Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/426,420

PREDICTIVE VOLTAGE BOOST FOR ACTIVE ELECTRIC MOTOR DAMPING

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Jan 30, 2024
Examiner
DHAKAL, BICKEY
Art Unit
2896
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Fca Us Llc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
616 granted / 732 resolved
+16.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
775
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.4%
-37.6% vs TC avg
§103
41.6%
+1.6% vs TC avg
§102
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
§112
24.6%
-15.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 732 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Applicant's submission filed on 11/25/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-18 are still pending. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with regards to prior art rejections. The examiner withdraws objection to drawings and 112 rejections based on applicant’s amendments and arguments. Applicant argues that the Ogino reference fails to disclose or even suggest the above-emphasized feature of claim 1 - a dynamically-determined AEMD voltage boost margin based on vehicle operating parameters. The Ogino reference merely discloses an active motor damping (AMD) technique where a "controller is configured to set the boost command value to a constant AMD boost command value regardless of the target torque when the active motor damping control is executed" (emphasis added) The examiner respectfully disagrees because Ogino clearly discloses setting boost command value according to speed and torque values. The meaning of “dynamically” has been interpreted as “active”, which Ogino clearly mentions. Therefore, the rejection is maintained. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim 1-7,9-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by OGINO JP 2009196533 A. Regarding claim 1, OGINO discloses An active electric motor damping (AEMD) control system for an electrified powertrain of a vehicle (Figs 1-3), the AEMD control system comprising: a set of sensors (Items 10-12) configured to measure a set of operating parameters (Speed and torque) of the vehicle; and a control system configured to: receive the set of operating parameters of the vehicle; dynamically determine, based on the set of operating parameters of the vehicle, an AEMD torque boost voltage margin (Fig. 4 shows an increase in torque from 0 to +T1) for a direct current to direct current (DC-DC) boost converter (Item 4) of the electrified powertrain, wherein the AEMD torque boost voltage margin is an additional voltage for increasing a torque capability of an electric motor of the electrified powertrain; output, to the DC-DC boost converter, the AEMD torque boost voltage margin, wherein receipt of the AEMD torque boost voltage margin causes the DC-DC boost converter to boost a first voltage from a battery system (Item B) of the electrified powertrain to a higher second voltage; and control the electric motor using the higher second voltage to dampen vibrations at a driveline of the vehicle. PNG media_image1.png 602 879 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 330 859 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 735 899 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 735 875 media_image4.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, OGINO discloses , wherein the set of operating parameters of the vehicle includes (i) a current torque of the electric motor and (ii) a current speed of the vehicle. (See claim 1 rejection for detail) Regarding claim 3, OGINO discloses , wherein the control system is configured to dynamically determine the AEMD torque boost voltage margin using a calibrated two-dimensional look-up table (Table) based on the current torque of the electric motor and the current speed of the vehicle. PNG media_image5.png 207 863 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 158 870 media_image6.png Greyscale Regarding claim 4, OGINO discloses , wherein the electric motor is a first electric motor (Fig. 2, item MG1) and the electrified powertrain further comprises a second electric motor (Item MG2). Regarding claim 5, OGINO discloses , wherein the set of operating parameters further includes a current speed of the first electric motor, a current torque of the second electric motor, a current speed of the second electric motor (See claim 1 rejection), and the first voltage of the battery system. PNG media_image7.png 206 895 media_image7.png Greyscale Regarding claim 6, OGINO discloses , wherein the DC-DC boost converter is configured to boost the first voltage to the higher second voltage based on the set of operating parameters and the AEMD torque boost voltage margin. PNG media_image8.png 224 975 media_image8.png Greyscale PNG media_image9.png 218 869 media_image9.png Greyscale Regarding claim 7, OGINO discloses , wherein the control system is further configured to predict the AMED torque boost voltage margin based further on (i) a maximum torque of the electric motor at its current speed and a current boost voltage from the DC-DC converter, (ii) a current torque request for the electric motor, and (iii) a safety margin. PNG media_image8.png 224 975 media_image8.png Greyscale PNG media_image10.png 245 975 media_image10.png Greyscale Regarding claim 9, OGINO discloses , wherein the dynamic determination of the AEMD torque boost voltage margin increases an efficiency of the DC-DC boost converter and the electric motor in dampening the vibrations at the driveline of the vehicle. PNG media_image11.png 158 875 media_image11.png Greyscale Regarding claim 10, OGINO discloses An active electric motor damping (AEMD) control method for an electrified powertrain of a vehicle, the AEMD control method comprising: receiving, by a control system and from a set of sensors, a set of operating parameters of the vehicle; dynamically determining, by the control system and based on the set of operating parameters of the vehicle, an AEMD torque boost voltage margin for a direct current to direct current (DC-DC) boost converter of the electrified powertrain, wherein the AEMD torque boost voltage margin is an additional voltage for increasing a torque capability of an electric motor of the electrified powertrain; outputting, by the control system and to the DC-DC boost converter, the AEMD torque boost voltage margin, wherein receipt of the AEMD torque boost voltage margin causes the DC-DC boost converter to boost a first voltage from a battery system of the electrified powertrain to a higher second voltage; and controlling, by the control system, the electric motor using the higher second voltage to dampen vibrations at a driveline of the vehicle (See claim 1 rejection for detail). Regarding claim 11, OGINO discloses , wherein the set of operating parameters of the vehicle includes (i) a current torque of the electric motor and (ii) a current speed of the vehicle (See claim 2 rejection for detail). Regarding claim 12, OGINO discloses , wherein the dynamically determining of the AEMD torque boost voltage margin is performed using a calibrated two-dimensional surface based on the current torque of the electric motor and the current speed of the vehicle. (See claim 3 rejection for detail) Regarding claim 13, OGINO discloses , wherein the electric motor is a first electric motor and the electrified powertrain further comprises a second electric motor. (See claim 4 rejection for detail) Regarding claim 14, OGINO discloses , wherein the set of operating parameters further includes a current speed of the first electric motor, a current torque of the second electric motor, a current speed of the second electric motor, and the first voltage of the battery system. (See claim 5 rejection for detail) Regarding claim 15, OGINO discloses , wherein the DC-DC boost converter is configured to boost the first voltage to the higher second voltage based on the set of operating parameters and the AEMD torque boost voltage margin. (See claim 6 rejection for detail) Regarding claim 16, OGINO discloses predicting, by the control system, the AMED torque boost voltage margin based further on (i) a maximum torque of the electric motor at its current speed and a current boost voltage from the DC-DC converter, (ii) a current torque request for the electric motor, and (iii) a safety margin. (See claim 7 rejection for detail) Regarding claim 18, OGINO discloses , wherein the dynamic determination of the AEMD torque boost voltage margin increases an efficiency of the DC-DC boost converter and the electric motor in dampening the vibrations at the driveline of the vehicle. (See claim 9 rejection for detail) Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 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 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 BICKEY DHAKAL whose telephone number is (571)272-3577. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 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, Jessica Han can be reached at 5712722078. 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. /BICKEY DHAKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 30, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Nov 25, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 10, 2026
Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600598
ELEVATOR SYSTEM HAVING A LASER DISTANCE MEASURING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595153
ELEVATOR CAR IDENTIFICATION AND TRACKING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589972
METHOD FOR CONTROLLING AN ELEVATOR INSTALLATION BY USING A COMPUTER-CONTROLLED MOBILE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592658
METHOD FOR OPERATING AN ELECTRIC MACHINE, DEVICE FOR OPERATING AN ELECTRIC MACHINE, AND ELECTRIC DRIVE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587120
CONTROL OF A ROTATING ELECTRIC MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+8.4%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 732 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month