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 .
Status of the Application
This Office Action is in response to amendments and arguments received on February 27, 2026. Claims 1-20 have been amended. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1-21 are now pending. This communication is the second Office Action on the Merits.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary the by Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 21 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: As admitted by Applicant, (see Applicant Arguments, pages 16-17) independent claim 21 is different in scope and includes features not present in claim 1, namely applying the amount of the braking torque includes first adding an absolute value of the amount of the braking torque to the rear wheel torque command such that a vertical load acting on a front wheel side of the electric vehicle due to transmission of a load forward from the electric vehicle increases and an amount of a driving force applied to front wheels of the electric vehicle decreases, thereby reducing understeer of the vehicle. Further, claims 1-20 (specifically, the combination of claims 1, 3, 9 and 11, of which claim 21 appears to be the closest to) include features that are not present in claim 21, particularly subtracting an absolute value of the mound of the braking torque from the rear wheel torque command, and adding the mound of the braking torque to the rear wheel torque command, wherein the amount of the braking torque has a negative value. These two methods therefore are distinct because (1) have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not fully overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 21 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 1-20 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 applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claims 1-20: Applicant claims
a pedal simultaneous application, a current vehicle driving and front and rear wheel torque distribution (claim 1)
an acceleration-directivity co-directional distribution (claim 2, 4)
a regeneration-directivity co-directional distribution (claim 9)
an acceleration-directivity reverse distribution (claim 11)
However, the metes and bounds of a current vehicle driving and front and rear wheel torque distribution is recited at a high level of abstraction without defining what specific conditions constitute such states such that one of ordinary skill would understand how this term relates (or overlaps with) the other claimed states of claims. While Applicant disclosure discusses exemplary modes, the claim does not limit driving states or torque distribution states to said modes, nor does it otherwise provide objective boundaries to how these states relate or overlap with each other. Corrective action or clarification is required.
In regards to claim 1: Applicant claims
determining, by a controller, whether a brake pedal is additionally applied while an accelerator pedal is applied;
determining, by the controller, an amount of a braking torque corresponding to an amount of the applied brake pedal when it is determined to be a pedal simultaneous application in which the brake pedal is additionally applied;
Due to inconsistent language use, there is an undue level of uncertainty whether the condition of whether a brake pedal is additionally applied while an accelerator pedal is applied is the same condition as the claimed a pedal simultaneous application in which the brake pedal is additionally applied such that one of ordinary skill would clearly understand if these are the same condition or two separate conditions. A brake pedal being additionally applied means the introduction of brake pedal activation WHILE ALREADY actuating the accelerator pedal. While one of ordinary skill would understand this condition would generate a simultaneous pedal application, the exact sequence claimed by the method of claim 1 is unclear and indefinite. Corrective action or clarification is required.
All other dependent claims of the indefinite claims detailed above are also indefinite at least by virtue of depending on the indefinite claims detailed above.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-3, 9, 11-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi (US 20130173100 A1).
In regards to Claim 1, as best understood, Takagi discloses the following:
1. A method of controlling a torque of a driving system of an electric vehicle, (see [0002] “electric vehicle”) the method comprising:
determining, by a controller, whether a brake pedal is additionally applied while an accelerator pedal is applied; (See at least Fig. 5, step S13 and [0074] “it is determined whether or not the brake pedal 9 has been depressed by the driver, based on the signal from the brake switch 9a (step S13: brake ON?)” and [0104] “If the accelerator pedal 8 and the brake pedal 9 are depressed simultaneously, the driving torque of one of the front and rear motors 20 and 30 (rear motor 30 is preferable) is controlled, and the remaining motor 20(30) may be placed in the regenerative braking mode.”)
determining, by the controller, an amount of a braking torque corresponding to an amount of the applied brake pedal when it is determined to be a pedal simultaneous application in which the brake pedal is additionally applied; (See at least Fig. 5, step S15 and [0078] “If it is determined as YES (brake ON) in step S13, in step S15, the target torque determiner 43d of the master controller 43 determines the value of the target braking torque” and [0104] “If the accelerator pedal 8 and the brake pedal 9 are depressed simultaneously, the driving torque of one of the front and rear motors 20 and 30 (rear motor 30 is preferable) is controlled, and the remaining motor 20(30) may be placed in the regenerative braking mode.”)
It is noted by the Examiner that the brake pedal determination step S13 of Fig. 5 is not explicitly subsequent to the “Yes” determination of the Fig. 5, step S2 “accelerator on?” determination, and therefore simultaneous application state is not explicitly disclosed in Fig. 5.
However, this is disclosed in another embodiment of Takagi at [0104] “If the accelerator pedal 8 and the brake pedal 9 are depressed simultaneously, the driving torque of one of the front and rear motors 20 and 30 (rear motor 30 is preferable) is controlled, and the remaining motor 20(30) may be placed in the regenerative braking mode. In this case, the braking torque may be controlled according to the displacement amount of the brake pedal 9.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the embodiment of the simultaneously depressed brake pedal 9 and accelerator pedal 8 of Takagi with the determinations of Fig. 5 of Takagi, with predictable results, with the motivation of preventing driver from feeling discomfort when depressing an accelerator pedal to move the vehicle forward while the remaining two wheels are locked. (Takagi, [0007])
As best understood, Takagi discloses the following:
applying, by the controller, the amount of the braking torque to one or both of a front wheel torque command or a rear wheel torque command (see at least Fig. 5, step S16 and [0085] “When the target torque determiner 43a of the master controller 43 determines the target braking torque value of the front motor 20 or the target braking torque value of the rear motor 30 (step S14, step S15), the front motor 20 is controlled by using the inverter 42 of the front motor driver 40, and the rear motor 30 is controlled by using the inverter 52 of the rear motor driver 50 (step S16: regenerative braking control of the motor). To be specific, at least one of front motor 20 and rear motor 30 rotates by the force applied by the front wheels 2 or the rear wheels 3, to operate as the AC electric generator.”) selected according to information indicating a current vehicle driving and front and rear wheel torque distribution; (see at least [0047] “master controller 43 includes a target torque determiner 43a for determining a target torque of the front motor 20 and a target torque of the rear motor 30, based on at least the signal from the accelerator sensor 8a, the signal from the brake switch 9a”, [0049] “The inverter 42 of the motor driver 40 controls the amplitude or the like of the AC power supplied to the front motor 20 based on the target torque value determined by the target torque determiner 43a of the master controller 43… the AC power supplied to the rear motor 30 based on the target torque value determined by the target torque determiner 43a of the master controller 43”, [0058] “target torque determiner 43a determines the target torque of the front motor 20 and the target torque of the rear motor 30”)
and controlling, according to one or both of the front wheel torque command or the rear wheel torque command determined by applying of the amount of the braking torque, one or both of a front wheel motor configured to drive a front wheel of the electric vehicle or a rear wheel motor configured to drive a rear wheel of the electric vehicle. (see at least Fig. 5, step S16 and [0085] “When the target torque determiner 43a of the master controller 43 determines the target braking torque value of the front motor 20 or the target braking torque value of the rear motor 30 (step S14, step S15), the front motor 20 is controlled by using the inverter 42 of the front motor driver 40, and the rear motor 30 is controlled by using the inverter 52 of the rear motor driver 50 (step S16: regenerative braking control of the motor). To be specific, at least one of front motor 20 and rear motor 30 rotates by the force applied by the front wheels 2 or the rear wheels 3, to operate as the AC electric generator.”, and [0104] “If the accelerator pedal 8 and the brake pedal 9 are depressed simultaneously, the driving torque of one of the front and rear motors 20 and 30 (rear motor 30 is preferable) is controlled, and the remaining motor 20(30) may be placed in the regenerative braking mode.”)
In regards to Claim 2, as best understood, Takagi discloses the following in the alternate embodiment:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the information indicating the current vehicle driving and the front and rear wheel torque distribution includes:
an entire torque command corresponding to an amount of the applied accelerator pedal when only the accelerator pedal is applied before the brake pedal is applied; (see at least [0045] “signal from an accelerator sensor 8a for detecting the degree (accelerator displacement amount) to which the accelerator pedal 8 has been depressed by the driver”) and the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command distributed from the entire torque command when only the accelerator pedal is applied. (see at least [0058] “target torque determiner 43a determines the target torque of the front motor 20 and the target torque of the rear motor 30, with reference to driving torque maps electronically stored in a memory (step S5). The driving torque maps contain suitable target torque values of the front motor 20 and target torque values of the rear motor 30, respectively corresponding to accelerator displacement amounts”)
In regards to Claim 3, as best understood, Takagi discloses the following:
3. The method of claim 2, wherein, in an acceleration-directivity co-directional distribution in which the entire torque command, when the accelerator pedal is applied before the brake pedal is applied, has a positive (+) torque value, (see at least [0058] “target torque determiner 43a determines the target torque of the front motor 20 and the target torque of the rear motor 30, with reference to driving torque maps electronically stored in a memory (step S5). The driving torque maps contain suitable target torque values of the front motor 20 and target torque values of the rear motor 30, respectively corresponding to accelerator displacement amounts”)
and both the distributed front wheel torque command and rear wheel torque command have the positive (+) torque value, (see at least Fig. 5, steps S4 and S5) wherein the positive (+) torque value corresponds to an acceleration direction,
As best understood, Takagi discloses the following in the alternate embodiment:
applying the amount of the brake torque when the brake pedal is additionally applied includes: selecting the front wheel torque command; and applying the amount of the braking torque first to the front wheel torque command. (see at least [0104] “If the accelerator pedal 8 and the brake pedal 9 are depressed simultaneously, the driving torque of one of the front and rear motors 20 and 30 (rear motor 30 is preferable) is controlled, and the remaining motor 20(30) may be placed in the regenerative braking mode. In this case, the braking torque may be controlled according to the displacement amount of the brake pedal 9.”)
It is noted that Takagi does not explicitly teach applying brake to only the front wheel. However, it is also noted that Applicant does not explicitly negate control of rear braking torque. Takagi teaches applying braking torque to either/or of the front or rear motors 20 and 30 during simultaneous pedal application. Accordingly, Takagi fully teaches this limitation.
In regards to Claim 9, as best understood, Takagi discloses the following:
9. The method of claim 2, wherein, in a regeneration-directivity co-directional distribution in which the entire torque command when only the accelerator pedal is applied has a negative (-) torque value and both the distributed front wheel torque command and rear wheel torque command have the negative (-) torque value, (see at least [0095] “motor 20(30) may generate the driving torque when the displacement amount of the accelerator pedal 8 is not less than a reference displacement amount which is a degree to which the accelerator pedal 8 is depressed slightly, and may generate the braking torque by regenerative braking when the displacement amount of the accelerator pedal 8 is less than the reference displacement amount.”) wherein the negative (-) torque value corresponds to a regeneration direction, applying the amount of the braking torque when the brake pedal is additionally applied includes: selecting the front wheel torque command; and applying the amount of the braking torque first to the front wheel torque command. (See at least [0080] “target braking torque of the front motor 20 may be set greater than the target braking torque of the rear motor 30”)
In regards to Claim 11, as best understood, Takagi discloses the following:
11. The method of claim 2, wherein, in an acceleration-directivity reverse distribution in which i) the entire torque command when only the accelerator pedal is applied has a positive (+) torque value, ii) the distributed front wheel torque command has the negative (-) torque value, and the distributed rear wheel torque command has the positive (+) torque value, wherein the a positive (+) torque value corresponds to an acceleration direction and the negative (-) torque value corresponds to a regeneration direction, applying the amount of the braking torque includes: selecting the rear wheel torque command; and applying the amount of the braking torque first in the rear wheel torque command. (see previous citations to claim 1, most specifically [0104] “If the accelerator pedal 8 and the brake pedal 9 are depressed simultaneously, the driving torque of one of the front and rear motors 20 and 30 (rear motor 30 is preferable) is controlled, and the remaining motor 20(30) may be placed in the regenerative braking mode. In this case, the braking torque may be controlled according to the displacement amount of the brake pedal 9.”)
In regards to Claim 12, as best understood, Takagi discloses the following:
12. The method of claim 11, further comprising, when only the accelerator pedal is applied, in the acceleration-directivity reverse distribution state: determining, by the controller, the front wheel torque command distributed from the entire torque command to be a value of a front wheel offset torque set to the negative (-) torque value;
and determining, by the controller, the rear wheel torque command to be a value obtained by subtracting the front wheel offset torque from the entire torque command when only the accelerator pedal is applied. (see at least Fig. 5, step S2 “no”, step S12 “no”, step S13 “no”. Further, see [0095] “motor 20(30) may generate the driving torque when the displacement amount of the accelerator pedal 8 is not less than a reference displacement amount which is a degree to which the accelerator pedal 8 is depressed slightly, and may generate the braking torque by regenerative braking when the displacement amount of the accelerator pedal 8 is less than the reference displacement amount.” And [0104], as previously cited.)
See also obviousness statements outlined in claim 1 regarding the mix of embodiments of Takagi.
In regards to Claim 13, as best understood, Takagi discloses the following:
13. The method of claim 11, further comprising, in the acceleration-directivity reverse distribution, (see at least [0104] “If the accelerator pedal 8 and the brake pedal 9 are depressed simultaneously, the driving torque of one of the front and rear motors 20 and 30 (rear motor 30 is preferable) is controlled, and the remaining motor 20(30) may be placed in the regenerative braking mode. In this case, the braking torque may be controlled according to the displacement amount of the brake pedal 9.”)
As best understood, Takagi suggests the following:
when the rear wheel torque command to which the amount of the braking torque is first applied is smaller than a rear wheel offset torque set to a positive (+) value: determining, by the controller, the rear wheel offset torque to be the rear wheel torque command so that only a portion of the amount of the braking torque is applied in the front wheel torque command; and applying, by the controller, a remaining amount of the braking torque of the amount of the braking torque, which has not been reflected in the rear wheel torque command, to the front wheel torque command. (see previous citations, see also [0058] “target torque determiner 43a determines the target torque of the front motor 20 and the target torque of the rear motor 30, with reference to driving torque maps electronically stored in a memory”, [0059] “driving torque of the front motor 20 and the driving torque of the rear motor 30 may be set to different values, according to the vehicle states of the utility vehicle 1. As the vehicle states, the vehicle speed, acceleration, deceleration, lateral acceleration indicating how the utility vehicle 1 is turning, etc., may be used. The vehicle states may include the displacement amount of the accelerator pedal 8, the displacement amount of the brake pedal 9, the displacement speed of the accelerator pedal 8, the displacement speed of the brake pedal 9, a slip state of the front wheels 2, a slip state of the rear wheels 3, etc. According to these vehicle states, the magnitude of the driving torque of the front wheels 2 and the magnitude of the driving torque of the rear wheels 3 may be changed”)
See also obviousness statements outlined in claim 1 regarding the mix of embodiments of Takagi.
In regards to Claim 16, as best understood, Takagi discloses the following:
16. The method of claim 2, wherein, in a regeneration-directivity reverse distribution in which i) the entire torque command when only the accelerator pedal is applied has a negative (-) torque value, ii) the distributed front wheel torque command has the negative (-) torque value, (see at least [0106] “when the value of the SOC is not less than a predetermined value and the brake is ON, during the braking, the front motor 20 may perform regenerative braking, whereas the rear motor 30 may output the driving torque.”)
and iii) the distributed rear wheel torque command has a positive (+) torque value, wherein the positive (+) torque value corresponds to an acceleration direction and the negative (-) torque value corresponds to a regeneration direction, (see at least [0106] “when the value of the SOC is not less than a predetermined value and the brake is ON, during the braking, the front motor 20 may perform regenerative braking, whereas the rear motor 30 may output the driving torque.”)
applying the amount of the braking torque includes: selecting the front wheel torque command; and applying the amount of the braking torque first in the front wheel torque command. (See at least Fig. 5, step S16 and [0080] “braking torque maps of the front motor 20 and the rear motor 30, for example, the target braking torque of the front motor 20 may be set greater than the target braking torque of the rear motor 30”)
In regards to Claim 17, as best understood, Takagi discloses the following:
17. The method of claim 16, further comprising, when only the accelerator pedal is applied, in the regeneration-directivity reverse distribution: determining, by the controller, the rear wheel torque command distributed from the entire torque command to be a rear wheel offset torque value set to the positive (+) torque value; (see at least [0058] “target torque determiner 43a determines the target torque of the front motor 20 and the target torque of the rear motor 30, with reference to driving torque maps electronically stored in a memory (step S5). The driving torque maps contain suitable target torque values of the front motor 20 and target torque values of the rear motor 30, respectively corresponding to accelerator displacement amounts”)
and determining, by the controller, the front wheel torque command to be a value obtained by subtracting the rear wheel offset torque from the entire torque command when only the accelerator pedal is applied. ([0059] “driving torque of the front motor 20 and the driving torque of the rear motor 30 may be set to different values, according to the vehicle states of the utility vehicle 1. As the vehicle states, the vehicle speed, acceleration, deceleration, lateral acceleration indicating how the utility vehicle 1 is turning, etc., may be used. The vehicle states may include the displacement amount of the accelerator pedal 8, the displacement amount of the brake pedal 9, the displacement speed of the accelerator pedal 8, the displacement speed of the brake pedal 9, a slip state of the front wheels 2, a slip state of the rear wheels 3, etc. According to these vehicle states, the magnitude of the driving torque of the front wheels 2 and the magnitude of the driving torque of the rear wheels 3 may be changed”)
See also obviousness statements outlined in claim 1 regarding the mix of embodiments of Takagi.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi (US 20130173100 A1) in view of Crombez et al. (US 20110295468 A1) herein “Crombez 468”.
In regards to Claim 4, as best understood, Takagi is silent, but Crombez 468 teaches the following:
4. The method of claim 3, further comprising, in the acceleration-directivity co-directional distribution, when the front wheel torque command in which the amount of the braking torque is first reflected is smaller than a front wheel offset torque set to a positive (+) value: determining, by the controller, the front wheel offset torque to be the front wheel torque command so that only a portion of the amount of the braking torque is applied in the front wheel torque command; and applying, by the controller, a remaining amount of the braking torque of the amount of the braking torque, which has not been applied in the front wheel torque command, in the rear wheel torque command. (see at least Fig. 1 and [0012] describing engine torque driving (front) driven wheels 14 only, and Fig. 4, step 204, 208 wherein engine drive torque (to driven wheels 14) is decreased in relation to magnitude of brake pedal actuation)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the features of Crombez 468 with the invention of Takagi, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing brakes from overheating and prematurely wearing out. (Crombez 468, [0004])
In regards to Claim 5, as best understood, Takagi is silent, but Crombez 468 teaches the following:
5. The method of claim 4, further comprising, when the rear wheel torque command in which the remaining amount of the braking torque has been applied is smaller than a rear wheel offset torque set to the positive (+) value: determining, by the controller, the rear wheel offset torque to be the rear wheel torque command so that only a portion of the remaining amount of the braking torque is applied in the rear wheel torque command; and additionally applying, by the controller, the remaining amount of the braking torque of the remaining amount of the braking torque, which has not been applied in the rear wheel torque command, in the front wheel torque command having the front wheel offset torque value. (see Fig. 4, step 208 “apply brakes”, see also [0012] “Each of the driven wheels 14 and non-driven wheels 22 are provided with brakes 24, 25”, see also Fig. 3 “3rd range”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the features of Crombez 468 with the invention of Takagi, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing brakes from overheating and prematurely wearing out. (Crombez 468, [0004])
In regards to Claim 6, as best understood, Takagi is silent, but Crombez 468 teaches the following:
6. The method of claim 5, further comprising, when the front wheel torque command is changed by additionally applying the remaining amount of the braking torque to the front wheel torque command having the front wheel offset torque value, while the front wheel torque command passes through a preset backlash band while performing zero-crossing: restricting, by the controller, a slope of the front wheel torque command to a preset maximum allowable slope; and compensating, by the controller, a torque following error caused by restricting the slope of the front wheel torque command with a friction braking torque. (see Fig. 4, step 208 “apply brakes”, see also [0012] “Each of the driven wheels 14 and non-driven wheels 22 are provided with brakes 24, 25”, see also Fig. 3 “3rd range”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the features of Crombez 468 with the invention of Takagi, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing brakes from overheating and prematurely wearing out. (Crombez 468, [0004])
Claims 10, 14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi (US 20130173100 A1) in view of Crombez et al. (US 20060055239 A1) herein “Crombez 239”.
In regards to Claim 10, as best understood, Takagi is silent, but Crombez 239 teaches the following:
10. The method of claim 9, further comprising, when the front wheel torque command in which the amount of the braking torque is applied reaches a preset front wheel alone regeneration limit value: (see at least Fig. 2, step 308)
distributing, by the controller, a remaining amount of the braking torque of the amount of the braking torque, which has not been applied, according to a preset regeneration distribution ratio between the front wheel and the rear wheel; (see at least Fig. 2, step 310)
and applying, by the controller, the amount of the distributed front wheel regenerative braking torque and the amount of the distributed rear wheel regenerative braking torque, respectively, in a current front wheel torque command and a current rear wheel torque command. (see at least Fig. 2, step 310)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the features of Crombez 239 with the invention of Takagi, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of achieving maximum regenerative braking with all axles of the vehicle participating in the regenerative braking. (Crombez 239, [0004])
In regards to Claim 14, as best understood, Takagi is silent, but Crombez 239 teaches the following:
14. The method of claim 13, further comprising, when the front wheel torque command changed by applying the remaining amount of the braking torque reaches a preset front wheel alone regeneration limit value: distributing, by the controller, an amount of the braking torque of the amount of the braking torque, which has not yet been applied, according to a preset regeneration distribution ratio between the front wheel and the rear wheel; and applying, by the controller, the amount of the distributed front wheel regenerative braking torque and the amount of the distributed rear wheel regenerative braking torque, respectively, in a current front wheel torque command and a current rear wheel torque command. (see at least Fig. 2, steps 308 and 310)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the features of Crombez 239 with the invention of Takagi, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of achieving maximum regenerative braking with all axles of the vehicle participating in the regenerative braking. (Crombez 239, [0004])
In regards to Claim 18, as best understood, Takagi is silent, but Crombez 239 teaches the following:
18. The method of claim 16, further comprising, when the front wheel torque command is changed by applying the amount of the braking torque reaches a preset front wheel alone regeneration limit value: distributing, by the controller, an amount of the braking of the amount of the braking torque, which has not yet been applied, according to a preset regeneration distribution ratio between the front wheel and the rear wheel; and applying, by the controller, the amount of the distributed front wheel regenerative braking torque and the amount of the distributed rear wheel regenerative braking torque, respectively, in a current front wheel torque command and a current rear wheel torque command. (see at least Fig. 2, steps 308 and 310)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the features of Crombez 239 with the invention of Takagi, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of achieving maximum regenerative braking with all axles of the vehicle participating in the regenerative braking. (Crombez 239, [0004])
In regards to Claim 20, as best understood, Takagi is silent, but Crombez 239 teaches the following:
20. The method of claim 1, further comprising, while the applying of the amount of the braking torque is performed: compensating, by the controller, a remaining amount of the braking torque of the amount of the braking torque, which has not been applied, with a friction braking torque when i) a portion of the amount of the braking torque is applied in the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command, and ii) the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command in which the portion of the amount of the braking torque has been applied reach, respectively, a preset front wheel maximum regeneration limit value and a preset rear wheel maximum regeneration limit value. (see at least Fig. 2, steps 308 and 310)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the features of Crombez 239 with the invention of Takagi, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of achieving maximum regenerative braking with all axles of the vehicle participating in the regenerative braking. (Crombez 239, [0004])
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi in view of Crombez 239, as applied, and further in view of Crombez et al. (US 20110295468 A1) herein “Crombez 468”.
In regards to Claim 15, as best understood, Takagi is silent, but Crombez 468 teaches the following:
15. The method of claim 14, further comprising, when the rear wheel torque command is changed by applying the amount of the distributed rear wheel regenerative braking torque in the rear wheel torque command, while the rear wheel torque command passes through a preset backlash band while performing zero-crossing: restricting, by the controller, a slope of the rear wheel torque command to a preset maximum allowable slope; and compensating, by the controller, a torque following error caused by restricting the slope of the rear wheel torque command with a friction braking torque. (see Fig. 4, step 208 “apply brakes”, see also [0012] “Each of the driven wheels 14 and non-driven wheels 22 are provided with brakes 24, 25”, see also Fig. 3 “3rd range”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the features of Crombez 468 with the invention of Takagi, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing brakes from overheating and prematurely wearing out. (Crombez 468, [0004])
In regards to Claim 19, as best understood, Takagi is silent, but Crombez 468 teaches the following:
19. The method of claim 18, further comprising, when the rear wheel torque command is changed by reflecting the amount of the rear wheel regenerative braking torque in the rear wheel torque command, while the rear wheel torque command passes through a preset backlash band while performing zero-crossing: applying, by the controller, a slope of the rear wheel torque command to a preset maximum allowable slope; and compensating, by the controller, a torque following error caused by restricting the slope of the rear wheel torque command with a friction braking torque. (see Fig. 4, step 208 “apply brakes”, see also [0012] “Each of the driven wheels 14 and non-driven wheels 22 are provided with brakes 24, 25”, see also Fig. 3 “3rd range”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the features of Crombez 468 with the invention of Takagi, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing brakes from overheating and prematurely wearing out. (Crombez 468, [0004])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. While a large number of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) indefiniteness issues have been corrected, several remain, as detailed above. See above for details.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
In response to pages 14-16 of arguments that Takagi fails to disclose or render obvious applying an amount of a braking torque to one or both of a front wheel torque command or a rear wheel torque command selected according to information indicating a current vehicle driving and front and rear wheel torque distribution, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. See added citations to Takagi [0047]-[0049] and [0058]-[0062], as outlined in the rejection above for details.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
May 29, 2026
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights