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 .
The Amendment, filed on 12/16/2025, has been received and made ofrecord. In response to the Non-Final Office Action, dated 09/16/2025, Claims 1-3 are amended, Claims 5-9 are previously cancelled claims, Claims 1-4 are pending in current application.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/16/2025 have been fully considered.
In the Arguments/Remarks:
Re: Claim Objection
Claim objections have been withdrawn in view of amendments.]
Re: Specification/Title Objection
It was a typo in the office action and the Title Objection has been withdrawn.
Re: Rejection of the Claims Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Rejections made under 35 USC § 112 have been withdrawn in view of claim amendments.
Re: Rejection of the Claims Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant's arguments filed December 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to independent claim 1, the Applicant argues on page 4 of the Applicant’s Remarks that Wolf doesn’t discloses a controller programmed to “operate the electric machine and not the friction brakes to bring the vehicle to a stop.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments. Claim Language is examined and analyzed according to its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure without reading the Specification into the claim language. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Wolf teaches the argued claimed feature, a controller programmed to operate the electric machine and not the friction brakes to bring the vehicle to a stop (See Para. [0048], “the control unit or controller 142 is configured to automatically control the torque output of the wheel motors 114, 116 [construed as electric machine] to hold the vehicle 10 at zero speed [i.e., stopped the vehicle]”, and see Para. [0075], “the direct current causes the motors 114, 116 to operate as brakes without any brake of the vehicle being applied”. Furthermore, see Para. [0078], “The controller 142 can supply current to the motors 114, 116 [i.e., electric machine] at basic excitation frequencies of the motors 114, 116 to control the motors 114, 116 and bring the vehicle to a stop on the grade”, and/or see Para. [0079], “the speed of a vehicle to zero using retarding effort provided by the traction motors [i.e., electric machine] of the vehicle, and/or the controller 142 is configured to command the traction motors to maintain zero speed of the vehicle [i.e., stop the vehicle]”).
The applicant further argues on page 4 of the applicant’s remarks that Wolff does not disclose using the presence or absence of automatic friction-brake operation as a condition that determines which stopping action the controller performs. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Wolf teaches this claimed feature, see Para. [0061], [0067], [0079], “automatically release the brakes [i.e., absence of brake], and the controller 142 is configured to command the traction motors to maintain zero speed of the vehicle”, and see Para. [0075], “the direct current causes the motors 114, 116 to operate as brakes without any brake of the vehicle being applied”, same as argued claimed feature.
Based on the above explanation, Wolf teaches or suggests the claimed features to those of argued above for independent claim 1. Therefore, the above discussion and same rejections are applied.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/ columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching
all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wolff et al. (WO 2018/085324 A1) (hereinafter Wolff).
Claim 1. Wolff et al. (WO 2018/085324 A1) teaches a vehicle comprising:
an electric machine (See Para. [0020], [0096], discloses “electric motor”, construed as electric machine);
friction brakes (See Para. [0094], discloses “friction brake”); and
a controller (See Para.[0049], [0094], “control system and/or controller”) programmed to,
responsive to accelerator pedal release (See Para. [0049], “control system is configured to release the accelerator pedal of the vehicle”) and presence of automatic operation of the friction brakes for at least a predetermined period of time absent brake pedal engagement, operate at least the friction brakes to bring the vehicle to a stop (See Para. [0061], “if the speed of the vehicle does not exceed a threshold speed, the controller 142 may apply the brakes 138 to stop the vehicle”, and/or see para. [0056], “if no accelerator pedal or brake input (e.g., manual engagement of the brakes by an operator) is received after a predetermined time has elapsed , the controller 142 may be configured to apply the brakes earlier when decelerating at a rapid rate, and later when decelerating at a slower rate. The inventive described herein therefor provides a means for preventing vehicle rollback when bringing a vehicle to a stop on grade, and provides for a smooth transition from vehicle movement to stop”), and
responsive to the accelerator pedal release and absence of (i) automatic operation of the friction brakes and (II) brake pedal engagement, operate the electric machine and not the friction brakes to bring the vehicle to a stop (See Para. [0061], “the controller 142 may then automatically release the brakes and control the traction motors 114, 116 to provide torque to allow slow speed creep after a set time period”, and/or see Para. [0067], “after an operator releases the accelerator pedal, the controller 142 may determine a target maximum deceleration and control the drive system 100 to provide torque as needed to limit the maximum deceleration rate. This allows the vehicle to be reduced to a very low speed and maintain a commanded direction of travel, as illustrated at 810”, and/or see Para. [0079], “if the operator then releases the retard pedal, the controller 142 is configured to command the traction motors to maintain the stopped condition (zero speed) for a predetermined amount of time.” Furthermore, see Para. [0048], “the control unit or controller 142 is configured to automatically control the torque output of the wheel motors 114, 116 [construed as electric machine] to hold the vehicle 10 at zero speed [i.e., stopped the vehicle]”, and see Para. [0075], “the direct current causes the motors 114, 116 to operate as brakes without any brake of the vehicle being applied, and see Para. [0078], “The controller 142 can supply current to the motors 114, 116 [i.e., electric machine] at basic excitation frequencies of the motors 114, 116 to control the motors 114, 116 and bring the vehicle to a stop on the grade”).
Claim 3. Wolff teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the controller is further programmed to, responsive to the accelerator pedal release, the absence of automatic operation of the friction brakes, the absence of brake pedal engagement, and a state of the electric machine, operate the friction brakes to bring the vehicle to a stop (See Para. [0054], “If retard/brake is ON or accelerator pedal feedback exceeds a threshold, and vehicle speed is less than a threshold speed (i.e., as the vehicle approaches zero speed), then the controller 142 applies the service brakes 138, 140 regardless of controlled deceleration or abnormal zero torque deceleration, at 420. If, however, no accelerator pedal or brake feedback is received/detected, and the vehicle speed is less than a threshold speed (i.e., as the vehicle approaches zero speed), then the controller 142 automatically applies the service brakes 138, 140 at a learned speed threshold at zero speed or near zero (but positive speed) based on brake delay time (i.e., the time it takes the brakes to engage and slow/stop the vehicle) and vehicle deceleration, at 422”).
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 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 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolff et al. (WO 2018/085324 A1) (hereinafter Wolff) in view of Yamazaki et al. (DE102014222643A1, attached English translate of DE102014222643A1 is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Yamazaki).
Claim 2. Wolff teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the controller is further programmed to, responsive to the accelerator pedal release, the absence of automatic operation of the friction brakes, the absence of brake pedal engagement, operate the friction brakes to bring the vehicle to a stop (See Para. [0054], “See Para. [0054], “If retard/brake is ON or accelerator pedal feedback exceeds a threshold, and vehicle speed is less than a threshold speed (i.e., as the vehicle approaches zero speed), then the controller 142 applies the service brakes 138, 140 regardless of controlled deceleration or abnormal zero torque deceleration, at 420. If, however, no accelerator pedal or brake feedback is received/detected, and the vehicle speed is less than a threshold speed (i.e., as the vehicle approaches zero speed), then the controller 142 automatically applies the service brakes 138, 140 at a learned speed threshold at zero speed or near zero (but positive speed) based on brake delay time (i.e., the time it takes the brakes to engage and slow/stop the vehicle) and vehicle deceleration, at 422”).
Wolff fails to teach , responsive to a battery state of charge exceeding a state of charge threshold, operate the friction brakes to bring the vehicle to a stop.
However, Yamazaki teaches, responsive to a battery state of charge exceeding a state of charge threshold, operate the friction brakes to bring the vehicle to a stop (See Para. [0003], “a battery is provided having a minimum state of charge threshold at which the at least one controller prevents the electric machine from driving the vehicle and a maximum state-of-charge threshold at which the at least one controller prevents the electric machine from generating electrical power”, hence stop the vehicle as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Wolff with preventing driving, i.e., stop the vehicle in response to battery charge exceeding state threshold as taught by Yamazaki in order to provides a better opportunity for M/G to remain an active torque provider for a longer period of time and therefore better meet the driver demand throughout the acceleration event.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolff et al. (WO 2018/085324 A1) (hereinafter Wolff) in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0282910 A1) (hereinafter Kim).
Claim 4. Wolff teaches the vehicle of claim 3, but he fails to teach wherein the state of the electric machine is a temperature of the electric machine.
However, Kim teaches, wherein the state of the electric machine is a temperature of the electric machine (See Para. [0050], “the controller may be configured to determine whether the temperature of the drive motor is greater than or equal to F that is a threshold value. In response to determining that the temperature of the drive motor is less than F, the controller may be configured to drive the drive motor by limiting a torque of the drive motor”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Wolff with determine state of the electric machine temperature and ins response the state of the electric machine temperature the controller control drive motor as taught by Kim in order to limit torque of the drive motor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seki et al. (JP2018019559A) discloses, “DRIVE FORCE CONTROL METHOD AND DRIVE FORCE CONTROL DEVICE”; see Para. [0016].
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 B M M HANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0237. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY at 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 5712705376. 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 M M HANNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657