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 Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on November 11, 2025. Claims 1-6 were previously pending, of which claims 1-4 and 6 have been amended, no claims have been cancelled, and no claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-6 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 5-10 filed November 11, 2025; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim objections, applicant’s amendments have been reviewed and the objections have been withdrawn.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. $112(f) Interpretations, applicant’s amendment to claim 1 has addressed the condition using a processor programmed to function as to support the remaining limitations for claim 1 that are defined by “units” so the interpretation is hereby withdrawn by the examiner.
Applicant's arguments regarding U.S.C. $102(a)(1) rejections have been fully considered and they are persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.,) are not clearly defined in the prior art and the rejection under U.S.C. $102(a)(1) is withdrawn below in view of the amended claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, the new limitations including “hardware processor controls the front wheel motor and the rear wheel motor to increase a driving force distribution ratio of a driven wheel and decrease a driving force distribution ratio of a driving wheel while maintaining a state of an overall driving force of the vehicle” from the amended claims are not persuasive . Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are presented in the Final Office Action below.
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, 5, and 6 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aldrich et al., US 2019/0381991 A1 (Hereinafter, “Aldrich”) in view of MORIYA et al, US 2018/0079320 A1(Hereinafter, “Moriya”).
Regarding Claim 1 and 6, Aldrich discloses a vehicle control device, comprising: a front wheel motor, configured to drive a front wheel;
See at least [0019], “The vehicle 10 includes a hybrid powertrain system 12 whose operation is controlled in real-time by a controller (C) 14.” And [0021], “The vehicle 10 shown in FIG. 1 includes rear and front drive axles 16R and 16F … hybrid powertrain system 12 provides an all-wheel drive capability in which … the electric machine 20 is connected to the front drive axle 16F.”
a hardware processor configured to: determine a possibility of executing the idle suppression control based on a driving state of the vehicle; See at least [0025], “The controller 14 may include a processor (P) and memory (M).“ And [0026], “When executing the method 100, the controller 14 detects operation of the vehicle 10 on a low-μ surface(driving state) and uses axle torque-based slip integration as a prelude to executing powertrain control (idle suppression control)actions as set forth below. That is, when slip is detected and continues for a period of time, the controller 14 responsively executes various control actions or combinations thereof to automatically command what is referred to herein as "Weather Mode”.”
execute driving force control on the vehicle according to external conditions of the vehicle,
In at least [0006], “The controller includes multiple slip integrators, i.e., logic-based signal value accumulators, with a given slip integrator and associated integrator value corresponding to the first and second drive axles, respectively.
wherein during execution of the driving force control, when the hardware processor determines that there is the possibility of executing the idle suppression control, the hardware processor controls the front wheel motor a driving force distribution ratio of a driven wheel and decrease a driving force distribution ratio of a driving wheel while maintaining a state of an overall driving force of the vehicle. In at least [0006], “The integrator values change responsive to a reported axle torque and an enable status (execution) of a traction control system of a vehicle having the hybrid powertrain system, with the enable status changing to a binary on or TRUE status during slip events. The controller(including processor) adds the integrator values for the drive axles to derive an integrator sum. Responsive to the integrator sum (total value of the integrators) exceeding a calibrated integrator threshold, the controller executes one or more corresponding control action with respect to the powertrain … The control action ( or actions) establishes a powertrain operating mode that allocates electrical energy from the battery pack solely in support of traction control/propulsion functions (shift driving force distribution ratio from rear to front wheels)).”
While Aldrich discloses an all-wheel drive hybrid vehicle with traction control system, it does not explicitly use a front and rear wheel motor. However, Moriya includes an all-wheel drive electric vehicle and teaches a front wheel motor and a rear wheel motor. See at least [0031], “A vehicle 1 … is an electric vehicle (EV), for instance, and has … a front wheel motor 11, a rear wheel motor 12 … an electronic control unit (ECU) 20.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Aldrich’s device with the front and rear wheel motor disclosed in Moriya with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve stability by transmitting power from a plurality of drive sources to a plurality of wheels, see Moriya, [0010].
Regarding Claim 5, Aldrich discloses the following limitation dependent on claim 1:
wherein the driven wheel is a front wheel, and the driving wheel is a rear wheel. See Fig.1 and [0046], “This action may be taken responsive to a threshold at which a traction control event occurs for positive slip of the primary axle, which is the rear drive axle 16R in the non-limiting example of FIG. 1. Such a maneuver may help maximize the available level of charging of the battery pack 22 when slip of the primary axle, e.g., rear axle 16R, is not actively occurring. In other words, a possible control action ensures that the sum of charging torque and primary axle torque is limited to the slip threshold for the primary axle”.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aldrich in view of Moriya, in further view of Itoh et al., US 2022/0219702 A1 (Hereinafter, “Itoh”).
Regarding Claim 2, Aldrich does not explicitly disclose an advanced driver assistance limitation. However, Itoh teaches the following limitation dependent on claim 1:
wherein the vehicle uses autonomous driving or advanced driver assistance systems to travel at a set vehicle speed, while the hardware processor is executing the driving force control and after a preset time has elapsed since an adjustment of the driving force distribution ratio of the driven wheel and the driving wheel driven by the front wheel motor and the rear wheel motor is completed, the hardware processor re-determines the possibility of executing the idle suppression control, when the hardware processor re-determines the possibility of executing the idle suppression control, the hardware processor reduces the set vehicle speed of the vehicle.
See Fig.2 and [0038-0039], “The arbitrating unit 12 determines whether a first duration of time has elapsed from setting the first driving force (driving force lower limit+α) as the arbitrated driving force… to determine that the powertrain actuator 31 has received the request for the first driving force and that control has actually been performed…In the present arbitration control, execution of fuel cut recovery (from on to off) is awaited in this state in which the arbitrated driving force is set to the driving force lower limit.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Aldrich’s device with the advanced driving limitations disclosed in Aldrich with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to take advantage of automated driving functions, see Itoh, [0020].
Regarding Claim 3, Aldrich does not explicitly disclose an advanced driver assistance limitation . However, Itoh teaches the following limitation dependent on claim 2:
wherein when the hardware processor re-determines not to execute the idle suppression control, the hardware processor restores the reduced set vehicle speed to the set vehicle speed prior to reduction. In [0040], “ The arbitrating unit 12 determines whether a second duration of time has elapsed from setting the driving force lower limit to the arbitrated driving force. This determination is made in order to stand by until fuel cut recovery (from on to off) is executed”. Also, in [0046], “After the ACC function turns on at time t1, from time t1 to time t2 the first driving force ( driving force lower limit+a) is output and fuel cut recovery is requested (first processing in steps S204 and S205). Thereafter, actual execution of fuel cut recovery is awaited, from time t2 to time t3 (second processing in steps S206 and S207). Subsequently thereafter, the driving force lower limit is gradually increased by the greatest jerk, and the arbitrated driving force and the actual driving force are made to follow the requested driving force (third processing in steps S208 and S209)”.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Aldrich’s device with the advanced driving limitations disclosed in Aldrich with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to take advantage of automated driving functions, see Itoh, [0020].
Regarding Claim 4, Aldrich does not explicitly disclose an advanced driver assistance limitation. However, Itoh teaches the following limitation dependent on claim 3:
wherein after the driving force control unit restores the reduced set vehicle speed to the set vehicle speed prior to reduction, the hardware processor controls the adjusted driving force distribution ratio of the driven wheel and the driving wheel to the driving force distribution ratio of the driven wheel and the driving wheel prior to adjustment. See Fig. 2 and [0042], “The arbitrating unit 12 determines whether the arbitrated driving force has reached the original requested driving force. After waiting for the arbitrated driving force to reach the original requested driving force (YES in step S209), the processing advances to step S210” and [0043] “The arbitrating unit 12 executes normal request
arbitration processing in which the first requests are arbitrated. Thus, the present arbitration control ends”. Also, in [0046] “An example of processing based on the arbitration control described above will be described with reference to FIG. 3. In FIG. 3, prior to time t1, the ACC function is off, fuel cut is on, the vehicle is in a coasting state, and arbitrated driving force and actual driving force corresponding to the requested driving force are generated”.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Aldrich’s device with the advanced driving limitations disclosed in Itoh with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to take advantage of automated driving functions, see Itoh, [0020].
While Itoh discloses a vehicle drive control system, it does not explicitly use a front and rear wheel motor. However, Moriya includes an all-wheel drive electric vehicle and teaches a front wheel motor and a rear wheel motor. See at least [0031], “A vehicle 1 … is an electric vehicle (EV), for instance, and has … a front wheel motor 11, a rear wheel motor 12 … an electronic control unit (ECU) 20.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Itoh’s device with the front and rear wheel motor disclosed in Moriya with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve stability by transmitting power from a plurality of drive sources to a plurality of wheels, see Moriya, [0010].
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 BRIAN KEITH PALMARCHUK whose telephone number is (571)272-6261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM - 5 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/B.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669