Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/443,318

DRIVING DEVICE AND DRIVING METHOD FOR DRIVING MOTOR OF ELECTRIC AUXILIARY VEHICLE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 16, 2024
Examiner
PHAM, DUC M
Art Unit
2849
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Aph Epower Co. Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allow Rate
555 granted / 626 resolved
+20.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
661
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
50.5%
+10.5% vs TC avg
§102
38.0%
-2.0% vs TC avg
§112
2.5%
-37.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 626 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
18Notice 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 . DETAILED ACTION This office action is a response to a paper filed on 12/29/2025 in which claims 1-17 are pending and ready for examination. 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, 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. Claim(s) 1, 11-13 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al (hereinafter Tanaka) (US 2016/0121963 A1) in view of JP 2017159711 A (hereinafter JP711) further in view of Ford et al (hereinafter Ford) (US 2020/0010089 A1). As to claims 1 and 13, Tanaka discloses a driving device (see Fig 2) for driving a motor (Fig 2, 105) of an electric auxiliary vehicle, comprising: a battery module (Fig 2, 101) configured to store a driving power; a transducer (Fig 2, 1030) coupled to the battery module and the motor; and a control circuit (Fig 2, 1020) coupled to the transducer and configured to: control the transducer to enter a first mode when an acceleration command (Ta, parag [0063]) is received, so that the transducer provides the driving power to the motor in the first mode (Fig 14, sections 1, 2, 11), control the transducer to enter a second mode when a brake command is received (Tb, parag [0067], Fig 3, 1205), so that the transducer provides an inductive power generated by the motor to the battery module in the second mode, and control the transducer to enter a third mode (Tc, parags [0064-0065]) when the acceleration command and the brake command are not received and a user does not apply an acceleration force to the electric auxiliary vehicle, so that the transducer provides the inductive power generated by the motor to the battery module in the third mode (Fig 14, sections 5, 6). Tanaka does not disclose wherein in the third mode, the electric auxiliary vehicle is naturally decelerating. However, JP711 discloses the electric auxiliary vehicle is naturally decelerating (see parag [0067]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Tanaka to include the teachings of JP711 in order to have the electric vehicle decelerating naturally. The combination of Tanaka and JP711 does not disclose when a setting gear is a lowest gear, the electric auxiliary vehicle does not provide an auxiliary force and the control circuit controls the transducer to enter the third mode. However, Ford discloses when a setting gear is a lowest gear, the electric auxiliary vehicle does not provide an auxiliary force and the control circuit controls the transducer to enter the third mode (see parag [0173], last sentence). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Tanaka and JP711 to include the teachings as taught by Ford in order to effectively control the operation of the vehicle. As to claims 11 and 16, the combination of Tanaka, JP711 and Ford discloses the driving device of claim 1, wherein: the control circuit senses a moving speed of the electric auxiliary vehicle, and when the moving speed is greater than or equal to a set speed, the control circuit controls the transducer to enter the third mode (Tanaka, Fig 14, section 6, parag [0119]). As to claims 12 and 17, the combination of Tanaka, JP711 and Ford discloses the driving device of claim 11, wherein: when the moving speed is less than the set speed, the control circuit detects a torque value applied by the user to the electric auxiliary vehicle, when the torque value is greater than or equal to a set torque value, the control circuit controls the transducer to enter the first mode, and when the torque value is less than the set torque value, the control circuit controls the transducer to enter the third mode (Tanaka, see Fig 14, sections 1, 2, 5). Claim(s) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al (hereinafter Tanaka) (US 2016/0121963 A1) in view of JP 2017159711 A (hereinafter JP711) Ford et al (hereinafter Ford) (US 2020/0010089 A1) and further in view of WO 2017124775 A1 (hereinafter WO775). As to claims 2 and 14, the combination of Tanaka, JP711 and Ford does not disclose the driving device of claim 1, wherein the battery module is an aluminum-ion battery. However, WO775 discloses battery module is an aluminum-ion battery (page 1, line 8, page 2, lines 10-11). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Tanaka, JP711 and Ford to include the aluminum-ion battery as taught by WO775 in order to provide power to the device using aluminum-ion battery. 5. Claim(s) 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al (hereinafter Tanaka) (US 2016/0121963 A1) in view of JP 2017159711 A (hereinafter JP711) Ford et al (hereinafter Ford) (US 2020/0010089 A1) and further in view of CN115431789 A (hereinafter CN789). As to claims 10 and 15, the combination of Tanaka, JP711 and Ford does not disclose the driving device of claim 1, wherein: the control circuit senses a feedback current value provided by the battery module, when the feedback current value is greater than or equal to a protection current value, the control circuit controls the transducer to stop running, and when the feedback current value is less than the protection current value, the control circuit determines a phase change of the motor. However, CN789 discloses the control circuit senses a feedback current value provided by the battery module, when the feedback current value is greater than or equal to a protection current value, the control circuit controls the transducer to stop running, and when the feedback current value is less than the protection current value, the control circuit determines a phase change of the motor (see Fig 3, parags [0042-0043]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Tanaka, JP711 and Ford to include the teachings as taught by CN789 in order to protect the device from damage. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-9 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. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-13, filed 12/29/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-17 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tanaka, JP711 and Ford. The examiner agrees that Tanaka and JP711 do not explicitly disclose the amended limitation "when a setting gear is a lower gear, the electric auxiliary vehicle does not provide an auxiliary force and the control circuit controls the transducer to enter the third mode". However, the combination of Tanka, JP711, and Ford disclose the recited limitations, as presented above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUC M PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-5026. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, Monday to Friday. 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, Youssef, Menna can be reached at 571-270-3684. 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. /DUC M PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2849 March 3, 2026 /RYAN JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2849
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 16, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 19, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 23, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 29, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 16, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592565
BACKUP APPARATUS AND POWER CONVERTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583328
PRECHARGE APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580409
OPERATION METHOD, OPERATION DEVICE, AND OPERATION SYSTEM OF BATTERY, AND NON-TRANSITORY STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12556030
Timing Determination for UPS Power Transfer
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12549027
POWER SUPPLY CIRCUIT AND METHOD, AND VEHICLE EMPLOYING CIRCUIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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
89%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+12.4%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 626 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month