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 instant application with Application Number 18/530,169 filed on 12/05/2023 is presented for examination. Claims 1-19 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statment
The Information Disclosure Statement dated 12/05/2023 is acknowledged and the cited references have been considered in this examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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 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 present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumada et al. (US 2017/0274902) (Hereinafter, Kumada) in view of McGee et al. (US 2006/0022642).
With respect to claims 1, 16 and 20, Kumada discloses a method/a device for determining one or more torques to be applied by one or more electric motors of a vehicle (Figs. 2/3, timing chart and motor rotation and motor torque; Para. # 0079), the method comprising: obtaining a power request for the one or more electric motors (Psara. # 0070: The controller 300 calculates a target value of the generated power (first target value) based on a requested power of the travelling motor 210); and an actual battery power as a feedback to obtain a control action (Para. # 101: acceptable power is a power acceptable by the battery 160 per unit time, that is, an upper limit value of chargeable power); calculating an electric power reference using the power request and the control action (Para. # 102/103: the controller 300 calculates a power consumption/ the controller 300 calculates a sum of the acceptable power and the power consumption of the vehicle auxiliary machine 180 as an absorbable power);
PNG
media_image1.png
862
875
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and determining the one or more torques to be applied by the one or more electric motors using the electric power reference (Para. # 116: power can be calculated based on the motor torque reference value with such as a preliminarily configured table where the motor torque reference value is associated with the power consumption); wherein performing the closed loop control is executed if the power request exceeds a predetermined threshold (Para. # 146/147: the motor torque is limited to lower limit value to decrease a speed; hence, surplus power can be consumed that prevents the power exceeding the acceptable power from being charged in the battery; actual gear ratio decreases to the predetermined threshold value at a time t22, the generated power is controlled toward the first target value-see also Fig. 2-time chart).
Kumada, however, does not expressly disclose performing a closed loop control using a battery power limit as a setpoint.
McGee, on the other hand, discloses a performing a closed loop control using a battery power limit as a setpoint (Para. # 0024/0027: wherein a closed loop controller 44 receives battery charge and discharge limits at 46, which are established by a battery and battery controller 48. The closed loop control 44 includes a PI (proportional-integral) controller 50; the closed loop control for the battery power limits shown at 44 in FIG. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
495
790
media_image2.png
Greyscale
KUMADA and McGee are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely control device and method for vehicle and closed loop control of battery power limit.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller of Kumada with Mcgee to include a closed loop control on battery limits for the benefit of avoiding shutdown of the electric motor and its controller due to a voltage that is under or over the battery voltage limits (Para. # 0008 and 0010).
With respect to claims 2, 10 and 13, the combined references of Kumada and McGee disclose the method/the device for determining one or more torques as described above, further Kumada discloses wherein obtaining the power request for the one or more electric motors comprises: obtaining a mechanical power request for each of the one or more electric motors (Para. # 0070: a requested power of the vehicle auxiliary machine 180, and a charge/discharge request of the battery 160); mapping each mechanical power request into an electrical power request for each of the one or more electric motors using an efficiency map (Para. # 113, and Fig. 9, S53); and adding up the electrical power request for each of the one or more electric motors to obtain the power request (Para. # 115 and Fig. 10).
PNG
media_image3.png
593
421
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 3, 11 and 20, the combined references of Kumada and McGee disclose the method/the device for determining one or more torques as described above, further Kumada discloses wherein the efficiency map is predetermined using at least one of motor torque, motor speed and inverter bus voltage of the one or more electric motors (Para. #0081: Fig. 3: a relation between the motor rotation speed and the motor torque. The motor torque T2 when the motor rotation speed is N2 is higher than the motor torque T1 when the motor rotation speed is N1).
PNG
media_image4.png
527
682
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 4, 17 and 20, the combined references of Kumada and McGee disclose the method/the device for determining one or more torques as described above, further Kumada discloses wherein the electric power reference is determined using the power request if the power request does not exceed the predetermined threshold (Para. # 112: If the travelling motor 210 does not consume the surplus power, the charged power per unit time exceeds the acceptable power to cause the deterioration of the battery 160 due to such as the heat generation).
With respect to claims 5, 17 and 20, the combined references of Kumada and McGee disclose the method/the device for determining one or more torques as described above, further McGee discloses wherein the closed loop control comprises one of the following: a proportional controller, and an integral controller using an anti-windup mechanism; a proportional controller, an integral controller, and a derivative controller; and a proportional controller, an integral controller using an anti-windup mechanism, and a derivative controller (Para. # 0024: The closed loop control 44 includes a PI (proportional-integral) controller 50).
With respect to claims 6-9, 12 and 20, the combined references of Kumada and McGee disclose the method/the device for determining one or more torques as described above, further Kumada discloses wherein determining the one or more torques to be applied by the one or more electric motors comprises: acquiring a control reduction ratio using the power request and the electric power reference; calculating an electric power reference for each of the one or more electric motors based on the electrical power request for the each of the one or more electric motors and the control reduction ratio; and determining the one or more torques to be applied by each of the one or more electric motors based on the electric power reference of each of the one or more electric motors (Para. #. 0094, 0098: Step S20, the controller 300 calculates a vehicle speed based on the motor rotation speed, an actual gear ratio of the transmission 230 ; the controller 300 calculates a vehicle speed based on the motor rotation speed, an actual gear ratio of the transmission 230 obtained by dividing the motor rotation speed by the rotation speed (hereinafter referred to as an “output rotation speed”).
With respect to claims 14 and 15, the combined references of Kumada and McGee disclose the method/the device for determining one or more torques as described above, further Kumada discloses wherein the predetermined threshold of the power request is a predetermined percentage of the battery power limit (Para. # 117: when the battery charging level comes to less than a first threshold value for preventing the battery 160 from an over discharge, a positive power value is calculated as the battery charge/discharge power ); wherein the predetermined threshold of the power request is a predetermined offset from the battery power limit (Para. # 101: acceptable power is a power acceptable by the battery 160 per unit time, that is, an upper limit value of chargeable power).
With respect to claims 18 and 19, the combined references of Kumada and McGee disclose the method/the device for determining one or more torques as described above, further Kumada discloses wherein using the control action derived from a closed control loop using the battery power limit, the battery power, and the power request to generate an electrical power reference that allows the battery power to target and reach the limits (Para. # 0070, 0090, and 101: , the acceptable power is a power acceptable by the battery 160 per unit time, that is, an upper limit value of chargeable power).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YALKEW FANTU whose telephone number is (571)272-8928. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:00PM.
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, DREW A DUNN can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/YALKEW FANTU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
