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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Oh and CN ’166, either alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest “performing regenerative braking or coasting control on each of the first motor and the second motor when the vehicle performs the deceleration travel in consideration of the determined target control vehicle speed and integrated fuel efficiencies when the vehicle performs the acceleration travel and the deceleration travel,” as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner disagrees because of the following.
As acknowledged by Applicant, Oh teaches a pulse and glide (PnG) travel control mode in which acceleration travel and deceleration travel are repeatedly performed. Oh further teaches determining a target control vehicle speed band based on preset target vehicle speeds when entering the PnG mode. See Oh, paras. [0054]-[0066]. Oh additionally teaches controlling vehicle travel during the glide phase using vehicle inertia and motor power while maintaining operation within the target speed band.
Applicant argues that Oh only considers fuel efficiency during the acceleration “pulse” phase and does not consider integrated fuel efficiencies during the deceleration “glide” phase. However, claim 1 does not require calculating a separate fuel efficiency specifically during only the deceleration phase. Rather, claim 1 recites performing regenerative braking or coasting control during deceleration “in consideration of” integrated fuel efficiencies when the vehicle performs both acceleration travel and deceleration travel.
Oh expressly teaches a PnG strategy intended to optimize overall fuel economy across the repeated acceleration and deceleration cycle as a whole. The determination of the target control speed band and transition between pulse and glide phases are part of a unified fuel efficiency control strategy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the glide phase operation, including coasting control during deceleration, is inherently performed in consideration of the integrated fuel efficiency objectives of the entire PnG cycle, because the glide phase directly contributes to the overall fuel economy improvement achieved by the PnG operation.
Further, CN ’166 teaches regenerative braking control for front and rear motors/wheels, including determining regenerative braking torque distribution between the motors based on operating conditions and braking control parameters. See CN ’166, para [0023]. While Applicant argues that CN ’166 does not explicitly disclose target control vehicle speed or integrated fuel efficiencies, the rejection does not rely on CN ’166 for teaching the PnG target speed control strategy or the integrated fuel efficiency considerations. Rather, CN ’166 is relied upon for teaching regenerative braking control distributed between multiple motors corresponding to different drive wheels.
The combination of Oh and CN ’166 would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art performing regenerative braking or coasting control on each motor during the deceleration/glide phase of Oh’s PnG operation in order to improve overall vehicle energy efficiency and energy recovery. Incorporating the known dual-motor regenerative braking strategy of CN ’166 into the fuel-economy-oriented PnG control strategy of Oh merely represents the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc..
Applicant’s arguments improperly attack the references individually when the rejection is based on the combined teachings of the references. A reference need not teach every claimed limitation individually where the combined teachings of the prior art would have rendered the claimed invention obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that the combination of Oh and CN ’166 teaches or at least suggests all limitations , and therefore the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 is maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-15 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OH (US 2018/0134296), in view of CN 106627166.
Claims 1 and 10, “determining a target control vehicle speed based on a preset target vehicle speed when a vehicle including a first motor corresponding to a first drive wheel and a second motor corresponding to a second drive wheel enters a travel control mode in which acceleration travel and deceleration travel after the acceleration travel are repeatedly performed;”
OH teaches: “a pulse phase corresponding to a vehicle acceleration section and a glide phase corresponding to a vehicle deceleration section are alternately repeated between a preset upper and lower limit of vehicle speed” (see P, Abstract, para 0014)
Although OH does not explicitly say “first motor … second motor”, CN’166 teaches dual-axle (front/rear motor) architecture: “dual-axle drive pure electric automobile … firstly … according to MAP maps of front and rear motors” (abstract)
Thus the combination shows: when the vehicle enters the PnG mode the system defines a target control speed band;
“performing regenerative braking or coasting control on each of the first motor and the second motor when the vehicle performs the deceleration travel in consideration of the determined target control vehicle speed and integrated fuel efficiencies when the vehicle performs the acceleration travel and the deceleration travel.”
OH teaches coasting (glide) during deceleration: “driving … in the glide phase by inertia of the hybrid electric vehicle” (para 0014);
CN ‘166 teaches allocation of front/rear motor regeneration or braking based on motor MAPs and “utilization efficiency highest” for dual-axle EV: “calculate … front- and rear-axle regenerative braking torque … the proportionality coefficient makes the utilization efficiency of the front and back electric system highest.” (claim 1 of CN’166)
OH gives the deceleration/glide/coast framework; CN’166 provides per-axle control (each motor) and optimization of efficiency across the cycle (accel+decel); therefore, a person having ordinary skill would combine the PnG cruise profiling of OH with the dual‐axle regeneration/coast optimization of CN ‘166 to improve overall integrated energy efficiency for an AWD or multi-motor vehicle executing the PnG mode.
Claims 2 and 11, “entering the travel control mode when a smart cruise control function or autonomous driving function of the vehicle is activated.”
OH teaches: “turning on an auto cruise mode by setting … a target vehicle speed … and turning on a pulse and glide (PnG) mode” (Abstract and para 0014).
Claims 3 and 12, “determining the target control vehicle speed in consideration of a preset vehicle speed upper limit value and vehicle speed lower limit value additionally with respect to the target vehicle speed.”
OH teaches “a pulse phase … and a glide phase … are alternately repeated between a preset upper and lower limit of vehicle speed” (Abstract and para 0014 and para 0037).
Claims 4 and 13, “the target control vehicle speed includes a target upper limit control vehicle speed considering the vehicle speed upper limit value … and a target lower limit control vehicle speed considering the vehicle speed lower limit value …”
OH teaches same phrase about alternately repeated between upper/lower limits. (para 0014, para 0037)
Claims 5 and 14, “a section in which the acceleration travel is performed … accelerates from the target lower limit control vehicle speed to the target upper limit control vehicle speed;”
“a section in which the deceleration travel is performed … decelerates from the target upper limit control vehicle speed to the target lower limit control vehicle speed.”
OH teaches “pulse phase corresponding to a vehicle acceleration section and a glide phase corresponding to a vehicle deceleration section are alternately repeated between a preset upper and lower limit of vehicle speed” (para 0014)
Claims 6 and 15, “determining integrated fuel efficiency of the vehicle in each of a plurality of cases in which each of the first motor and the second motor variously performs regenerative braking or coasting control;”
“performing the regenerative braking or coasting control on each of the first motor and the second motor to correspond to a case in which the integrated fuel efficiency is the highest in the plurality of cases.”
OH provides the decel/glide phase, implies coasting; does not show multiple cases or per-axle.
CN’166 shows front/rear motor regen allocation and selecting allocation which maximizes utilization efficiency: “the proportionality coefficient makes the utilization efficiency … highest (claim 1); therefore, It would be obvious to evaluate multiple possible regen/coast distributions across front/rear motors using the technique of CN ‘166, and choose the one delivering highest energy recovery (integrated efficiency) in the PnG decel portion taught by OH.
Claims 7 and 16, “determining the integrated fuel efficiency … in consideration of an optimal regenerative efficiency operating point of the first motor or the second motor when at least one of the first motor and the second motor performs the regeneration braking among the plurality of cases.”
CN’166 uses MAPs of front & rear motors and selects allocation to maximize efficiency – this presumes locating an optimal operating point for regen: “according to MAP maps of front and rear motors … make the utilization efficiency … highest.” (Abstract), thus, In an AWD/multi-motor PnG system of OH, it would be obvious to apply the per-motor MAP‐based optimization of CN’166 to select the operating point where regen efficiency is highest, and thus evaluate integrated fuel efficiency accordingly.
Claims 9 and 18, “after determining the target control vehicle speed, determining an acceleration of the vehicle in consideration of the determined target control vehicle speed and an optimal efficiency operating point of at least one of the first motor and the second motor when the vehicle performs the acceleration travel;”
“performing driving control on each of the first motor and the second motor based on the determined acceleration.”
OH teaches acceleration in the “pulse” phase of PnG and mentions “engine optimal operating line (OOL)” for HEV; for example: “an operating point is determined so as to track the OOL to exert optimal efficiency” (para 0031);
CN’166 shows using motor MAPs (drive/regen) for front & rear motors; while CN ‘166 is focused on regen, one of ordinary skill would apply the same MAP-based selection for drive (acceleration) to determine optimal operating point for each motor; thus, It would have been obvious to use the drive-efficiency MAP(s) of front and rear motors (CN ‘166) to determine the best acceleration profile (based on the target control speed band from OH) and then control each motor accordingly in the PnG system of OH.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OH (US 2018/0134296), in view of CN 106627166, further in view of Kuga (US 6,033,041).
Claims 8 and 16, “determining the integrated fuel efficiency of the vehicle additionally in consideration of road information of a road on which the vehicle travels in each of the plurality of cases.”
OH and CN’166 do not explicitly mention road-information such as road grade;
Kuga teaches adjusting regenerative braking according to road inclination (“inclination detecting unit” controlling regen) (col 4, lines 1-22); thus, It would have been obvious to incorporate road grade or other road data (as taught by Kuga) into the integrated efficiency calculation of the PnG dual-motor system to further optimize the regen/coast decision.
Conclusion
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 MASUD AHMED whose telephone number is (571)270-1315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-8:30 PM PST with IFP.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571 270 3976. 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.
MASUD . AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657A
/MASUD AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights