DETAILED ACTION
The Request for Reconsideration filed 05/18/26 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. In light of Applicant’s arguments, a revised 103 rejection of all pending claims is detailed below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Takagi in view of Kim
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0173100) in view of Kim (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0229646) (previously cited). Takagi is directed to an electric vehicle. See Abstract. Kim is directed to a method and system of controlling braking of a vehicle. See Abstract.
Claim 1: Takagi discloses an electrified vehicle comprising: a first motor (30) configured to be connected to a first drive wheel (3); a second motor (20) connected to a second drive wheel (2); and a controller (43) configured to: control engagement of the motors based on required braking force before regenerative braking force generated by the second motor reaches an upper limit [see para. 0077-79 (up to predetermined value only front motor 20 may generate the braking torque), 0084-85 (only one of the two motors performs regenerative braking, preferably front motor 20)] while the second motor is performing regenerative braking, and control regenerative braking force of the first motor and the second motor [see para. 0084-85 (thereafter both front and rear motors 20 and 30 perform regenerative braking)]. See Fig. 3.
Takagi discloses all the limitations of this claim except that it does not explicitly discuss a “disconnector” to engage or disengage the first motor. Kim discloses an electrified vehicle comprising: a first motor (2) configured to be connected to a first drive wheel (1) based on an engagement state of a disconnector (6); a second motor (8) connected to a second drive wheel (7); and a controller (120) configured to: control the engagement state of the disconnector based on required braking force. See Fig. 1, 4, 5 (S12-S16); para. 0075-76. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a disconnector because this is well-known and commonly employed means for ensuring proper engagement or disengagement of a motor in a vehicle drive, effectively using a switch for an ON/OFF state of the motor.
Claim 2: Kim discloses that the controller is configured to control the engagement state of the disconnector irrespective of the regenerative braking force generated by the second motor. See Figs. 5, 7; para. 0097, 0133.
Claim 3: Takagi discloses that the controller is configured to, based on the required braking force being greater than the upper limit of the regenerative braking force by the second motor, control engagement of the motor. See para. 0084-85.
Claim 4: Control of the disconnector based on a rate of increase in the required braking force being greater than a predetermined value, would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art because this an intuitive alternative to the force itself being above a predetermined value. A high rate of increase indicates a necessary, or at least eventually necessary, high braking torque demand, which would require engagement of both motors.
Claim 5: Takagi discloses that the controller is configured to distribute the required braking force to the first motor and the second motor, and wherein the required braking force is distributed to the second motor so that the regenerative braking force generated by the second motor reaches the upper limit. See para. 0081-83 (allocation of torque).
Claim 6: Kim discloses that the controller is configured to, based on the disconnector being engaged, control the required braking force to be supplied via hydraulic braking, the required braking force being greater than the regenerative braking force generated by the first motor and the second motor. See para. 0078-81.
Claim 7: Kim discloses that the second motor is configured to maintain a continuous connection with the second drive wheel. See Fig. 1.
Claim 8: see claim 1 above.
Claim 9: see claim 2 above.
Claim 10: see claim 3 above.
Claim 11: see claim 4 above.
Claim 12: see claim 5 above.
Claim 13: see claim 6 above.
Claim 14: see claim 7 above.
Claim 15: see claim 1 above. Kim discloses using a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program with this functionality. See para. 0042; claim 17.
Claim 16: see claim 2 above.
Claim 17: see claim 3 above.
Claim 18: see claim 4 above.
Claim 19: see claim 5 above.
Claim 20: see claim 6 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL R SAHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-3838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm PST.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
VISHAL SAHNI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/VISHAL R SAHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 July 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights