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 .
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong one: claim 1 recites steps of “determining a maximum permissible limit temperature (T.sub.G)”, “determining a maximum permissible limit speed (v.sub.G) and/or limit acceleration (a.sub.G) as a function of the maximum permissible limit temperature (T.sub.G) and the detected operating temperature (T.sub.B)”. As is evident from the background, the claimed calculation falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited calculation can be practically performed in the human mind. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong two: Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional limitations and elements include “at least one axle (20, 32, 38), at least one actuating element (24, 30, 36) that can be moved along the at least one axle (20, 32, 38), and at least one electric drive (26, 34) for moving the actuating element (24, 30, 36)”, “wherein, during operation, the actuating element (24, 30, 36) has an operating speed (v.sub.G) and/or an operating acceleration (a.sub.G), and wherein the electric drive (26, 34) and/or the axle (20, 32, 38) have an operating temperature (T.sub.B) during operation”, and “detecting the operating temperature (T.sub.B) of the electric drive (26, 34) and/or the axle (20, 32, 38)”. The additional limitations represent mere movement control (one actuating element that can be moved along the at least one axle and electric drive for moving other element) and data gathering (obtaining the temperature values) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the temperature values are used in mental process for calculation of speed limit) and is recited at a high level of generality. Such additional limitations in the claim are thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements “at least one axle”, “at least one actuating element”, “at least one electric drive” in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic mechanical function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic mechanical component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The additional limitations of “detecting the operating temperature (T.sub.B) of the electric drive (26, 34) and/or the axle (20, 32, 38)” represent mere data gathering (obtaining the temperature values) and “at least one axle (20, 32, 38), at least one actuating element (24, 30, 36) that can be moved along the at least one axle (20, 32, 38), and at least one electric drive (26, 34) for moving the actuating element (24, 30, 36), wherein, during operation, the actuating element (24, 30, 36) has an operating speed (v.sub.G) and/or an operating acceleration (a.sub.G), and wherein the electric drive (26, 34) and/or the axle (20, 32, 38) have an operating temperature (T.sub.B) during operation” represent mere movement operation (one actuating element that can be moved along the at least one axle and electric drive for moving other element) are recited at a high level of generality, and, as disclosed in the specification, is also well-known. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, the additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The additional elements “at least one axle”, “at least one actuating element”, “at least one electric drive” in both steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic mechanical function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic mechanical component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 4 recites additional element “the operating temperature (T.sub.B) of the electric drive (26, 34) and/or the axle (20, 32, 38) is measured in measurement intervals of less than 60 s”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing system performing a generic function of measuring data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component and it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 9 recites step of “the state of the axle system (10), in particular the wear and/or maintenance state, is determined according to the maximum permissible limit temperature (T.sub.G) and the operating temperature (Tg.sub.B), wherein preferably an exceeding of the operating temperature (T.sub.B) above the limit temperature (T.sub.G) is classified, in particular with regard to duration and/or temperature difference”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 10 recites additional element “the electric drive (26, 34) and/or the axle (20, 32, 38) is/are cooled by means of a cooling device (44) when the operating temperature (T.sub.B) reaches a cooling temperature (T.sub.K)”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic system performing a generic function of cooling) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component and it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim recites a system, which fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong one: claim 11 recites step of “determine a maximum permissible limit speed (v.sub.G) and/or limit acceleration (a.sub.G) of the actuating element (24, 30, 36) as a function of the maximum permissible limit temperature (T.sub.G) and the detected operating temperature (T.sub.B)”. As is evident from the background, the claimed calculation falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited calculation can be practically performed in the human mind. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong two: Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional limitations and elements include “at least one axle (20, 32, 38), having at least one actuating element (24, 30, 36) that can be moved along the at least one axle (20, 32, 38), wherein during operation the actuating element (24, 30, 36) has an operating speed (v.sub.G) and/or an operating acceleration (a.sub.G), “at least one electric drive (26, 34) for moving the at least one actuating element (24, 30, 36), wherein during operation the electric drive (26, 34) and/or the axle (20, 32, 38) has/have an operating temperature (T.sub.B)”, “a drive controller (38) for controlling the at least one electric drive (26, 34)”, “at least one temperature sensor (40) for detecting the operating temperature (T.sub.B) of the electric drive (26, 34) and/or the axle (20, 32, 38)”, and “the drive controller (38) has a memory (42) for storing a maximum permissible limit temperature (T.sub.G)”. The additional limitations represent mere movement control (one actuating element that can be moved along the at least one axle and electric drive for moving other element) and data gathering and storing (obtaining and storing temperature values) and drive controlling that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. Such additional limitations in the claim are thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements “at least one axle”, “at least one actuating element”, “at least one electric drive”, “a drive controller”, “at least one temperature sensor”, and “a memory” in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The additional limitations of “detecting the operating temperature (T.sub.B) of the electric drive (26, 34) and/or the axle (20, 32, 38)” and “storing a maximum permissible limit temperature (T.sub.G)” represent mere data and storing (obtaining and storing temperature values) and “at least one axle (20, 32, 38), having at least one actuating element (24, 30, 36) that can be moved along the at least one axle (20, 32, 38), wherein during operation the actuating element (24, 30, 36) has an operating speed (v.sub.G) and/or an operating acceleration (a.sub.G), “at least one electric drive (26, 34) for moving the at least one actuating element (24, 30, 36), wherein during operation the electric drive (26, 34) and/or the axle (20, 32, 38) has/have an operating temperature (T.sub.B)”, “a drive controller (38) for controlling the at least one electric drive (26, 34)” represent mere movement control (actuating element that can be moved along the at least one axle and controlling electric drive for moving other element) are recited at a high level of generality, and, as disclosed in the specification, is also well-known. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, the additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The additional elements “at least one axle”, “at least one actuating element”, “at least one electric drive”, “a drive controller”, “at least one temperature sensor”, and “a memory” in both steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 13 recites additional element “the electric drive (26, 34) has at least one winding and at least one permanent magnet, in that the temperature sensor (40) is arranged on the winding and/or on the permanent magnet, and in that the temperature sensor (40) detects the operating temperature (T.sub.B) of the at least one winding and/or the at least one permanent magnet”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic system performing a generic function of detecting) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component and it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 14 recites additional element “a cooling device (44) for cooling the at least one electric drive (26, 34) and/or the at least one axle (20, 32, 38)”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic system performing a generic function of cooling) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component and it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 15 recites additional element “the drive controller (38) is configured to control the cooling device (44) in such a way that the electric drive (26, 34) and/or the axle (20, 32, 38) is/are cooled by the cooling device (44) when the operating temperature (T.sub.B) reaches a cooling temperature (T.sub.K)”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic system performing a generic function of cooling) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component and it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more under the same reason as claim 1.
Claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more under the same reason as claim 16.
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more under the same reason as claim 16.
Claims 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it directed to a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") that represent non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 17 recites “computer-readable storage medium”. However, the specification does not limit which forms the above term would take. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation to the above medium would cover forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se, the signal per se represent non-statutory subject matter. Applicant is encouraged to replace it as “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”.
Claims 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it directed to signal per se that represent non-statutory subject matter.
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, 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 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(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strenkert (US 20060155452 A1) in view of TSUKAMOTO et al. (hereinafter “TSUKAMOTO”) (US 20100087997 A1).
As to claims 1, 11, and 16-18, Strenkert teaches a system and method for operation comprises:
at least one axle (20, 32, 38) [transmission axle 14], at least one actuating element (24, 30, 36) [a final drive 18 which transmits the torque which is output by the drive machine 11 through transmission axle 14 to driven vehicle wheels 20 via side shafts 19] that can be moved along the at least one axle (20, 32, 38), and at least one electric drive (26, 34) for moving the actuating element (24, 30, 36) [an electric drive motor 11] [Fig. 1] [0013-0014, 0023-0026],
wherein, during operation, the actuating element (24, 30, 36) has an operating speed (v.sub.G) and/or an operating acceleration (a.sub.G) [in the drive train of a motor vehicle, the adjustment of the torque is carried out by means of the drive machine and the adjustment of rotational speed is carried out by means of the transmission], and wherein the electric drive (26, 34) and/or the axle (20, 32, 38) have an operating temperature (T.sub.B) during operation [The control device 12 therefore receives temperature information relating to a temperature of the transmission 14 from the temperature sensor 16] [Fig. 1] [0008, 0024], characterized by:
determining a maximum permissible limit temperature (T.sub.G) [temperature T1 from Fig. 2 shows the maximum power of the drive machine (P.sub.max) is constant up to a temperature T1, such temperature T1 already predefined and stored in memory for operation control] of the electric drive (26, 34) and/or the axle (20, 32, 38) [Fig. 2] [0027],
detecting the operating temperature (T.sub.B) of the electric drive (26, 34) and/or the axle (20, 32, 38) [temperature sensor for detecting operating temperature of the transmission axle] [Fig. 2] [0005, 0024], and
determining a maximum permissible limit power and/or torque of the drive machine as a function of the maximum permissible limit temperature (T.sub.G) and the detected operating temperature (T.sub.B) of the electric drive (26, 34) and/or of the axle (20, 32, 38) [0006, 00271-0028].
Strenkert teaches a system and method for operating a motor drive system, especially, determining a maximum permissible limit power and/or torque for operating the motor drive system as a function of the maximum permissible limit temperature T1 and the detected operating temperature. Therefore, the system is capable to operate the motor drive with the maximum power of the drive machine until the detected operating temperature reaches a temperature T1 [0006, 0027-0028]. Strenkert also teaches the relationship between maximum power of the drive machine and rotation speed of the drive machine [0006]. Strenkert does not explicitly teach determining a maximum permissible limit speed and/or limit acceleration.
However, TSUKAMOTO teaches a system and method for controlling a continuously variable transmission system. Especially, TSUKAMOTO teaches using determined temperature information to determine how to control the maximum permissible limit speed to operate the continuously variable transmission system, such that the maximum rotation speed limitation value is set based on the temperature control starting temperature TMP1, present temperature TMP, and temperature control ending temperature TMP2 [starting a determination of maximum speed for speed control when the present temperature TMP exceeds the temperature control starting temperature TMP1, the maximum speed can be dynamically adjusted based on the present temperature TMP and temperature control ending temperature TMP2 as Fig. 5] [00332-0035, 0042-00433].
Strenkert and TSUKAMOTO are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of dynamically operating an axle system based on determined temperature information. At the time before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine maximum permissible parameters include a maximum permissible limit speed to operate the axle system according to the temperature information of the axle system. The suggestion for doing so would have been obvious to reduce operating speed of the drive system to reduce the operating temperature of the drive system to protect the system from damage by excessively high temperatures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of TSUKAMOTO with the teachings of Strenkert for the purpose of determining a proper speed limit to operate the axle system based on temperature information as specified in the claim 1.
As to claim 2, TSUKAMOTO teaches adjusting the operating speed (v.sub.G) and/or the operating acceleration (a.sub.G) of the at least one actuating element (24, 30, 36) as a function of the maximum permissible limit speed (v.sub.G) and/or the maximum permissible limit acceleration (a.sub.G) of the actuating element (24, 30, 36) [Fig. 5][0033-0035, 0043-0048].
As to claim 3, TSUKAMOTO teaches adjusting the operating speed (v.sub.G) and/or the operating acceleration (a.sub.G) of the at least one actuating element (24, 30, 36) in such a way that the operating speed (v.sub.G) and/or the operating acceleration (a.sub.G) is/are in the range of the maximum permissible limit speed (v.sub.G) and/or limit acceleration (a.sub.G) of the actuating element (24, 30, 36), and/or the operating temperature (T.sub.B) is in the range of the limit temperature (T.sub.G) [Fig. 5] [0033-0035, 0042-0048].
As to claim 4, TSUKAMOTO teaches the operating temperature (T.sub.B) of the electric drive (26, 34) and/or the axle (20, 32, 38) is measured in measurement intervals of less than 60 s [Fig. 7] [0042-0051, 0064-0073].
As to claim 5, Strenkert teaches the adjustment of the operating speed (v.sub.G) and/or operating acceleration (a.sub.G) of the at least one actuating element (24, 30, 36) takes place by adjusting the electrical current at the electric drive (26, 34) [0014-0017, 0027].
As to claim 6, TSUKAMOTO teaches the adjustment of the operating speed (v.sub.G) and/or operating acceleration (a.sub.G) takes place such that the operating temperature (T.sub.B) does not exceed the limit temperature (T.sub.G), or does not exceed it for longer than a critical time period [Fig. 5] [0033-0035, 0043-0048].
As to claim 7, Strenkert teaches the adjustment of the operating speed (v.sub.G) and/or operating acceleration (a.sub.G) of the actuating element (24, 30, 36) takes place according to the coming movement paths and/or the coming downtimes and/or the coming ambient conditions, in particular ambient temperature and/or the changing of attachment parts, of the axle system (10) [0012-0015, 0019].
As to claim 8, TSUKAMOTO teaches the adjustment of the operating speed (v.sub.G) and/or operating acceleration (a.sub.G) of the actuating element (24, 30, 36) takes place in such a way that the operating speed (v.sub.G) and/or operating acceleration (a.sub.G) is/are in the range of, and/or above, the limit speed (v.sub.G) and/or limit acceleration (a.sub.G), to heat the electric drive (26, 34) and/or the axle (20, 32, 38) [Fig. 7] [0033-0035, 0042-0051, 0064-0073].
As to claim 9, Strenkert teaches the state of the axle system (10), in particular the wear and/or maintenance state, is determined according to the maximum permissible limit temperature (T.sub.G) and the operating temperature (Tg.sub.B), wherein preferably an exceeding of the operating temperature (T.sub.B) above the limit temperature (T.sub.G) is classified, in particular with regard to duration and/or temperature difference [0009-0015, 0018-0019].
As to claim 10, Strenkert teaches the electric drive (26, 34) and/or the axle (20, 32, 38) is/are cooled by means of a cooling device (44) when the operating temperature (T.sub.B) reaches a cooling temperature (T.sub.K) [0012, 0024-0027].
As to claim 12, TSUKAMOTO teaches the drive controller (38) is configured to adjust the operating speed (v.sub.G) and/or the operating acceleration (a.sub.G) of the actuating element (24, 30, 36) as a function of the maximum permissible limit speed (v.sub.G) and/or limit acceleration (a.sub.G) of the actuating element (24, 30, 36) [Fig. 5][0033-0035, 0043-0048].
As to claim 13, Strenkert teaches the electric drive (26, 34) has at least one winding and at least one permanent magnet, in that the temperature sensor (40) is arranged on the winding and/or on the permanent magnet, and in that the temperature sensor (40) detects the operating temperature (T.sub.B) of the at least one winding and/or the at least one permanent magnet [0012-0017, 0027].
As to claim 14, Strenkert teaches the axle system (10) has a cooling device (44) for cooling the at least one electric drive (26, 34) and/or the at least one axle (20, 32, 38) [0012, 0024-0027].
As to claim 15, Strenkert teaches the drive controller (38) is configured to control the cooling device (44) in such a way that the electric drive (26, 34) and/or the axle (20, 32, 38) is/are cooled by the cooling device (44) when the operating temperature (T.sub.B) reaches a cooling temperature (T.sub.K) [0012, 0024-0027].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIPENG WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-7.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at 5712722279. 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.
/ZHIPENG WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 [0027] The control device 12 determines a maximum acceptable power of the drive machine (P.sub.max) from a stored characteristic curve as a function of the temperature of the transmission 14. An example of such a characteristic curve is illustrated in FIG. 2. The temperature (T) of the transmission 14 is plotted on an abscissa 30, and the maximum power of the drive machine (P.sub.max) is plotted on the ordinate. The characteristic curve 32 reflects the profile of the maximum power of the drive machine (P.sub.max) plotted against the temperature. The maximum power of the drive machine (P.sub.max) is constant up to a temperature T1, which may be, for example, between 80 and 140.degree. C., at a value P.sub.max1 which is higher than the maximum power of the drive machine 11. Up to this temperature T1, the torque is therefore not limited, and the torque can be limited owing to other methods (not under consideration here). Starting from the temperature T1, the characteristic curve drops along a straight line with a constant gradient.
2 [0033] The transmission controller 12 monitors the oil temperature TMP of the CVT 1 during the shift control. If the oil temperature TMP rises due to high speed running, high load running, etc., and the oil temperature TMP exceeds predetermined high temperature (for example, 120.degree. C., and hereinafter referred to as "a high oil temperature control starting temperature TMP1"), the transmission controller 12 starts the high oil temperature control for lowering the oil temperature TMP.
3 [0043] At Step S3, the amount of change in the rotation speed limitation value is set. The amount of change in the rotation speed limitation value is set referring to the table shown in FIG. 5, and the larger the difference .DELTA.T between the present oil temperature TMP of the CVT 1 and the high oil temperature control ending temperature TMP2, the larger the value is set. This is because the larger the present oil temperature TMP of the CVT 1 is, it is necessary to promptly lower the rotation speed limitation value, which will be described later and promptly lower the rotation speed of the CVT 1 promptly, and to promptly lower the oil temperature TMP.