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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed 10/11/2025 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1-4, 6, and 10 have been amended; claims 9, 13, and 15 have been canceled; no claims have been added or withdrawn. Claims 1-15 are now pending and under consideration. Note that claims 1 and 10 each include numerous amendments to cancel claim language that was not previously recited by the claims as previously filed 07/01/2025, and the amendments to each of claims 1 and 10 fail to identify cancellation of other recitations which were in present the previously-filed claims but are no longer recited by the current forms of the claims.
The previous objections to claims 1 and 10 have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to the claims.
The previous rejections of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to claims 1 and 10.
The previous rejections of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to claim 10 and the cancellation of claims 13 and 15.
On page 7 of the remarks, Applicant asserts that:
PNG
media_image1.png
196
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Appended to the end of Applicant’s remarks filed 10/11/2025, immediately following page 11 of the remarks, is a six-page copy of the article referenced by page 7 of Applicant’s remarks. The examiner respectfully disagrees that inclusion of the aforementioned appended article establishes inherency of “the acceleration of the electric vehicle is controlled differently in the comfort mode and the sporty driving mode.”
Claim 1, as amended, now recites “A method for operating an electric vehicle having at least a first driving mode and a second driving mode, acceleration of the electric vehicle being controlled differently in the first and second driving modes” in lines 1-3, “determining, by the electronic control of the electric vehicle, that the electric vehicle is operating in the first driving mode; generating, by the electronic control of the electric vehicle, pulses when the electric vehicle is determined to be operating in the first driving mode” in lines 12-24, and “determining, by the electronic control of the electric vehicle, that the electric vehicle is operating in the second driving mode” in lines 31-32. Claim 10, as amended, now recites “An electronic control for an electric vehicle having at least a first driving mode and a second driving mode that is different from the first driving mode, acceleration of the electric vehicle being controlled differently in the first and second driving modes” in lines 1-4, “determine that the electric vehicle is operating in the first driving mode; generate pulses when the electric vehicle is determined to be operating in the first driving mode” in lines 14-24, and “determine that the electric vehicle is operating in the second driving mode” in line 31. Specifically, it is unclear exactly where and exactly how Applicant’s originally-filed specification provides sufficient written description support for the newly claimed preamble recitation “acceleration of the electric vehicle being controlled differently in the first and second driving modes.”
No part of Applicant’s specification provides disclosure support for different control of the acceleration of the electric vehicle in the comfort mode as compared to the sporty driving mode, or vice versa. Put differently, it is unclear exactly where and exactly how Applicant’s originally-filed specification provides sufficient written description support for the newly claimed preamble recitation “acceleration of the electric vehicle being controlled differently in the first and second driving modes.” As best understood by the examiner, Applicant’s specification only discloses “driving modes” via “The electronic control can determine and superimpose the superimposed pulses based on a type of operation of the electric vehicle and/or based on the driver's wishes. If the electric vehicle has the driving modes ‘comfort,’ ‘dynamic’ or ‘sporty,’ the electronic control can generate the superimposed pulses in the operating modes ‘dynamic’ and ‘sporty,’ but not in the operating mode ‘comfort’” (¶ 0021); however, two or more of “the driving modes ‘comfort,’ ‘dynamic’ or ‘sporty,’” do not inherently or implicitly include differences in control of acceleration of the electric vehicle, no part of Applicant’s specification provides disclosure supporting the newly claimed preamble recitation. Also, as best understood by the examiner, Applicant’s drawings do not show “the acceleration of the electric vehicle is controlled differently in the comfort mode and the sporty driving mode” as newly recited by amended claim 1.
Therefore, the amendments to independent claim 1 improperly introduce “new matter” to the claimed method, such that the claim now fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-10 of the remarks with respect to the rejections of independent claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0072960 to Oh et al. [hereinafter: “Oh (‘960)”] have been fully considered, and they are persuasive. Indeed, Oh (‘960) alone does not fully teach each and every element of amended claims 1 and 10 under a broadest reasonable interpretation. Therefore, the prior art rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection of amended claim 1 is now made under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0153144 to Oh et al. [hereinafter: “Oh (‘114)”], and a new ground of rejection of amended claim 10 is now made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (‘114) in view of Oh (‘960).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “superposed” in line 34, which appears to be a misspelling of --superimposed--.
Claim 10 recites “superposed” in line 31, which appears to be a misspelling of --superimposed--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, as amended, now recites “A method for operating an electric vehicle having at least a first driving mode and a second driving mode, acceleration of the electric vehicle being controlled differently in the first and second driving modes” in lines 1-3, “determining, by the electronic control of the electric vehicle, that the electric vehicle is operating in the first driving mode; generating, by the electronic control of the electric vehicle, pulses when the electric vehicle is determined to be operating in the first driving mode” in lines 12-24, and “determining, by the electronic control of the electric vehicle, that the electric vehicle is operating in the second driving mode” in lines 31-32. Specifically, it is unclear exactly where and exactly how Applicant’s originally-filed specification provides sufficient written description support for the newly claimed preamble recitation “acceleration of the electric vehicle being controlled differently in the first and second driving modes.” As best understood by the examiner, Applicant’s specification only discloses “driving modes” via “The electronic control can determine and superimpose the superimposed pulses based on a type of operation of the electric vehicle and/or based on the driver's wishes. If the electric vehicle has the driving modes ‘comfort,’ ‘dynamic’ or ‘sporty,’ the electronic control can generate the superimposed pulses in the operating modes ‘dynamic’ and ‘sporty,’ but not in the operating mode ‘comfort’” (¶ 0021); however, two or more of “the driving modes ‘comfort,’ ‘dynamic’ or ‘sporty,’” do not inherently or implicitly include differences in control of acceleration of the electric vehicle, no part of Applicant’s specification provides disclosure supporting the newly claimed preamble recitation. Appended to the end of Applicant’s remarks filed 10/11/2025, immediately following page 11 of the remarks, is a six-page copy of an article, and page 7 of Applicant’s remarks assert that:
PNG
media_image1.png
196
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees that inclusion of this article establishes inherency of “the acceleration of the electric vehicle is controlled differently in the comfort mode and the sporty driving mode,” and no part of Applicant’s specification provides disclosure support for different control of the acceleration of the electric vehicle in the comfort mode as compared to the sporty driving mode, or vice versa. Also, as best understood by the examiner, Applicant’s drawings do not show “the acceleration of the electric vehicle is controlled differently in the comfort mode and the sporty driving mode” as newly recited by amended claim 1. Therefore, the amendments to independent claim 1 improperly introduce “new matter” to the claimed method, such that the claim now fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-8 and 14 are dependent from claim 1, such that claims 2-8 and 14 also include the “new matter” recited by claim 1 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 1 is rejected.
Claim 10, as amended, now recites “An electronic control for an electric vehicle having at least a first driving mode and a second driving mode that is different from the first driving mode, acceleration of the electric vehicle being controlled differently in the first and second driving modes” in lines 1-4, “determine that the electric vehicle is operating in the first driving mode; generate pulses when the electric vehicle is determined to be operating in the first driving mode” in lines 14-24, and “determine that the electric vehicle is operating in the second driving mode” in line 31. Specifically, it is unclear exactly where and exactly how Applicant’s originally-filed specification provides sufficient written description support for the newly claimed preamble recitation “acceleration of the electric vehicle being controlled differently in the first and second driving modes.” As best understood by the examiner, Applicant’s specification only discloses “driving modes” via “The electronic control can determine and superimpose the superimposed pulses based on a type of operation of the electric vehicle and/or based on the driver's wishes. If the electric vehicle has the driving modes ‘comfort,’ ‘dynamic’ or ‘sporty,’ the electronic control can generate the superimposed pulses in the operating modes ‘dynamic’ and ‘sporty,’ but not in the operating mode ‘comfort’” (¶ 0021); however, two or more of “the driving modes ‘comfort,’ ‘dynamic’ or ‘sporty,’” do not inherently or implicitly include differences in control of acceleration of the electric vehicle, no part of Applicant’s specification provides disclosure supporting the newly claimed preamble recitation. Appended to the end of Applicant’s remarks filed 10/11/2025, immediately following page 11 of the remarks, is a six-page copy of an article, and page 7 of Applicant’s remarks assert that:
PNG
media_image1.png
196
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees that inclusion of this article establishes inherency of “the acceleration of the electric vehicle is controlled differently in the comfort mode and the sporty driving mode,” and no part of Applicant’s specification provides disclosure support for different control of the acceleration of the electric vehicle in the comfort mode as compared to the sporty driving mode, or vice versa. Also, as best understood by the examiner, Applicant’s drawings do not show “the acceleration of the electric vehicle is controlled differently in the comfort mode and the sporty driving mode” as newly recited by amended claim 10. Therefore, the amendments to independent claim 10 improperly introduce “new matter” to the claimed method, such that the claim now fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 11 and 12 are dependent from claim 10, such that claims 11 and 12 also include the “new matter” recited by claim 10 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 10 is rejected.
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, 4-6, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0153144 to Oh et al. [hereinafter: “Oh (‘144)”].
With respect to claim 1, Oh (‘144) teaches a method for operating an electric vehicle having at least a first driving mode and a second driving mode, acceleration of the electric vehicle being controlled differently in the first and second driving modes [as depicted by at least Figs. 1-8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0009-0010, 0047, 0049-0057, 0064-0065 & 0115-0121; for example, an immediate acceleration/deceleration response is provided via operation in a virtual drive system mode according to an exemplary embodiment 3 (e.g., “first driving mode”) that realizes sensibility of a sports car (e.g., see Fig. 8 in view of at least ¶ 0116), whereas a different acceleration/deceleration response is provided in a basic drive mode (e.g., “second driving mode”) in which the virtual drive system mode is turned “off” (e.g., see Fig. 3 in view of at least ¶ 0047, 0049-0057 & 0064-0065)], the method comprising: receiving, by an electronic control of the electric vehicle, a torque demand during operation of the electric vehicle [as depicted by at least Fig. 1 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0051 & 0059-0063, accelerator pedal input information (accelerator pedal input value) (e.g., “torque demand”) is received, by a driving information detector 12 of a device for controlling the electric vehicle (Fig. 1; e.g., “electronic control”), according to an accelerator pedal operation of a driver during operation of the electric vehicle]; generating, by the electronic control of the electric vehicle, a control signal based on the torque demand [as depicted by at least Figs. 1-8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0043-0120, a final torque command (e.g., “control signal”) is generated, by a virtual drive system mode control part 22 of a first controller 20 of the “electronic control,” as one of a virtual drive system torque command obtained by adding a vibration component to a basic torque command or an uncorrected torque command equal to the basic torque command, where the basic torque command is determined, by a basic torque command generation part 21 of the first controller 20, based on the received accelerator pedal input information, and where the virtual vibration command is determined by the virtual drive system mode control part 22]; providing, by an electric motor of the electric vehicle, a torque that accelerates the electric vehicle based on the control signal [as depicted by at least Figs. 1-8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0043-0120, a driving motor (driving device) 41 (e.g., “electric motor”) of the electric vehicle outputs torque to accelerate the electric vehicle in response to the accelerator pedal operation based on the generated final torque command]; receiving, by an infotainment system of the electric vehicle, an input corresponding to one of a plurality of predefined vibration patterns [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0043-0120, a driver setting variable value selection by the driver to select a virtual drive system mode (e.g., “input”) is received by an interface unit 11 (e.g., an input device or a touch screen) of an Audio, Video, Navigation (ANV) system (e.g., “infotainment system”) of the electric vehicle, including when the virtual drive system mode corresponds to one of the exemplary embodiment 3 which corresponds to a first vibration characteristic (e.g., “predefined vibration pattern”) or an exemplary embodiment 1 which corresponds to a second vibration characteristic (e.g., “predefined vibration pattern”)]; determining, by the electronic control of the electric vehicle, that the electric vehicle is operating in the first driving mode [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0043-0120, the driver setting variable value selection is determined by the “electronic control,” including when the driver setting variable value selection corresponds to the exemplary embodiment 3, such as when the driver setting variable value has changed]; generating, by the electronic control of the electric vehicle, pulses when the electric vehicle is determined to be operating in the first driving mode, wherein the pulses are configured based on the one of the plurality of predefined vibration patterns corresponding to the input received by the infotainment system of the electric vehicle; superimposing, by the electronic control of the electric vehicle, the pulses on the control signal [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0043-0120, the driving motor 41 is controlled, by a second controller 30 of the “electronic control,” based on a virtual drive system torque command having the first vibration characteristic generated by a virtual drive system model of the first controller 20 at times including when the driver setting variable value selection corresponds to the exemplary embodiment 3 and an “on” selection by the driver to turn on the virtual drive system mode has been received by the interface unit 11]; and determining, by the electronic control of the electric vehicle, that the electric vehicle is operating in the second driving mode, wherein the pulses are not generated and are not superposed on the control signal when the electric vehicle is determined to be operating in the second driving mode [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0047, 0050-0052 & 0054-0057, the basic drive mode in which the virtual drive system mode is turned “off” is determined by the “electronic control,” and the driving motor 41 is controlled, by the second controller 30, in accordance with the basic drive mode, such that the final torque command is the uncorrected torque command equal to the basic torque command, with no vibration component being added to the basic torque command].
With respect to claim 4, Oh (‘144) teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: simulating, by the electronic control of the electric vehicle, vibrations of a given internal combustion engine based on the pulses (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1, and apparent from at least Figs. 1-8 in view of at least ¶ 0001-0010, 0016, 0030-0041 & 0118).
With respect to claim 5, Oh (‘144) teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: sending, by an activation element (e.g., an accelerator pedal) of the electric vehicle, the torque demand to the electronic control, wherein the electronic control receives the torque demand from the activation element (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1, and apparent from at least Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 6, Oh (‘144) teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein an artificial neural network of the electronic control determines the pulses [claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and “wherein an artificial neural network of the electronic control determines the pulses” does not necessarily positively recite a process step and would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed method during performing of the claimed method, such that “wherein an artificial neural network of the electronic control determines the pulses” does not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation].
With respect to claim 14, Oh (‘144) teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of predefined vibration patterns respectively correspond to a plurality of types of engines (as depicted by at least Fig. 8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0115-0120).
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.
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.
Claims 2, 3, and 10-12 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (‘144) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0072960 to Oh et al. [hereinafter: “Oh (‘960)”].
With respect to claim 2, Oh (‘144) teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the electronic control of the electric vehicle, an amplitude of the pulses (as depicted by at least Figs. 6 & 7 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0024, 0040, 0074, 0091, 0094-0098, 0102-0105 & 0110), and determining, by the electronic control of the electric vehicle, a travel speed of the electric vehicle (as depicted by at least Fig. 1 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0063); however, Oh (‘144) appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the method further comprises determining, by the electronic control of the electric vehicle, the amplitude of the pulses based on the travel speed of the electric vehicle.
Oh (‘960) teaches an analogous method comprising determining, by an electronic control of an electric vehicle, an amplitude of pulses based on a travel speed of the electric vehicle [as depicted by at least Figs. 1-4 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0078-0080 and claims 6 & 16, an amplitude (vibration level) of a virtual vibration command is determined, by a virtual vibration control unit 22, based on a vehicle speed (e.g., “travel speed”) of an electric vehicle], where the pulses are configured based on one of a plurality of predefined vibration patterns corresponding to an input received by an infotainment system (11; AVN) of the electric vehicle and are selectively superimposed, by the electronic control of the electric vehicle, on a control signal based on a torque demand received during operation of the electric vehicle (as depicted by at least Figs. 1-10 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0034, 0038-0043, 0055, 0057-0074, 0087-0090, 0092-0093, 0098 & 0101).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the method of Oh (‘144) with the teachings of Oh (‘960), if even necessary, to further include determining, by the electronic control of the electric vehicle, an amplitude of the pulses based on a travel speed of the electric vehicle because Oh (‘960) demonstrates that such processing beneficially improves generation of a virtual internal combustion engine vibration effect when desired by a driver of an electric vehicle [as discussed by at least ¶ 0001-0010 & 0078-0080 of Oh (‘960)].
With respect to claim 3, Oh (‘144) modified supra teaches the method according to claim 2, further comprising: determining, by the electronic control of the electric vehicle, a frequency of the pulses (as depicted by at least Figs. 4, 7 & 8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0025, 0040, 0074, 0091-0094, 0098-0100 & 0108); however, Oh (‘144) appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the method further comprises determining, by the electronic control of the electric vehicle, the frequency of the pulses based on the torque.
Oh (‘960) teaches the analogous method (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 2) further comprising determining, by the electronic control of the electric vehicle, a frequency of the pulses based on a torque [as depicted by at least Figs. 1-4 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0075 and claims 14 & 16, a frequency (cycle) of the virtual vibration command is determined, by the virtual vibration control unit 22, based on a basic motor torque command], provided by an electric motor (41) of the electric vehicle, that accelerates the electric vehicle based on the control signal [as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 2 (and Figs. 4, 6 & 8-10) and as discussed by at least ¶ 0034, 0042-0043, 0055 & 0057-0073].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the method of Oh (‘144) with the teachings of Oh (‘960), if even necessary, to further include determining, by the electronic control of the electric vehicle, a frequency of the pulses based on the torque because Oh (‘960) demonstrates that such processing beneficially improves generation of a virtual internal combustion engine vibration effect when desired by a driver of an electric vehicle [as discussed by at least ¶ 0001-0010 & 0075 of Oh (‘960)].
With respect to claim 10, Oh (‘144) teaches an electronic control for an electric vehicle having at least a first driving mode and a second driving mode that is different from the first driving mode, acceleration of the electric vehicle being controlled differently in the first and second driving modes, the electronic control comprising: at least one processor (e.g., 20, 30) that executes instructions that cause the electronic control to: receive a torque demand during operation of the electric vehicle; generate a control signal based on the torque demand, wherein the control signal causes an electric motor of the electric vehicle to provide a torque that accelerates the electric vehicle; receive an indication of an input to an infotainment system of the electric vehicle corresponding to one of a plurality of predefined vibration patterns; determine that the electric vehicle is operating in a first driving mode; generate pulses when the electric vehicle is determined to be operating in the first driving mode, wherein the pulses are configured based on the one of the plurality of predefined vibration patterns corresponding to the input to the infotainment system of the electric vehicle; superimpose the pulses on the control signal and obtain superimposed pulses; and determine that the electric vehicle is operating in the second driving modes, wherein the pulses are not generated and are not superposed on the control signal when the electric vehicle is determined to be operating in the second driving mode (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
Oh (‘144) appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the electronic control further includes at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic control to perform the control functions recited by claim 10.
Oh (‘960) teaches an analogous electronic control (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 2 and 3, and apparent from at least Fig. 2) including: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions (as discussed by at least ¶ 0034) that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic control to perform an analogous method (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 2 and 3, and apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the electronic control of Oh (‘144) with the teachings of Oh (‘960), if even necessary, to further include at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic control to perform the control functions recited by claim 10, to implement the first controller and the second controller of Oh (‘144) with specific computer structure instead of generic computer structure, in order to actually make and use the electronic control of Oh (‘144).
With respect to claim 11, Oh (‘144) modified supra teaches the electronic control according to claim 10, wherein the electric vehicle is connected to the electric motor, and wherein the electronic control, in operation, controls the electric motor (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 1 and 10, and apparent from at least Fig. 1 in view of at least ¶ 0060 & 0066).
With respect to claim 12, Oh (‘144) modified supra teaches the electronic control according to claim 10, wherein the plurality of predefined vibration patterns respectively correspond to a plurality of types of engines (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 14).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (‘144) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0234451 to Srinivasan (hereinafter: “Srinivasan”).
With respect to claim 6, Oh (‘144) teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a virtual internal combustion engine model of the electronic control determines the pulses (apparent from at least Figs. 1-8 in view of at least ¶ 0043-0120, and as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claims and 4 and 14); however, Oh (‘144) appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the virtual internal combustion engine model is, or involves, an artificial neural network, and Oh (‘144) appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether an artificial neural network of the electronic control determines the pulses.
Even so, as discussed in detail above, Oh (‘960) teaches each and every limitation of the method of claim 6 so as to anticipate the claim under a broadest reasonable interpretation for at least the reason that “wherein an artificial neural network of the electronic control determines the pulses” does not necessarily limit the method of claim 6. However, in such a case where Applicant is able to sufficiently show that “wherein an artificial neural network of the electronic control determines the pulses” necessarily further limits the claimed method and/or in such a case where “wherein an artificial neural network of the electronic control determines the pulses” is differently interpreted as further limiting the claimed method, it is also noted that Srinivasan teaches use of an artificial neural network of an electronic control, in the alternative to a model of the electronic control, to determine control signal pulses for pulsed control of a vehicle-mounted electric motor (as depicted by at least Figs. 5A-6 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0027 & 0079-0081).
Therefore, even if “wherein an artificial neural network of the electronic control determines the pulses” is differently interpreted as further limiting the claimed method, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the method of Oh (‘144) with the teachings of Srinivasan, if even necessary, such that an artificial neural network of the electronic control determines the pulses because Srinivasan demonstrates that use of an artificial neural network of an electronic control is a simple alternative to use of a model of an electronic control for determining control signal pulses for pulsed control of a vehicle-mounted electric motor, such that replacing the virtual internal combustion engine model of the electronic control of Oh (‘144) [or modifying the virtual internal combustion engine model of the electronic control of Oh (‘144) to include use of] an artificial neural network would simply provide an alternative technique for determines the pulses based on a set of inputs, and such a modification would not be reasonably expected to destroy the determination of the method of Oh (‘144). Therefore, it is also understood that such a modification, if even necessary, would amount to a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (e.g., see: MPEP 2143_I_B).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (‘144) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0124024 to Nakamura et al. (hereinafter: “Nakamura”), and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0118815 to Jordan, III et al. (hereinafter: “Jordan”).
With respect to claim 7, Oh (‘144) teaches the method according to claim 1; however, Oh (‘144) appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the method further includes controlling, by the electronic control of the electric vehicle, the electric motor with a torque limitation and a delay relative to the torque demand.
Nakamura teaches an analogous method for operating an electric vehicle (as discussed by at least ¶ 0001), the method comprising: receiving, by an electronic control (e.g., 4) of the electric vehicle, a torque demand during operation of the electric vehicle [apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2; accelerator depressing degree (APO)]; generating, by the electronic control of the electric vehicle, a control signal based on the torque demand [apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2; accelerator depressing degree (APO)]; providing, by an electric motor (2) of the electric vehicle, a torque that accelerates the electric vehicle based on the control signal (as depicted by at least Figs. 1-5 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0001-0008 & 0013-0016); and controlling, by the electronic control of the electric vehicle, the electric motor with a delay relative to the torque demand (as depicted by at least Figs. 1-5 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0046 & 0051-0058; via primary delay treating section 13).
Nakamura teaches an analogous method for operating an electric vehicle (10) (as discussed by at least ¶ 0001), the method comprising: receiving, by an electronic control (e.g., 38) of the electric vehicle, a torque demand during operation of the electric vehicle (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2 in view of at least ¶ 0010); generating, by the electronic control of the electric vehicle, a control signal based on the torque demand (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2 in view of at least ¶ 0010 & 0019-0022); providing, by an electric motor (14) of the electric vehicle, a torque that accelerates the electric vehicle based on the control signal (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2 in view of at least ¶ 0010 & 0019-0022); and controlling, by the electronic control of the electric vehicle, the electric motor with a torque limitation relative to the torque demand (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2 in view of at least ¶ 0010 & 0019-0022).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the method of Oh (‘144) with the teachings of Nakamura, if even necessary, such that the method further includes controlling, by the electronic control of the electric vehicle, the electric motor with a delay relative to the torque demand because Nakamura further teaches that inclusion of such control of the electric motor beneficially improves an output torque characteristic of the electric motor, as perceived by a driver of the electric vehicle, during an acceleration operation of the electric vehicle, and because Oh (‘144) expressly sets forth no limitation for determining the basic motor torque command for controlling the torque output of the electric motor in the electric vehicle.
It also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the method of Oh (‘144) with the teachings of Jordan, if even necessary, such that the method further includes controlling, by the electronic control of the electric vehicle, the electric motor with a torque limitation to the torque demand because Jordan further teaches that inclusion of such control of the electric motor beneficially prevents exceeding a torque output limit of the electric motor in cases where a commanded torque of the electric motor to emulate an engine torque profile of a particular internal combustion engine model would otherwise exceed the torque output limit, and because Oh (‘144) expressly sets forth no limitation for determining the basic motor torque command for controlling the torque output of the electric motor in the electric vehicle.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (‘144) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0089174 to Oh et al. [hereinafter: “Oh (‘174)”].
With respect to claim 8, Oh (‘144) teaches the method according to one of claim 1; however, Oh (‘144) appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the method further includes controlling, by the electronic control of the electric vehicle, the infotainment system of the electric vehicle to output sound based on the superimposed pulses.
Oh (‘174) teaches an analogous method for operating an electric vehicle (apparent from at least Fig. 1), including controlling, by an electronic control of the electric vehicle, an infotainment system (e.g., 11, 51, 52 & 53 together) of the electric vehicle to output sound based on superimposed pulses (as depicted by at least Fig. 1 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0063-0079).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the method of Oh (‘144) with the teachings of Oh (‘174) such that the method further includes controlling, by the electronic control of the electric vehicle, the infotainment system of the electric vehicle to output sound based on the superimposed pulses because Oh (‘174) further teaches providing a controlled acoustic effect to mimic internal combustion engine characteristics in an electric vehicle together with electric motor torque control to mimic internal combustion engine characteristics beneficially improves said mimicking as compared to merely controlling electric motor torque.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached on 571-270-5065. 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.
/JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747