DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 2 recites the limitation “each motor fixed or variable” which should be changed to “each motor is fixed or variable”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the maximum torque output” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the maximum torque output” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 16, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation preceding the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkes (US 2020/0172150 A1) in view of Andres et al. (WO 2005/092689 A1).
For claim 1, Wilkes discloses a dual motor drive assembly 10 comprising:
a housing 35;
a shaft 16 [rotatably mounted with respect to the housing] (page 2, paragraph [0020]);
a first gear 22 [connected to and configured to rotate with the shaft] (page 2, paragraph [0021]);
first 32 and second 34 motors, [each having an output 28, 30 driving a respective output gear 24, 26] (page 2, paragraph [0021]), [the output gears being engaged with the first gear] (fig. 4, page 2, paragraph [0021]);
a controller (ECU) [configured to allocate torque demands to each of the first and second motors] (page 2, paragraph [0024]);
[wherein a threshold torque demand is assigned to each motor] (page 2, paragraph [0023], wherein the threshold torque demand of each motor is between the low levels of input torque applied to the shaft 16 and higher levels of input torque applied to the shaft by the steering wheel),
[wherein when the allocated torque demand to each motor is less than the threshold torque demand for each motor respectively, the motors are allocated torques in opposing directions] (page 2, paragraph [0023]), and
[wherein when the allocated torque demand to one motor reaches or exceeds the threshold torque demand, the other motor switches torque direction such that both motors have the same torque direction] (page 2, paragraph [0023]); but does not explicitly disclose
the threshold torque demand is lower than a maximum torque output of the motor.
Andres et al. discloses an electric power assisted steering apparatus comprising [a magnitude of a torque represented by a torque demand signal and a torque limit compared such that a motor is caused to apply a torque having a magnitude of a lower of the two compared values to a steering mechanism; the limit may be expressed as a fraction or percentage of a maximum torque available to be applied to the steering mechanism by the motor] (page 11, lines 12 – 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the limit being expressed as a fraction or percentage of a maximum torque output of a motor of Andres et al. with the drive assembly of Wilkes with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for ramping up torque limit dependent upon vehicle speed is advantageous as it allows for the apparatus being powered up at speed, whilst not necessarily affecting the behavior of the apparatus when the vehicle is at rest.
For claim 2, Wilkes modified as above discloses the dual motor drive assembly [wherein when both motors have the same torque direction, both motors continue to have the same torque direction for a constant or increase total torque demand] (page 2, paragraph [0023] and [0024], dependent upon the level of input torque applied to the shaft by the steering wheel, wherein when a higher level of input torque is applied, the motors are controlled to be specified at half the rating of the required total system torque).
For claim 11, Wilkes modified as above discloses the dual motor drive assembly [wherein the torque demand allocated to the first motor is decreased from the threshold torque value whilst the torque demand allocated to the second motor is increased at a greater rate in order to provide a greater total torque] (page 2, paragraph [0024] during low levels of input torque applied to the shaft by the steering wheel).
For claim 12, Wilkes modified as above discloses the dual motor drive assembly [wherein the torque demands allocated to the second motor are increased to match the torque demand allocated to the first motor] (page 2, paragraph [0023]).
For claim 14, Wilkes discloses the method of operating a dual motor drive assembly 10, the dual motor drive assembly comprising:
a housing 35; a shaft 16 [rotatably mounted with respect to the housing] (page 2, paragraph [0020]); a first gear 22 [connected to and configured to rotate with the shaft] (page 2, paragraph [0021]); first 32 and second 34 motors, [each having an output 28, 30 driving a respective output gear 24, 26] (page 2, paragraph [0021]), [the output gears being engaged with the first gear] (fig. 4, page 2, paragraph [0021]), and
wherein the method comprises:
[allocating torque demands to each of the first and second motors] (page 2, paragraph [0024]);
[assigning a threshold torque demand to each motor] (page 2, paragraph [0023], wherein the threshold torque demand of each motor is between the low levels of input torque applied to the shaft 16 and higher levels of input torque applied to the shaft by the steering wheel),
[wherein when the allocated torque demand to each motor is less than the threshold torque demand for each motor respectively, the motors are allocated torques in opposing directions] (page 2, paragraph [0023]), and
[wherein when the allocated torque demand to one motor reaches or exceeds the threshold torque demand, the other motor switches torque direction such that both motors have the same torque direction] (page 2, paragraph [0023]); but does not explicitly disclose
the threshold torque demand is lower than a maximum torque output of the motor.
Andres et al. discloses an electric power assisted steering apparatus comprising [a magnitude of a torque represented by a torque demand signal and a torque limit compared such that a motor is caused to apply a torque having a magnitude of a lower of the two compared values to a steering mechanism; the limit may be expressed as a fraction or percentage of a maximum torque available to be applied to the steering mechanism by the motor] (page 11, lines 12 – 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the limit being expressed as a fraction or percentage of a maximum torque output of a motor of Andres et al. with the drive assembly of Wilkes with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for ramping up torque limit dependent upon vehicle speed is advantageous as it allows for the apparatus being powered up at speed, whilst not necessarily affecting the behavior of the apparatus when the vehicle is at rest.
Claims 3 – 5, 7 – 10, 13, and 15 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkes (US 2020/0172150 A1) in view of Andres et al. (WO 2005/092689 A1), and further in view of Coroban-Schramel (US 2020/0343849 A1).
For claim 3, Wilkes modified as above does not explicitly disclose the dual motor drive assembly wherein the threshold torque demand assigned to each motor fixed or variable
Coroban-Schramel discloses an apparatus for controlling an electric motor comprising [a torque demand generator 28 may set a torque demand gradient limit which is fixed or dynamic and in the latter case will vary over time; it may be varied according to one or more operating parameters of the vehicle or the motor and the drive stage; these parameters may include the motor speed, the vehicle speed, the state of charge of a battery of the vehicle electrical supply, the electrical supply voltage and others from a vehicle stability system or braking system] (page 2, paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the threshold torque demand being fixed or dynamic as taught by Coroban-Schramel with the drive assembly of Wilkes modified as above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for simpler strategy of limiting torque demand, thus allowing for use with an increased range of current control devices without needing for modification.
For claim 4, Wilkes modified as above discloses the dual motor drive assembly [wherein when the threshold torque demand assigned to each motor is variable, the threshold torque demand assigned is varied based on any one or more operating conditions such as measured or estimated temperatures within the assembly or any other motor or assembly operating parameters] (page 2, paragraph [0025] of Coroban-Schramel).
For claim 5, Wilkes modified as above discloses the dual motor drive assembly [wherein the threshold torque demand is fixed at a pre-determined torque demand value] (page 2, paragraph [0025] of Coroban-Schramel).
For claim 7, Wilkes modified as above does not explicitly disclose the dual motor drive assembly wherein the torque demand allocated to the first motor is maintained at the threshold torque value whilst the torque demand allocated to the second motor is increased in order to provide a greater total torque.
Coroban-Schramel discloses an apparatus for controlling an electric motor comprising [a torque demand generator 28 may set a torque demand gradient limit which is fixed or dynamic and in the latter case will vary over time; it may be varied according to one or more operating parameters of the vehicle or the motor and the drive stage; these parameters may include the motor speed, the vehicle speed, the state of charge of a battery of the vehicle electrical supply, the electrical supply voltage and others from a vehicle stability system or braking system] (page 2, paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the threshold torque demand being fixed or dynamic as taught by Coroban-Schramel with the drive assembly of Wilkes modified as above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for simpler strategy of limiting torque demand, thus allowing for use with an increased range of current control devices without needing for modification. In view of the modification above, page 2, paragraph [0023] of Wilkes and page 2, paragraph [0025] of Coroban-Schramel, when the system goes from low levels of input torque applied to the shaft by the steering wheel to higher levels of input torque applied to the shaft by the steering wheel.
For claim 8, Wilkes modified as above discloses the dual motor drive assembly [wherein the torque demands allocated to the second motor may be increased to match the torque demand allocated to the first motor] (page 2, paragraph [0023]).
For claim 9, Wilkes modified as above does not explicitly disclose the dual motor drive assembly wherein the torque demand allocated to the first motor is increased from the threshold torque value whilst the torque demand allocated to the second motor is increased in order to provide a greater total torque.
Coroban-Schramel discloses an apparatus for controlling an electric motor comprising [a torque demand generator 28 may set a torque demand gradient limit which is fixed or dynamic and in the latter case will vary over time; it may be varied according to one or more operating parameters of the vehicle or the motor and the drive stage; these parameters may include the motor speed, the vehicle speed, the state of charge of a battery of the vehicle electrical supply, the electrical supply voltage and others from a vehicle stability system or braking system] (page 2, paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the threshold torque demand being fixed or dynamic as taught by Coroban-Schramel with the drive assembly of Wilkes modified as above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for simpler strategy of limiting torque demand, thus allowing for use with an increased range of current control devices without needing for modification.
For claim 10, Wilkes modified as above discloses the dual motor drive assembly [wherein the torque demands allocated to the second motor are increased at a greater rate than the first motor until the torque demand of the second motor matches the torque demand allocated to the first motor] (In view of the modification above, page 2, paragraph [0023] of Wilkes and page 2, paragraph [0025] of Coroban-Schramel).
For claim 13, Wilkes modified as above discloses the dual motor drive assembly wherein [when the torque demands allocated to both motors is equal] (page 2, paragraph [0023]), but does not explicitly disclose the torque demand of both motors is increased equally to provide an increased total torque demand.
Coroban-Schramel discloses an apparatus for controlling an electric motor comprising [a torque demand generator 28 may set a torque demand gradient limit which is fixed or dynamic and in the latter case will vary over time; it may be varied according to one or more operating parameters of the vehicle or the motor and the drive stage; these parameters may include the motor speed, the vehicle speed, the state of charge of a battery of the vehicle electrical supply, the electrical supply voltage and others from a vehicle stability system or braking system] (page 2, paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the threshold torque demand being fixed or dynamic as taught by Coroban-Schramel with the drive assembly of Wilkes modified as above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for simpler strategy of limiting torque demand, thus allowing for use with an increased range of current control devices without needing for modification. In view of the modification above, page 2, paragraph [0023] of Wilkes and page 2, paragraph [0025] of Coroban-Schramel,
For claim 15, Wilkes modified as above does not explicitly disclose the method wherein the threshold torque demand is assigned depending on one or more operating conditions.
Coroban-Schramel discloses an apparatus for controlling an electric motor comprising [a torque demand generator 28 may set a torque demand gradient limit which is fixed or dynamic and in the latter case will vary over time; it may be varied according to one or more operating parameters of the vehicle or the motor and the drive stage; these parameters may include the motor speed, the vehicle speed, the state of charge of a battery of the vehicle electrical supply, the electrical supply voltage and others from a vehicle stability system or braking system] (page 2, paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the torque demand being fixed or dynamic as taught by Coroban-Schramel with the drive assembly of Wilkes modified as above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for simpler strategy of limiting torque demand, thus allowing for use with an increased range of current control devices without needing for modification.
For claim 16, Wilkes modified as above discloses the method [wherein the threshold torque demand is assigned depending on one or more measured or calculated parameters, such as temperature for example] (page 2, paragraph [0025] of Coroban-Schramel).
For claim 17, Wilkes modified as above does not explicitly disclose the method wherein the threshold torque demands is a fixed torque value.
Coroban-Schramel discloses an apparatus for controlling an electric motor comprising [a torque demand generator 28 may set a torque demand gradient limit which is fixed or dynamic and in the latter case will vary over time; it may be varied according to one or more operating parameters of the vehicle or the motor and the drive stage; these parameters may include the motor speed, the vehicle speed, the state of charge of a battery of the vehicle electrical supply, the electrical supply voltage and others from a vehicle stability system or braking system] (page 2, paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the torque demand being fixed or dynamic as taught by Coroban-Schramel with the drive assembly of Wilkes modified as above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for simpler strategy of limiting torque demand, thus allowing for use with an increased range of current control devices without needing for modification.
For claim 18, Wilkes modified as above does not explicitly disclose the method wherein the threshold torque demand is a fixed, or pre-determined, range.
Coroban-Schramel discloses an apparatus for controlling an electric motor comprising [a torque demand generator 28 may set a torque demand gradient limit which is fixed or dynamic and in the latter case will vary over time; it may be varied according to one or more operating parameters of the vehicle or the motor and the drive stage; these parameters may include the motor speed, the vehicle speed, the state of charge of a battery of the vehicle electrical supply, the electrical supply voltage and others from a vehicle stability system or braking system] (page 2, paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the torque demand being fixed or dynamic as taught by Coroban-Schramel with the drive assembly of Wilkes modified as above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for simpler strategy of limiting torque demand, thus allowing for use with an increased range of current control devices without needing for modification.
For claim 19, Wilkes modified as above does not explicitly disclose the method wherein the threshold torque demand is variable.
Coroban-Schramel discloses an apparatus for controlling an electric motor comprising [a torque demand generator 28 may set a torque demand gradient limit which is fixed or dynamic and in the latter case will vary over time; it may be varied according to one or more operating parameters of the vehicle or the motor and the drive stage; these parameters may include the motor speed, the vehicle speed, the state of charge of a battery of the vehicle electrical supply, the electrical supply voltage and others from a vehicle stability system or braking system] (page 2, paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the torque demand being fixed or dynamic as taught by Coroban-Schramel with the drive assembly of Wilkes modified as above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for simpler strategy of limiting torque demand, thus allowing for use with an increased range of current control devices without needing for modification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose the threshold torque demand comprises a fixed pre-determined torque demand range wherein the threshold torque value is variable within the pre-determined range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20210107560 – comprising a steering torque feedback assembly comprising a housing; an output gear; a pair of electric motors; output shafts; spur gears; and first and second operational modes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jacob D. Knutson whose telephone number is (571)270-5576. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)-272-6265. 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.
/JACOB D KNUTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611