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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/23/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/15/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, and 4-6 filed on 02/23/2026 are presently examined. Claim 3 is cancelled. Claims 1, 2, and 4 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 112(f), the amendments result in the withdrawal of interpretation.
Regarding 35 USC 103, Applicant's arguments filed 02/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot. New reference Koishi teaches the amended limitation in claim 1 and actives shifting before the engine rpm reaches the resonance range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Osugi with Koishi’s teaching of activating shift control before the rpm of the motor reaches the resonance region. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to engage in shift control before the rpm of the motor reaches the resonance range in order to maintain driving force while avoiding resonance vibration (Koishi [top of page 17] “the period from time t5 to time t7 is a resonance avoidance shift section in which the motor quickly passes through the motor resonance rotational speed region while maintaining the driving force due to the slip engagement state of the friction clutch 2. Furthermore, by transitioning from a downshift to a gradual upshift in the resonance avoidance shift section, the gear ratio before and after the resonance avoidance shift section are maintained at the same gear ratio (gear step).”).
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osugi (JP2018033290A), in view of Koebler et al. (US 10882416 B2), Yamamoto (US 11942884 B2), and Koishi et al. (WO 2016042894 A1) hereinafter referred to as Osugi, Koebler, Yamamoto, and Koishi, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Osugi discloses A vehicle system comprising:
a plurality of drive sources that generate torque for braking and driving a drive wheel of a vehicle ([0012] “The front wheel motor 5 and the rear wheel motor 6 of this embodiment are motor/generators capable of generating driving force for running and also capable of performing regenerative braking.”); and
a controller that controls the torque, wherein at least one of the drive sources is an electric motor ([0014] “The front wheel inverter 7 and the rear wheel inverter 8 are controlled by the ECU 1” [0010] “The electric vehicle of this embodiment can run using a motor driven by an on-board battery”), and
Osugi discloses determining whether the rotation speed of the motors are within predetermined ranges that correspond to their respective resonant frequencies ([0021] “ECU 1 determines whether the current rotation speed of the front wheel motor 5 is within a predetermined range (front wheel resonant rotation speed range) that includes the rotation speed corresponding to the resonant frequency of the front wheel motor 5 [0022] “ECU 1 then determines whether the current rotation speed of the rear wheel motor 6 is within another predetermined range (rear wheel resonant rotation speed range) that includes the rotation speed corresponding to the resonant frequency of the rear wheel motor 6”)
Osugi fails to disclose the controller is configured to predict a rotation speed of the electric motor after a current rotation speed, wherein the prediction is based on a vehicle travel plan.
However, Koebler teaches the controller is configured to predict a rotation speed of the electric motor after a current rotation speed, wherein the prediction is based on a vehicle travel plan ([see FIG. 4B] step 425 “predict motor rpm and torque” [column 3, lines 45-55] “The power management logic may determine an applied power for the vehicle engine based on information about the external environment of the vehicle that is selected from the group consisting of: … the predicted slope/grade of the next segments (or upcoming segments) of the route … the condition of the known or predicted route (or a portion thereof)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Osugi with Kobler’s teaching of predicting motor RPM. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to predict motor RPM in order to optimize power to the engine ([column 2, lines 6-7] “the overall fuel efficiency (regardless of the type of fuel), can be improved by optimizing the power supplied to the engine.”).
Osugi discloses determines, based on the rotation speed, a start time of shift control for changing the torque to a predetermined torque limit value ([see at least 0025] this paragraphs describes how vibration may occur during regenerative braking and how the torques of the motor(s) may be adjusted to suppress any vibration or resonance. [Also see FIG. 3].).
Osugi fails to explicitly disclose determine, based on the predicted rotation speed, a start time of shift control for changing the torque to a predetermined torque limit value.
However, Yamamoto teaches determine, based on the predicted rotation speed, a start time of shift control for changing the torque to a predetermined torque limit value ([column 5, lines 16-19] “determine an estimated motor rotational speed by a vehicle model to which an output torque command is inputted” [column 5, lines 22-36] disturbance torque is determined based on deviation of measured rotational speed and estimated rotational speed. Torque command is sent through a vibration suppression filter using the estimated motor-accelerating torque value, and determines the output torque command based on subtracting the compensation torque from the torque command.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Osugi with Yamamoto’s teaching of cyclically adjusting the torque which would have caused vibration by subtracting it from a torque value sent through a vibration suppression filter based on the estimated motor rotational speed determined from an estimated motor-accelerating torque value. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to limit the torque of a motor in order to suppress vibration thereby improving ride comfort ([column 3, lines 26-34] “provide a vibration suppression control device for a vehicle system … using motor speed information, suppressing vibrations due to resonance and thereby improving ride comfort of the vehicle.”).
Osugi discloses the shift control is started when the rotation speed of the electric motor reaches a predetermined resonance region ([0021] “When the current rotation speed of the front wheel motor 5 falls within the front wheel resonant rotation speed range (S17: YES), the ECU 1 distributes the required regenerative amount to the front wheel regenerative braking amount RBf and the rear wheel regenerative braking amount RBr at a second distribution ratio” [0007] “This reduces the amplitude of the target motor when it resonates, making it possible to reduce noise caused by the resonance of the target motor.”).
Osugi fails to explicitly disclose the shift control is started before the rotation speed of the electric motor reaches a predetermined resonance region.
However, Koishi teaches the shift control is started before the rotation speed of the electric motor reaches a predetermined resonance region ([bottom of page 15 to top of page 16] “when the motor speed reaches the first motor speed, which is near the motor resonant speed range, resonance avoidance shifting is initiated.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Osugi with Koishi’s teaching of activating shift control before the rpm of the motor reaches the resonance region. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to engage in shift control before the rpm of the motor reaches the resonance range in order to maintain driving force while avoiding resonance vibration (Koishi [top of page 17] “the period from time t5 to time t7 is a resonance avoidance shift section in which the motor quickly passes through the motor resonance rotational speed region while maintaining the driving force due to the slip engagement state of the friction clutch 2. Furthermore, by transitioning from a downshift to a gradual upshift in the resonance avoidance shift section, the gear ratio before and after the resonance avoidance shift section are maintained at the same gear ratio (gear step).”).
Regarding Claim 2, Osugi fails to explicitly disclose The vehicle system according to claim 1, further comprising a vehicle-mounted device that acquires external information of the vehicle, wherein the controller predicts the rotation speed of the electric motor based on the external information.
However, Koebler teaches a vehicle external information acquisition unit that acquires external information of the vehicle, wherein the control unit predicts the rotation speed of the electric motor based on the external information ([column 3 lines 45-65] external information is used in the applied power for the motor determinations, which includes the predicted RPM. [column 21, lines 57-58] “sensors for detecting external environmental information may be used (e.g., optical”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Osugi with Koebler’s teaching of using external information to predict future motor power and RPM. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to predict the future RPM in order to optimize power supplied to the engine ([column 2, lines 6-7] “the overall fuel efficiency (regardless of the type of fuel), can be improved by optimizing the power supplied to the engine.”).
Regarding Claim 5, Osugi discloses The vehicle system according to claim 1, wherein the drive sources brake and drive a front wheel and a rear wheel of the vehicle ([0024] “the front wheel motor 5 and … the rear wheel motor 6”).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osugi in view of Koebler and Yamamoto, further in view of Koga et al. (JP 2020058156 A), hereinafter referred to as Koga.
Regarding Claim 4, Osugi discloses The vehicle system according to claim 1, wherein the drive sources include a first electric motor and a second electric motor that brake and drive different drive wheels of the vehicle, and the resonance region for the first electric motor and the resonance region for the second electric motor are set so as not to overlap each other ([0024] “The resonant frequency of the front wheel motor 5 and the resonant frequency of the rear wheel motor 6 are different, and the front wheel resonant speed range and the rear wheel resonant speed range do not have an overlapping region.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Osugi fails to explicitly disclose The vehicle system according to claim 1, wherein the drive sources brake and drive a left wheel and a right wheel of the vehicle.
However, Koga teaches the drive sources brake and drive a left wheel and a right wheel of the vehicle ([0063] “a left motor 6 that transmits driving force to the left wheel 1 via the left axle 3, and a right motor 7 that transmits driving force to the right wheel 2 via the right axle 4”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Osugi with Koga’s teaching of two electric drive sources on the left and right wheels. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to include drive sources on the left and right wheels in order to prevent a predicted vibration before it occurs between the left and right shafts (Koga [0027] “by predicting the vibration state of the left shaft 3 and the right shaft 4 using a torque transmission model prepared in advance, vibration caused by the torque difference can be suppressed before it occurs”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R HEIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 EST.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/M.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights