, 24. In this operation, the steering wheel 58 is directed rightward (from neutral forward position) such that front wheels 32, 34 are oriented in a generally rightward direction.), respectively,
command zero torque to the first axle (see at least Thompson, para. [0036]: Dig lock controller 52 controls transfer case 30 to disable propulsion transfer to the front wheels 32, 34 and subsequently drives the rear wheels 22, 24 while the unbraked left front wheel 32 rolls with the vehicle 10, thereby causing vehicle 10 to rotate clockwise about pivot point 'P' (as shown in FIG. 7). Accordingly, vehicle 10 moves generally laterally leftward utilizing the Rear Left Dig operation.), and
command a forward torque to the rear axle based on a driver demanded torque (see at least Thompson, para. [0036]: Dig lock controller 52 controls transfer case 30 to disable propulsion transfer to the front wheels 32, 34 and subsequently drives the rear wheels 22, 24 while the unbraked left front wheel 32 rolls with the vehicle 10, thereby causing vehicle 10 to rotate clockwise about pivot point 'P' (as shown in FIG. 7). Accordingly, vehicle 10 moves generally laterally leftward utilizing the Rear Left Dig operation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Korsch to incorporate the teaching of command zero torque to the first powerplant of Thompson, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve off-road driving and maneuverability (see at least Thompson, para. [0038]).
As per claim 3 Korsch discloses
wherein the driving mode is a pivot-assist mode (see at least Korsch, para. [0035]: In some embodiments, vehicle 100 may operate in front dig mode during a turn.).
However Korsch does not explicitly disclose
the first state of the input corresponds to a front pivot assist and second state of the input corresponds to a rear pivot assist.
Thompson teaches
wherein the driving mode is a pivot-assist mode, and the first state of the input corresponds to a front pivot assist and second state of the input corresponds to a rear pivot assist (see at least Thompson, para. [0024]: For example, input switches 60 may include a front dig switch 60a, a rear dig switch 60b, and a lateral dig switch 60c. The steering controller 62 is configured to control which tire is braked while doing a dig/movement.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Korsch to incorporate the teaching of wherein the driving mode is a pivot-assist mode, and the first state of the input corresponds to a front pivot assist and second state of the input corresponds to a rear pivot assist of Thompson, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve off-road driving and maneuverability (see at least Thompson, para. [0038]).
As per claim 4 Korsch discloses
wherein the first and second powerplants are electric machines (see at least Korsch, para. [0029-0030]: In some embodiments, vehicle 100 may include motor 124. Motor 124 may be connected to drive shaft 122 (e.g., via a belt, chains, gears, or any other connection device). In some embodiments, motor 124 may be configured to provide backwards and forward torque to drive shaft 122…In some embodiments, vehicle 100 may include a motor 134. Motor 134 may be connected to drive shaft 132 (e.g., via a belt, chains, gears, or any other connection device). In some embodiments, motor 134 may be configured to provide backwards and forward torque to drive shaft 132.).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korsch, in view of Thompson, in view of US 2023/0182579A1 (“Koga”).
As per claim 2 Korsch does not explicitly disclose
wherein the braking torque commanded to the front right wheel is greater than the braking commanded to the rear right wheel
Koga teaches
wherein the braking torque commanded to the front right wheel is greater than the braking commanded to the rear right wheel (see at least para. [0069]: As shown in FIG. 3, in the vehicle 1 of the first embodiment, the tum assist control is performed by the vehicle motion control unit 37 during the left-tum acceleration travel, and when the left-front brake device 30a on the turn inner-wheel side brakes, the driving torques of the front motor 4 and the rear motor 6 are increased according to the braking torque, whereby the braking torque applied by the turn assist control is compensated by the increased amounts of the driving torques of the four wheels 3a to 3d. As a result, it is possible to suppress the reduction in speed of the vehicle 1 at an unexpected timing for the driver due to the turn assist control. Further, the turning performance can be enhanced by increasing the driving torque of the rear motor 6 more than that of the front motor 4, that is, by increasing the driving torque of the rear wheels 3c and 3d more than
that of the front wheels 3a and 3b.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Korsch to incorporate the teaching of wherein the braking torque commanded to the front right wheel is greater than the braking commanded to the rear right wheel of Koga, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure travel stability performance by suppressing turn spin while suppressing reduction in speed (see at least Koga, para. [0015]).
Claim(s) 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korsch, in view of Thompson, in view of US 2022/0219676A1 (“Cao”).
As per claim 5 Korsch discloses
wherein the controller is further programmed to, in response to (i) the vehicle being in the off-road driving mode, (ii) the input being in the second state, and (iii) the steering wheel being turned right beyond the threshold (see at least Korsch, para. [0035-0036]: In some embodiments, the processing circuitry of vehicle 100 may engage the front dig mode when certain conditions are met. For example, a user may press a button or turn a lever to request the front dig mode. In some embodiments, the front dig mode is activated when the speed of vehicle 100 is below a threshold (e.g., 5 miles per hour), and when at least one of wheels 102 and 104 is turned more than a certain angle (e.g., more than 40%). In some embodiments, the user may explicitly request the front dig mode ( e.g. , by pressing a front dig button ), but the front dig mode will be activated by the processing circuitry only when the aforementioned speed and wheel turn criteria are met.):
command a braking torque to the left rear wheel (see at least Korsch, para. [0037]: In some embodiments, the processing circuitry may also apply resistance to forward rotation of the inner back wheel (e.g., wheel 106) of vehicle 100.),
command a forward torque to the first powerplant based on the driver demanded torque (see at least Korsch, para. [0037]: while operating in front dig mode, the processing circuitry of vehicle 100 may provide forward torque to front wheels 102, 104 (e.g., by providing front torque to drive shaft 122) using motor 124.).
However Korsch does not explicitly disclose
command a reverse torque to the second powerplant.
Cao teaches
command a reverse torque to the second powerplant (see at least Cao, para. [0030]: In some embodiments, alternatively or additionally, the negative torque value 232 may be generated may be generated based on additional or other criteria. For example, a slip table 250 may be provided in some cases in order to generate a slip value 252. The slip table 250 may include a series of output values that are determined based on respective input values. Based on the respective input values, the slip table 250 may be referenced in order to determine the slip value 230. As shown in FIG. 2, the slip table 250 may consider the vehicle speed 242 and/or the steering wheel angle 244 in order to determine the slip value 252. & para. [0037]: The BEV 400 has a front electric motor 430 that drives a front axle 432 (and the front wheels 434 attached thereto) and a rear electric motor 440 that drives a rear axle 442 (and rear wheels 444 attached thereto) . The BEV 400 also has a controller 450 (e.g., an example of controller 140 ) that controls the application of power to the front and rear axles 432 and 442. [Examiner Note: Based on the turn, the right rear wheel can be interpreted as the inside rear wheel.]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Korsch to incorporate the teaching of command a reverse torque to the second powerplant of Cao, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to define a strategy for providing turning radius reduction that can be implemented to provide a more satisfying user experience for drivers of these and other vehicles (see at least Cao, para. [0003]).
As per claim 6 Korsch discloses
wherein the reverse torque commanded to the second powerplant is independent of the driver-demanded torque (see at least Korsch, para. [0071-0071]: For example, the processing circuitry may apply a brake to wheel 106 or to wheel 206. In some embodiments, the processing circuitry, may provide backward torque to wheel 206 using motor 216. In some embodiments, the amount of backwards torque may be proportional to how far the steering wheel of the vehicle is turned. For example, the further the steering wheel is turned , the more backward torque may be applied, which may further decrease the turn radius…For example, the amount of torque provided to the front wheels of the vehicle and to the outer back wheel of the vehicle may be proportional to how far the user presses the gas pedal….As another example, the amount of resistance provided to the inner back wheel may vary based on how far the steering wheel is turned past a threshold.).
As per claim 7 Korsch does not explicitly disclose
wherein the reverse torque commanded to the second powerplant is based on a target slip of the right rear wheel.
Cao teaches
wherein the reverse torque commanded to the second powerplant is based on a target slip of the right rear wheel (see at least Cao, para. [0030]: In some embodiments, alternatively or additionally, the negative torque value 232 may be generated may be generated based on additional or other criteria. For example, a slip table 250 may be provided in some cases in order to generate a slip value 252. The slip table 250 may include a series of output values that are determined based on respective input values. Based on the respective input values, the slip table 250 may be referenced in order to determine the slip value 230. As shown in FIG. 2, the slip table 250 may consider the vehicle speed 242 and/or the steering wheel angle 244 in order to determine the slip value 252. & para. [0037]: The BEV 400 has a front electric motor 430 that drives a front axle 432 (and the front wheels 434 attached thereto) and a rear electric motor 440 that drives a rear axle 442 (and rear wheels 444 attached thereto) . The BEV 400 also has a controller 450 (e.g., an example of controller 140 ) that controls the application of power to the front and rear axles 432 and 442. [Examiner Note: Based on the turn, the right rear wheel can be interpreted as the inside rear wheel.]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Korsch to incorporate the teaching of wherein the reverse torque commanded to the second powerplant is based on a target slip of the right rear wheel of Cao, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to define a strategy for providing turning radius reduction that can be implemented to provide a more satisfying user experience for drivers of these and other vehicles (see at least Cao, para. [0003]).
As per claim 8 Korsch discloses
wherein the forward and reverse torques are commanded such that a sum of torques of the front axle and the rear axle is ZERO (see at least Korsch, para. [0063]: The relative amount of backward torque on the inner wheels may increase relative to the amount of forward torque applied to the outer wheels as the amount the steering wheel is turned past the second threshold increase. When the steering wheel is turned to its maximum amount, the back ward torque applied to the inner wheels may be approximately equal to the forward torque applied to the outer wheels.).
As per claim 9 Korsch does not explicitly disclose
wherein the braking torque commanded to the left rear wheel is a based on an angle of the steering wheel.
Cao teaches
wherein the braking torque commanded to the left rear wheel is a based on an angle of the steering wheel (see at least Cao, para. [0030]: In some embodiments, alternatively or additionally, the negative torque value 232 may be generated may be generated based on additional or other criteria. For example, a slip table 250 may be provided in some cases in order to generate a slip value 252. The slip table 250 may include a series of output values that are determined based on respective input values. Based on the respective input values, the slip table 250 may be referenced in order to determine the slip value 230. As shown in FIG. 2, the slip table 250 may consider the vehicle speed 242 and/or the steering wheel angle 244 in order to determine the slip value 252…the vehicle speed 242 is below the threshold speed ( e.g. , 12 mph ) and the steering wheel is turned to maximum angle for a given period of time ( e.g. , held at lock, thereby indicating that the driver is providing steering torque to hold the wheel against the end stop for at least the given period of time ) , then the slip value 252 may be used by the yaw generator 230 to define the negative torque value 232 to be applied to the inside rear wheel 234.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Korsch to incorporate the teaching of wherein the braking torque commanded to the left rear wheel is a based on an angle of the steering wheel of Cao, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to define a strategy for providing turning radius reduction that can be implemented to provide a more satisfying user experience for drivers of these and other vehicles (see at least Cao, para. [0003]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED ABDO ALGEHAIM whose telephone number is (571)272-3628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM 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 at 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.
/MOHAMED ABDO ALGEHAIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668