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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/03/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 21-22, 27, 29-30, 32, 34-36, 38, 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Farkas [US Pat # 5,905,349].
Regarding claim 21: Farkas shows a vehicle comprising: an electric motor; a wheel drivably coupled to the electric motor to propel the vehicle; a drive torque control (throttle ) for receiving a first input for controlling a drive torque of the vehicle; a regenerative brake control (brake pedal) for receiving a second input for controlling a regenerative braking force of the wheel; and an electronic control unit configured to map the first input to a user-requested level of driving torque (G_iq_throt), map the second input to a user-requested level of regenerative braking torque (G_iq_brake, see col 4, lines 4 to 6), determine a torque command (C_iq_sum) based on the user-requested level of driving torque (G_iq_throt) and the user-requested level of regenerative braking torque (G_iq_brake), wherein a torque limit is applied to at least one of the user-requested level of driving torque (G_iq_throt) and the user-requested level of regenerative braking torque (G_iq_brake) to determine the torque command, and transmit the torque command to the electric motor (see col 4, lines 40-41).
Regarding claim 22: Farkas shows wherein the wheel includes a rear wheel of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 27: Farkas shows wherein the regenerative brake control includes a foot pedal (“…the present invention achieves both brake regen and creep cancellation by using brake pedal input to command the motor to produce regenerative torque at higher speeds to recover the vehicle's kinetic energy…”).
Regarding claim 29: Farkas shows wherein the electronic control unit is configured to map the first input to the user-requested level of driving torque based on a speed of the vehicle (“…A throttle torque request map is shown in FIG. 1. Over the entire vehicle speed range, both a zero throttle curve A and a wide open throttle curve B are shown. The horizontal axis is vehicle speed (V.sub.mph) and the vertical axis is a current (I.sub.q), which is representative of torque…”).
Regarding claim 30: Farkas shows wherein the electronic control unit is configured to map the first input to the user-requested level of driving torque (G_iq_throt) by accessing a two- dimensional table mapping the first input and a speed of the vehicle to the user-requested level of driving torque (see fig 1).
Regarding claim 32: Farkas shows wherein the electronic control unit is configured to map the second input to the user-requested level of regenerative braking torque (brake torque) based on an equation, the equation including dividing a position of the regenerative brake control by a predetermined maximum position and multiplying a result of the division by a predetermined maximum regenerative braking torque (G_iq_brake).
Regarding claim 34: Farkas shows wherein the vehicle does not include a frictional brake for the wheel and the regenerative braking provided via the electric motor based on the torque command is the sole braking mechanism provided for the wheel (“…"Brake regen" is a term referring to the creation of regenerative torque, as a function of the brake signal input, which opposes the direction of vehicle travel, causing the motor to produce a regenerative current into the electric vehicle battery…”).
Regarding claim 35: Farkas shows A method of operating an electric motor of a vehicle, the method comprising: receiving a first input from a first control included in the vehicle, the first control controlling a drive torque of the vehicle; receiving a second input from a second control included in the vehicle; mapping the first input received from the first control to a user-first requested level of driving torque (“…The inputs to this block diagram are: a) V.sub.mph --the vehicle speed in miles per hour; b) G.sub.-- IQ.sub.-- THROT--the throttle torque command, which is a function of throttle position and vehicle speed; and c) G.sub.-- IQ.sub.-- BRAKE--the brake torque command, which is a function of brake pedal position. The output of this diagram is G.sub.-- IQ.sub.-- SUM, the overall torque command based on vehicle speed, and both the throttle and brake torque commands…”); mapping the second input received from the second control to a user-second requested level of regenerative braking torque; determining, with an electronic control unit, a torque command (C_iq_sum) based on the user- requested level of first requested driving torque and the user-requested level of second requested regenerative braking torque (G_iq_throt), wherein a torque limit is applied to at least one of the user-requested level of first requested driving torque and the user-requested level of second requested regenerative braking torque to determine the torque command (C_iq_sum); and transmitting the torque command to an electric motor included in the vehicle.
Regarding claim 36: Farkas shows wherein determining the torque command (C_iq_sum) includes summing the user-requested level of first requested driving torque and the user-requested level of second requested regenerative braking torque (G_iq_throt).
Regarding claim 38: Farkas shows a system for operating an electric motor of a vehicle, the system comprising: at least one electronic control unit included in the vehicle, the at least one electronic control unit configured to: receive a first input from a first control included in the vehicle, the first control controlling a drive torque of the vehicle, receive a second input from a second control included in the vehicle, map the first input to a user-requested level of a first requested driving torque, map the second input to a user-requested level of a second requested regenerative braking torque (G_iq_brake), determine a torque command (C_iq_sum) based on the user-requested level of first requested driving torque and the user-requested level of second requested regenerative braking torque (G_iq_brake), apply a torque limit to at least one of the user-requested level of driving torque and the user-requested level of regenerative braking torque (G_iq_brake) to determine the torque command, and transmit the torque command to an electric motor included in the vehicle to regeneratively brake a wheel of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 39: Farkas shows wherein the at least one electronic control unit determines the torque command (C_iq_sum) by summing the user-requested level of first requested driving torque and the user-requested level of second requested regenerative braking torque (G_iq_brake).
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.
Claims 23, 31, 33, 37 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farkas [US Pat # 5,905,349] in view of Bodie [US Pat # 5707115].
Regarding claim 23: Farkas shows an electric power store (battery) powering the electric motor, wherein, Farkas does not explicitly disclose when the torque command is negative, the electric motor regeneratively brakes the wheel and energy captured during the regenerative braking is stored in the electric power store. However Bodie shows when the torque command is negative, the electric motor regeneratively brakes the wheel and energy captured during the regenerative braking is stored in the electric power store (“…When the torque request is negative, indicating regenerative braking is desired, block 142 limits the regenerative braking to the limit that is determined by block 136, and further in response to battery voltage and, if desired, vehicle speed. The output of block 142 commands the motor inverter system to act as a generator causing regenerative braking to the vehicle front wheels represented as summation block 148…”).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have negative torque command makes the motor act as a generator, converting the vehicle’s kinetic energy into electrical energy, improving efficiency and reducing brake wear.
Regarding claim 31: Farkas shows wherein the electronic control unit is configured to map the first input to the user-requested level of driving torque by accessing a table associated with a currently-activated ride mode of a plurality of ride modes (“…At block 402, an open-loop rear brake torque command is determined with a look-up table responsive to the output of block 153, using a conventional front-to-rear proportioning function…”).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have negative torque command makes the motor act as a generator, converting the vehicle’s kinetic energy into electrical energy, improving efficiency and reducing brake wear.
Regarding claim 33: Farkas shows wherein the predetermined maximum regenerative braking torque is selected from memory based on at least one selected from a group consisting of an operator, a driving condition, and a ride mode (“…his invention improves the energy recovery from regenerative braking by deviating from ideal front-to-rear brake proportioning during certain driving conditions, transferring more braking torque to the wheels coupled to the electric drive system…”).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have negative torque command makes the motor act as a generator, converting the vehicle’s kinetic energy into electrical energy, improving efficiency and reducing brake wear.
Regarding claim 37: Farkas shows wherein mapping the second input to the user-requested level of second requested regenerative braking torque includes determining the user-requested level of second requested regenerative braking torque based on the second input and a maximum amount of regenerative braking torque available (“…The inputs to this block diagram are: a) V.sub.mph --the vehicle speed in miles per hour; b) G.sub.-- IQ.sub.-- THROT--the throttle torque command, which is a function of throttle position and vehicle speed; and c) G.sub.-- IQ.sub.-- BRAKE--the brake torque command, which is a function of brake pedal position…”), Farkas does not explicitly disclose wherein the maximum amount of regenerative braking torque is stored in memory and selected based on at least one selected from a group consisting of an operator, a driving condition, and a ride mode of the vehicle. However Bodie teaches wherein the predetermined maximum regenerative braking torque is selected from memory based on at least one selected from a group consisting of an operator, a driving condition, and a ride mode (“…his invention improves the energy recovery from regenerative braking by deviating from ideal front-to-rear brake proportioning during certain driving conditions, transferring more braking torque to the wheels coupled to the electric drive system…”).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have negative torque command makes the motor act as a generator, converting the vehicle’s kinetic energy into electrical energy, improving efficiency and reducing brake wear.
Regarding claim 40: Farkas shows wherein the at least one electronic control unit is configured to map the second input to the user-requested level of second requested regenerative braking torque (G_iq_brake) by determining the user-requested level of second requested regenerative braking torque based on the second input and a maximum amount of regenerative braking torque available, Farkas does not explicitly disclose wherein the maximum amount of regenerative braking torque is stored in memory and selected based on at least one selected from a group consisting of an operator, a driving condition, and a ride mode of the vehicle. However Bodie shows wherein the predetermined maximum regenerative braking torque is selected from memory based on at least one selected from a group consisting of an operator, a driving condition, and a ride mode (“…his invention improves the energy recovery from regenerative braking by deviating from ideal front-to-rear brake proportioning during certain driving conditions, transferring more braking torque to the wheels coupled to the electric drive system…”).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have negative torque command makes the motor act as a generator, converting the vehicle’s kinetic energy into electrical energy, improving efficiency and reducing brake wear.
Claims 24-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farkas [US Pat # 5,905,349] in view of Hughes [US Pub # 20030169002].
Regarding claim 24-26 and 28: Farkas does not explicitly show wherein the drive torque control includes a twist grip positioned on a handlebar of the vehicle. wherein the drive torque control is positioned on a right side of a handlebar of the vehicle. wherein the regenerative brake control includes a pivotable lever positioned on a handlebar of the vehicle. wherein the regenerative brake control is positioned on a left side of a handlebar of the vehicle. However Hughes wherein the drive torque control includes a twist grip positioned on a handlebar of the vehicle. wherein the drive torque control is positioned on a right side of a handlebar of the vehicle. wherein the regenerative brake control includes a pivotable lever positioned on a handlebar of the vehicle. wherein the regenerative brake control is positioned on a left side of a handlebar of the vehicle (“… the actuating device comprises a twist-grip throttle located on one end of the handle bar for controllably accelerating or regeneratively braking the vehicle. In yet another embodiment, the actuating device comprises a foot pedal located on a side of the vehicle, preferably as well as for operating the vehicle in reverse at low speeds…”).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date applied generative braking in vehicle provided with twist handle to have more controllability and maneuvering.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. [US Pub # 2011/0233994] shows vehicle with handle and regenerative braking system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAKARIA ELAHMADI whose telephone number is (571)270-5324. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-6 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minnah Seoh can be reached on 571-270-7778. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. 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 questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZAKARIA ELAHMADI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3618
