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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Claims 1-7 and 9-17 are currently pending.
3. Claims 14-17 are new.
4. Claim 8 is canceled.
5. Claims 1 and 13 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isayeva (US 20140062348 A1) in view of Seta (US 20200016980 A1).
10. Regarding Claim 1, Isayeva teaches a method for determination of state information that describes a state of a drive train including a first drive machine and a second drive machine of a motor vehicle, the first drive machine including a first electric machine, the method comprising (Isayeva: [0011]):
Upon fulfillment of a first diagnostic condition, activating at least one switch that electrically separates the first drive machine and an inverter coupled to the first drive machine from an onboard network including current sources and current sinks… (Isayeva: [0038], [0048], and [0058] Note that the battery is a current source when provided power to the power and a current sink during regenerative braking.),
And operating the first drive machine in an electrical idling mode in which the first drive machine and the inverter coupled to the first drive machine are electrically separated from the current sources and the current sinks, and the first drive machine is coupled to at least one first wheel of the motor vehicle (Isayeva: [0011], [0013], [0039], and [0048] Note that disabling the power flow to and from the electric machines is equivalent to the first drive machine and inverter being electrically separated from the current sources and currents sinks.),
And during the operating of the first drive machine in the electrical idling mode, acquiring a first performance measure of the second drive machine, while at least one second wheel of the motor vehicle is driven by the second drive machine (Isayeva: [0068], [0074], and [0076] Note that the performance measure must be acquired because Isayeva teaches to operate the drive machine based on the performance measure.);
And determining the state information based on the first performance measure and given reference information (Isayeva: [0017] and [0080] Note that Isayeva determines the second electric machine in in torque limiting state. This is equivalent to state information based on the first performance measure and reference information.).
Isayeva fails to teach an onboard network including current sources and current sinks that are different from the current sources.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Seta teaches activating at least one switch that electrically separates the first drive machine and an inverter coupled to the first drive machine from an onboard network including current sources and current sinks that are different from the current sources (Seta: [0031] and [0046] Note that the switches (61 and 62) electrically separate the drive machine (11) and inverter (41) from the onboard network that includes current sources (22) and current sinks (51).).
Isayeva and Seta are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle fault diagnosis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Isayeva to incorporate the teachings of Seta to include an onboard network including current sources and current sinks that are different from the current sources because it provides the benefit of properly diagnosing abnormalities in the vehicle's electrical system as explained in [0014] of Seta.
11. Regarding Claim 2, Isayeva and Seta remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Isayeva teaches the state information describes a tribological state of the drive train (Isayeva: [0017] and [0080] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the second drive machine operating in a torque limiting mode is equivalent to the state information describing a tribological state.).
12. Regarding Claim 3, Isayeva and Seta remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Isayeva teaches the second drive machine includes a second electric machine, wherein the method further comprises: detecting a current supplied to the second drive machine, using a current sensor of the motor vehicle (Isayeva: [0057] and [0068]);
And detecting a voltage dropping across the second drive machine, using a voltage sensor of the motor vehicle (Isayeva: [0054]),
And wherein the first performance measure is acquired as a product of the current and the voltage or is based on the product of the current and voltage (Isayeva: [0068] and [0076]).
13. Regarding Claim 4, Isayeva and Seta remains as applied above in Claim 3, and further, Isayeva teaches the current is a direct current (DC) current and the voltage is a DC voltage (Isayeva: [0034] and [0038]).
14. Regarding Claim 5, Isayeva and Seta remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Isayeva teaches the second drive machine includes a second electric machine, wherein the method further comprises: after acquiring the first performance measure, determining that the first diagnostic condition or a second diagnostic condition is fulfilled (Isayeva: [0011] and [0068]);
Operating the second drive machine in an electrical idling mode in which the second drive machine is electrically separated from current sources and current sinks and coupled to at least one second wheel of the motor vehicle (Isayeva: [0013] and [0039]);
And during the operating of the second drive machine in the electrical idling mode, acquiring a second performance measure of the first drive machine, while the at least one first wheel of the motor vehicle is driven by the first drive machine (Isayeva: [0068], [0074], and [0076] Note that operating the drive machine is based on the performance measure. Therefore, the performance measure must be acquired.);
And determining the state information based on the first performance measure and the second performance measure (Isayeva: [0017] and [0080] Note that Isayeva determines the second electric machine in in torque limiting state. This is equivalent to state information based on the first and second performance measure and reference information.).
15. Regarding Claim 6, Isayeva and Seta remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Isayeva teaches the given reference information is based on a speed of the motor vehicle or a number of revolutions of the first drive machine or the second drive machine (Isayeva: [0007] and [0017]).
16. Regarding Claim 7, Isayeva and Seta remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Isayeva teaches the first diagnostic condition is fulfilled when a speed of the motor vehicle or a number of revolutions of the first drive machine or the second drive machine is constant across a given time interval or lies within a range of variation with given breadth (Isayeva: [0005] and [0011]),
And wherein a measure of performance of the second drive machine that is applied in order to maintain the speed or the number of revolutions constant or in a variation interval while the first drive machine is operated in electrical idling mode, is acquired as the first performance measure (Isayeva: [0068], [0074], and [0076]).
17. Regarding Claim 9, Isayeva and Seta remains as applied above in Claim 5, and further, Isayeva teaches the first diagnostic condition or the second diagnostic condition is fulfilled when a road being driven upon by the motor vehicle has a gradient below a limit value (Isayeva: [0005] and [0011] Note that the first diagnostic condition is fulfilled for any road being driven upon (below limit value of ∞).).
18. Regarding Claim 11, Isayeva and Seta remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Isayeva teaches the state information is a Boolean value that is determined based on a comparison of the first performance measure with the give reference information or an intermediate result determined based on the first performance measure and the given reference information with a given limit value, or the state information is determined based on a difference or a quotient of the first performance measure and the given reference information (Isayeva: [0005], [0017], and [0080] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the state information is determined based on a difference.).
19. Regarding Claim 12, Isayeva and Seta remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Isayeva teaches upon fulfillment of a notice condition based on the state information, outputting a notice to a vehicle passenger or a device separate from the motor vehicle (Isayeva: [0091]).
20. Regarding Claim 13, Isayeva remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, teaches a motor vehicle comprising: a drive train including a first drive machine and a second drive machine, wherein the first drive machine includes an electric machine (Isayeva: [0011]);
And a processing device, wherein the processing device, in operation (Isayeva: [0101]),
Upon fulfillment of a diagnostic condition, activates at least one switch that electrically separates the first drive machine and an inverter coupled to the first drive machine from an onboard network including current sources and current sinks… (Isayeva: [0038], [0048], and [0058] Note that the battery is a current source when provided power to the power and a current sink during regenerative braking.),
And operates the first drive machine in an electrical idling mode in which the first drive machine and the inverter coupled to the first drive machine are electrically separated from the current sources and the current sinks, and the first drive machine is coupled to at least one first wheel of the motor vehicle (Isayeva: [0011], [0013], [0039], and [0048] Note that disabling the power flow to and from the electric machines is equivalent to the first drive machine and inverter being electrically separated from the current sources and currents sinks.),
During operation of the first drive machine in the electrical idling mode, acquires a performance measure of the second drive machine, while at least one second wheel of the motor vehicle is driven by the second drive machine (Isayeva: [0068], [0074], and [0076] Note that the performance measure must be acquired because Isayeva teaches to operate the drive machine based on the performance measure.);
And determines state information describing a state of the drive train based on the performance measure and given reference information (Isayeva: [0017] and [0080] Note that Isayeva determines the second electric machine in in torque limiting state. This is equivalent to state information based on the first performance measure and reference information.).
Isayeva fails to teach an onboard network including current sources and current sinks that are different from the current sources.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Seta teaches activates at least one switch that electrically separates the first drive machine and an inverter coupled to the first drive machine from an onboard network including current sources and current sinks that are different from the current sources (Seta: [0031] and [0046] Note that the switches (61 and 62) electrically separate the drive machine (11) and inverter (41) from the onboard network that includes current sources (22) and current sinks (51).).
Isayeva and Seta are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle fault diagnosis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Isayeva to incorporate the teachings of Seta to include an onboard network including current sources and current sinks that are different from the current sources because it provides the benefit of properly diagnosing abnormalities in the vehicle's electrical system as explained in [0014] of Seta.
21. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isayeva (US 20140062348 A1), in view of Seta (US 20200016980 A1), and in further view of Ogura (US 20200276979 A1).
22. Regarding Claim 10, Isayeva and Seta remains as applied above in Claim 9.
Isayeva fails to explicitly teach the limit value is 5° or 10°.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ogura teaches the limit value is 5° or 10° (Ogura: [0004] and [0062] Ogura discloses the claimed invention except for the limit value is 5° or 10°. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice for the limit value have a maximum of 5° or 10°, since the Applicant has not disclosed anything that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the gradient of the road below a limit value that is a flat road surface.).
Isayeva and Ogura are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle fault diagnosis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Isayeva to incorporate the teachings of Ogura for the for a gradient of a road being driven on by the vehicle to be limited to 5° or 10° because it provides the benefit of accurately diagnosis vehicle faults as explained in [0088] and [0103] of Ogura. This provides the benefit of mitigating damage to vehicle components.
23. Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isayeva (US 20140062348 A1), in view of Seta (US 20200016980 A1), and in further view of Jammoussi (US 20190156599 A1).
24. Regarding Claim 14, Isayeva and Seta remains as applied above in Claim 13.
Isayeva and Seta fail to teach the processing device, in operation, detects a steering angle of the motor vehicle, and determines whether the diagnostic condition is fulfilled, and wherein the diagnostic condition is fulfilled responsive to the steering angle of the motor vehicle being determined to be less than or equal to a predetermined angle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jammoussi teaches the processing device, in operation, detects a steering angle of the motor vehicle, and determines whether the diagnostic condition is fulfilled, and wherein the diagnostic condition is fulfilled responsive to the steering angle of the motor vehicle being determined to be less than or equal to a predetermined angle (Jammoussi: [0038], [0040], and [0048]).
Isayeva, Seta, and Jammoussi are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle fault diagnosis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Isayeva and Seta to incorporate the teachings of Jammoussi for the diagnostic condition to be fulfilled responsive to the steering angle being less than a predetermined angle because it provides the benefit of identifying a fault or failure without the environment of vehicle conditions affecting the diagnostic tests, as explained in [0001] of Jammoussi.
25. Regarding Claim 15, Isayeva and Seta remains as applied above in Claim 13.
Isayeva and Seta fail to teach the processing device, in operation, determines whether a diagnostic operation has been enabled by an operator of in the motor vehicle or a device external to the motor vehicle, wherein fulfillment of the diagnostic condition requires that the diagnostic operation has been enabled.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jammoussi teaches the processing device, in operation, determines whether a diagnostic operation has been enabled by an operator of in the motor vehicle or a device external to the motor vehicle, wherein fulfillment of the diagnostic condition requires that the diagnostic operation has been enabled (Jammoussi: [0030] and [0040] Note that the human operator controlling the steering by driving in a straight line is equivalent to enabling the diagnostic operation by an operator of the motor vehicle.).
Isayeva, Seta, and Jammoussi are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle fault diagnosis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Isayeva and Seta to incorporate the teachings of Jammoussi for the diagnostic operation to be enabled by the operator of the motor vehicle because it provides the benefit of identifying a fault or failure without the environment of vehicle conditions affecting the diagnostic tests, as explained in [0001] of Jammoussi. Also, the operator is able to choose when the diagnostic condition is satisfied based on controlling the propulsion, steering, and braking of the vehicle.
26. Regarding Claim 16, Isayeva and Seta remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Isayeva and Seta fail to teach detecting a steering angle of the motor vehicle; and determining whether the first diagnostic condition is fulfilled, wherein the first diagnostic condition is fulfilled responsive to the steering angle of the motor vehicle being determined to be less than or equal to a predetermined angle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jammoussi teaches detecting a steering angle of the motor vehicle; and determining whether the first diagnostic condition is fulfilled, wherein the first diagnostic condition is fulfilled responsive to the steering angle of the motor vehicle being determined to be less than or equal to a predetermined angle (Jammoussi: [0038], [0040], and [0048]).
Isayeva, Seta, and Jammoussi are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle fault diagnosis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Isayeva and Seta to incorporate the teachings of Jammoussi for the diagnostic condition to be fulfilled responsive to the steering angle being less than a predetermined angle because it provides the benefit of identifying a fault or failure without the environment of vehicle conditions affecting the diagnostic tests, as explained in [0001] of Jammoussi.
27. Regarding Claim 17, Isayeva and Seta remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Isayeva and Seta fail to teach determining whether a diagnostic operation has been enabled by an operator of in the motor vehicle or a device external to the motor vehicle, wherein fulfillment of the first diagnostic condition requires that the diagnostic operation has been enabled.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jammoussi teaches determining whether a diagnostic operation has been enabled by an operator of in the motor vehicle or a device external to the motor vehicle, wherein fulfillment of the first diagnostic condition requires that the diagnostic operation has been enabled (Jammoussi: [0030] and [0040] Note that the human operator controlling the steering by driving in a straight line is equivalent to enabling the diagnostic operation by an operator of the motor vehicle.).
Isayeva, Seta, and Jammoussi are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle fault diagnosis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Isayeva and Seta to incorporate the teachings of Jammoussi for the diagnostic operation to be enabled by the operator of the motor vehicle because it provides the benefit of identifying a fault or failure without the environment of vehicle conditions affecting the diagnostic tests, as explained in [0001] of Jammoussi. Also, the operator is able to choose when the diagnostic condition is satisfied based on controlling the propulsion, steering, and braking of the vehicle.
Response to Arguments
28. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-7 and 9-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Seta (US 20200016980 A1) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of activating at least one switch that electrically separates the first drive machine and an inverter coupled to the first drive machine from an onboard network including current sources and current sinks that are different from the current sources in the rejection above as cited in at least paragraphs [0031] and [0046]. Seta teaches to open the switches to perform an abnormality diagnostic test.
29. The prior art cited in the rejections above teach all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
30. Claims 1-7 and 9-13 remain rejected and Claims 14-17 are newly rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
31. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights