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 .
This action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on 05/18/2026, in which claims 1-13 and 16-20 are pending and addressed below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections:
Applicant argues on page 9 of the remarks that “there is a fundamental architectural distinction between a “slip request” recited the [sic] claims, and a “torque request” of Tank [sic] and Ienaga.” Applicant argues on page 10 of the remarks that “when the central VMM of the invention sends a “wheel slip request,” it is acting as a strategic manager,” but “when a central VMM sends a “torque request” (as in Tang and Ienaga), it is acting as a micromanager.” Therefore, applicant states on page 10 of the remarks that “the resultant “wheel slip request” system [of the instant application] is a hierarchical or cascaded control system with two distinct loops: An outer loop (VMM, low frequency) that sends a strategic, slowly-changing "slip request" to the MSD; and an inner loop (MSD, high frequency) where the local MSD runs its own extremely fast loop, reading the target slip and constantly adjusting torque to drive the error to zero.”
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees that the cited references fail to teach the independent claims. Instant application page 19, line 33-page 20, line 2 defines a wheel slip request as being equivalent to wheel speed. Tang discloses wheel slip requests because a wheel slip error is computed using slip ratios, which are calculated using wheel speed (Tang [0050]-[0052]). A feedback control system is then used to minimize the wheel slip error by independently determining an optimal torque (Tang [0052]-[0054]). Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification, Tang discloses wheel slip requests as claimed.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “In contrast, when the central VMM of the invention sends a "wheel slip request," it is acting as a strategic manager. It performs a higher-level calculation to determine the optimal operational state for the wheel and sends a declarative command to achieve and maintain that target state. This command is declarative, it sets the goal but delegates the intelligence of how to achieve that state to the local MSD controller. The resultant "wheel slip request" system is a hierarchical or cascaded control system with two distinct loops: An outer loop (VMM, low frequency) that sends a strategic, slowly- changing "slip request" to the MSD; and an inner loop (MSD, high frequency) where the local MSD runs its own extremely fast loop, reading the target slip and constantly adjusting torque to drive the error to zero.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
For example, the claims do not recite a VMM “determin[ing] the optimal operational state for the wheel and send[ing] a declarative command” where the declarative command “delegates the intelligence of how to achieve that state to the local MSD controller.” The claims also do not recite “a hierarchical or cascaded control system with two distinct loops.” Therefore, the claims also do not recite an outer loop VMM with low frequency that sends a slip request to the MSD, which is an inner loop operating at high frequency, that reads the target slip and constantly adjusts torque to drive the error to zero. If applicant wishes for the claims to be interpreted with the above features, applicant is invited to amend the claims to positively recite the argued claim features.
Although not required by the current claim language, Tang also discloses a hierarchical architecture when generating wheel slip requests. Tang discloses unit 609 first calculates wheel slip ratios and errors, and then unit 609 provides input into the torque command generation unit 601 (Tang [0049]-[0051]). Additionally, Tang Fig. 6 depicts a hierarchical process of generating slip requests. For example, the traction control command generation outputs values for slip errors of both axles, which are then input into the traction and stability control. The traction and stability control then outputs separate corresponding torque commands to the primary control module and assist control module which control the primary motor and assist motor, respectively. Accordingly, Tang discloses a “strategic manager” and “hierarchical or cascaded control system with two distinct loops” because Tang discloses separate processing for determining overall slip errors, which is subsequently input to determine the specific torque values for each motor that can minimize the slip error. Furthermore, Ienaga discloses a similar hierarchical structure because Ienaga discloses a slip determination module that is separate from a rotation speed control module, and rotation speed control is independently performed for each wheel to suppress slip (Ienaga [0028], [0032]).
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive.
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.
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 1-7, 10, 12-13, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0009197 A1, in view of Ienaga et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0246957 A1 (hereinafter Ienaga), and further in view of University at Buffalo, “Tire Model in Driving Simulator.”
Regarding claim 1, Tang discloses a vehicle control unit arranged to control motion of a heavy- duty vehicle (Tang Fig. 1) comprising
first and second electric machine (EM) arrangements (see at least Tang [0026]: “As shown, each axle is coupled to an independent power source, specifically rear axle 101 is coupled to an electric motor 103 via a transmission/differential assembly 105, and front axle 107 is coupled to an electric motor 109 via a transmission/differential assembly 111.”; electric motors 103 and 109 are first and second electric machine arrangements),
where the first EM arrangement has different efficiency characteristics compared to the second EM arrangement (see at least Tang [0029]: “It will be understood that the gear ratios of transmission/differential elements 105 and 111 may be the same, or different, from one another. If they are the same, FIGS. 2 and 3 show the motor speeds of both motors. If they are different, FIGS. 2 and 3 show the motor speed of the primary motor, with the motor speed of the secondary motor converted based on a gear ratio conversion factor. FIGS. 2 and 3 illustrate that in at least one configuration, the maximum amount of assist torque can be substantially constant throughout the motor speed, and hence vehicle speed, range of operation (FIG. 2), and as a result the maximum amount of assist power increases as a function of motor speed (FIG. 3).”; instant application page 16, lines 24-27 explains different efficiency characteristics includes at least different gear ratios),
wherein the vehicle control unit is arranged to control the first and the second EM arrangement by transmitting wheel slip requests to respective EM control units (see at least Tang [0051]-[0052]: “For each axle, the difference between the computed wheel slip ratio and the target wheel slip ratio yields the computed slip error, referred to herein as “C_sliperror1” for the wheel slip ratio error of the primary-driven axle 101 and “C_sliperror2” for the wheel slip ratio error of the assist-driven axle 107…The computed slip errors, C_sliperror 1 and C_sliperror2, along with the values for the optimized torque split, C_torque1e and C_torque2e, and the total requested torque, C_torque, are input into the first stage of the traction and stability control unit 611. Details of unit 611 are shown in FIG. 9. As shown, the first stage independently minimizes the wheel slip ratio errors using a feedback control system, for example using a lead-lag controller, sliding-mode controller, PID controller or other linear or non-linear controller type. Preferably PID controllers are used for the compensators 901/902 in the first stage feedback control system. In the second stage of unit 611, motor speed fast disturbances are independently minimized using high pass filters 903/904 and compensators (preferably PID controllers) 905/906. Motor speed fast disturbances can be caused, for example, by sudden large reductions of load torque on the motor shaft during an excessive wheel slip event, or by sudden large additions of load torque on the motor shaft from one or two stuck wheels.”),
the respective EM control units being configured to, in response to the wheel slip request, control one or more vehicle actuators (see at least Tang [0053]: “During a wheel slip event that causes a torque reduction on an axle, an effect of the feedforward control is to increase the torque command to the other axle that has a better tire-to-road grip.”),
wherein the control unit is arranged to obtain a desired total longitudinal force to be jointly generated by the first and second EM arrangements (see at least Tang [0042]: “The output of unit 601 is a total torque requirement request, referred to herein as “C_torque”. C_torque is the torque required from the combined drive trains.”),
and to obtain respective efficiency characteristics of the first and the second EM arrangements (see at least Tang [0029]: “It will be understood that the gear ratios of transmission/differential elements 105 and 111 may be the same, or different, from one another. If they are the same, FIGS. 2 and 3 show the motor speeds of both motors. If they are different, FIGS. 2 and 3 show the motor speed of the primary motor, with the motor speed of the secondary motor converted based on a gear ratio conversion factor. FIGS. 2 and 3 illustrate that in at least one configuration, the maximum amount of assist torque can be substantially constant throughout the motor speed, and hence vehicle speed, range of operation (FIG. 2), and as a result the maximum amount of assist power increases as a function of motor speed (FIG. 3).”; instant application page 16, lines 24-27 explains different efficiency characteristics includes at least different gear ratios),
wherein the control unit is arranged to determine a desired first wheel slip corresponding to a first longitudinal force generated by the first EM arrangement, and a desired second wheel slip corresponding to a second longitudinal force generated by the second EM arrangement (see at least Tang [0051]-[0052]: “For each axle, the difference between the computed wheel slip ratio and the target wheel slip ratio yields the computed slip error, referred to herein as “C_sliperror1” for the wheel slip ratio error of the primary-driven axle 101 and “C_sliperror2” for the wheel slip ratio error of the assist-driven axle 107…The computed slip errors, C_sliperror 1 and C_sliperror2, along with the values for the optimized torque split, C_torque1e and C_torque2e, and the total requested torque, C_torque, are input into the first stage of the traction and stability control unit 611.”; [0044]: “If the temporary torque values are less than the maximum available torque values, then the temporary torque values are output as C_torque1e (primary motor) and C_torque2e (assist motor); if the temporary torque values are greater than the maximum available torque values, then the maximum available torque values are output as C_torque1e and C_torque2e. (Steps 707 and 709).”),
where a sum of the first longitudinal force and the second longitudinal force is matched to the desired total longitudinal force (see at least Tang [0042]: “The output of unit 601 is a total torque requirement request, referred to herein as “C_torque”. C_torque is the torque required from the combined drive trains.”; [0052]: “The computed slip errors, C_sliperror 1 and C_sliperror2, along with the values for the optimized torque split, C_torque1e and C_torque2e, and the total requested torque, C_torque, are input into the first stage of the traction and stability control unit 611.”)
Tang fails to expressly disclose balancing a magnitude of the first wheel slip relative to a magnitude of the second wheel slip in dependence of the respective efficiency characteristics of the first and second EM arrangements. However, Ienaga teaches
wherein the control unit is arranged to balance a magnitude of the desired first wheel slip relative to a magnitude of the desired second wheel slip in dependence of the respective efficiency characteristics of the first and the second EM arrangements (see at least Ienaga [0054]: “The base front axis distribution ratio Rb is used by the base distribution calculation module 104 for calculating the front-and-rear distribution torques T_req_s (FL, FR, RL, RR) of the respective wheels. In FIG. 5, the vehicle is in the ordinary travelling state without slipping until time t1, and the front-and-rear torques T_req_s (FL, FR, RL, RR) are calculated from the efficiency-oriented front axis distribution ratio Re. When a slip is detected at the time t1, the front-and-rear torques T_req_s (FL, FR, RL, RR) are calculated from the stability-oriented front axis distribution ratio Rs. When, for example, a braking operation performed by a driver is detected at time t2 and it is determined that the slip state ends, the front-and-rear torques T_req_s (FL, FR, RL, RR) are calculated from the efficiency-oriented front axis distribution ratio Re.”; [0045]-[0046]: “The motors of the respective wheels are controlled on the basis of the motor torques T_req_2 (FL, FR, RL, RR) after rotation speed control that have been calculated in the above described way. The motor torques T_req_2 (FL, FR, RL, RR) after rotation speed control are transmitted to the torque vectoring module 106. The torque vectoring module 106 calculates the torque down amounts T_down (FL, FR, RL, RR) from differences between the final requested torques T_req_2 (FL, FR, RL, RR) and the front-and-rear distribution torques T_req_s (FL, FR, RL, RR).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the instant application to modify the system disclosed by Tang with Ienaga with reasonable expectation of success. Ienaga is directed towards the related field of a vehicle control device including slip determination. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Tang with Ienaga to continue vehicle operations when a slip occurs (see at least Ienaga [0008]: “Accordingly, it is desirable to provide a novel and improved vehicle control device and vehicle control method that are capable of suppressing decrease in drivability even when torque vectoring amounts of front and rear wheels are large when a slip occurs.”).
Tang in view of Ienaga fail to expressly disclose the specific equation of longitudinal wheel slip. However, University at Buffalo teaches
the transmitted wheel slip request comprises a target longitudinal wheel slip given by
λ
x
=
R
ω
x
-
v
x
m
a
x
(
R
ω
,
v
x
)
where R is an effective wheel radius in meters, ωx is a wheel angular velocity, and vx is a longitudinal wheel speed over ground (see at least University at Buffalo page 1: “The longitudinal slip of the tire is defined as a difference between the tire tangential speed and the speed of the axle relative to the road, which is represented by the following equation… where S is the longitudinal slip, R is the radius of the wheel, ω is the angular velocity, and u is the speed of the axle illustrated in Figure 1. The value of the longitudinal slip is limited such that |S|
≤
1.For braking, axle speed is used in the denominator so that longitudinal slip is 1 when ω is zero. Slip has the opposite sign when tracking force is generated.”),
or the transmitted wheel slip request comprising a target wheel angular velocity ωx, determined by the control unit in relation to a longitudinal wheel speed vx over ground to obtain a target longitudinal wheel slip λx (see at least University at Buffalo page 1: “The longitudinal slip of the tire is defined as a difference between the tire tangential speed and the speed of the axle relative to the road, which is represented by the following equation… where S is the longitudinal slip, R is the radius of the wheel, ω is the angular velocity, and u is the speed of the axle illustrated in Figure 1. The value of the longitudinal slip is limited such that |S|
≤
1.For braking, axle speed is used in the denominator so that longitudinal slip is 1 when ω is zero. Slip has the opposite sign when tracking force is generated.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the instant application to modify the system disclosed by Tang in view of Ienaga with the longitudinal wheel slip equation taught by University at Buffalo with reasonable expectation of success. University at Buffalo is directed towards the related field of modeling tire dynamics. Further, instant application page 11, lines 5-13 states the longitudinal wheel slip equation is a known standard in the art. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Tang in view of Ienaga with University at Buffalo to accurately model tire forces (see at least University at Buffalo page 1: “In our driving simulator, it is very important to describe the exact behavior of a vehicle in any driving scenario including inclement driving conditions which may require severe steering, braking, acceleration, and other driving related operations. Therefore, in order to simulate the complete vehicle operational range, it is important to properly model tire forces containing the interactions of longitudinal and lateral forces from small levels through saturation.”).
Regarding claim 2, Tang in view of Ienaga and University at Buffalo teach all elements of the vehicle control unit according to claim 1 as explained above. Tang further teaches
where the first EM arrangement has a different efficiency characteristic as function of vehicle speed compared to the second EM arrangement (see at least Tang [0028]: “Additionally, in a preferred embodiment assist motor 109 is designed to have a relatively flat torque curve over a wide range of speeds, and therefore is capable of augmenting the output of primary motor 103 at high speeds, specifically in the range in which the torque of primary motor 103 is dropping off. FIGS. 2 and 3 illustrate torque and power curves, respectively, of exemplary motors.”; [0029]: “FIGS. 2 and 3 illustrate that in at least one configuration, the maximum amount of assist torque can be substantially constant throughout the motor speed, and hence vehicle speed, range of operation (FIG. 2), and as a result the maximum amount of assist power increases as a function of motor speed (FIG. 3).”).
Regarding claim 3, Tang in view of Ienaga and University at Buffalo teach all elements of the vehicle control unit according to claim 1 as explained above. Tang further teaches
where the first EM arrangement has a different efficiency characteristic as function of applied torque or wheel force compared to the second EM arrangement (see at least Tang [0028]: “Additionally, in a preferred embodiment assist motor 109 is designed to have a relatively flat torque curve over a wide range of speeds, and therefore is capable of augmenting the output of primary motor 103 at high speeds, specifically in the range in which the torque of primary motor 103 is dropping off. FIGS. 2 and 3 illustrate torque and power curves, respectively, of exemplary motors.”).
Regarding claim 4, Tang in view of Ienaga and University at Buffalo teach all elements of the vehicle control unit according to claim 1 as explained above. Tang further teaches
where the first EM arrangement comprises one or more EMs of a different EM design and/or comprises a different gear ratio compared to the second EM arrangement (see at least Tang [0029]: “It will be understood that the gear ratios of transmission/differential elements 105 and 111 may be the same, or different, from one another. If they are the same, FIGS. 2 and 3 show the motor speeds of both motors. If they are different, FIGS. 2 and 3 show the motor speed of the primary motor, with the motor speed of the secondary motor converted based on a gear ratio conversion factor. FIGS. 2 and 3 illustrate that in at least one configuration, the maximum amount of assist torque can be substantially constant throughout the motor speed, and hence vehicle speed, range of operation (FIG. 2), and as a result the maximum amount of assist power increases as a function of motor speed (FIG. 3).”; Tang discloses at least a different gear ratio).
Regarding claim 5, Tang in view of Ienaga and University at Buffalo teach all elements of the vehicle control unit according to claim 1 as explained above. Tang further teaches
where the first EM arrangement is associated with a first vehicle axle and the second EM arrangement is associated with a second vehicle axle of the heavy-duty vehicle (see at least Tang [0026]: “As shown, each axle is coupled to an independent power source, specifically rear axle 101 is coupled to an electric motor 103 via a transmission/differential assembly 105, and front axle 107 is coupled to an electric motor 109 via a transmission/differential assembly 111.”).
Regarding claim 6, Tang in view of Ienaga and University at Buffalo teach all elements of the vehicle control unit according to claim 1 as explained above. Tang further teaches
where the first EM arrangement is a startability EM arrangement configured for efficiency at lower vehicle speeds, and where the second EM arrangement is a cruise-mode EM arrangement configured for efficiency at higher vehicle speeds (see at least Tang [0031]: “Fourth, assuming an assist motor with a relatively flat torque curve, in addition to providing additional power at all speeds, the assist motor provides greatly enhanced performance at high speeds when the primary motor starts losing torque.”; [0030]: “As described above and illustrated in FIGS. 2 and 3, preferably assist motor 109 is designed to provide a much higher drive system base speed than the drive system base speed of primary motor 103; more preferably assist motor 109 is designed to provide at least a 50% higher drive system base speed than the drive system base speed of primary motor 103.”; Tang discloses primary motor 103 is a startability EM arrangement and assist motor 109 is a cruise-mode EM arrangement).
Regarding claim 7, Tang in view of Ienaga and University at Buffalo teach all elements of the vehicle control unit according to claim 6 as explained above. Tang further teaches
where the startability EM arrangement is configured to power a vehicle unit rear axle, and where the cruise-mode EM arrangement is configured to power a vehicle unit steered axle (see at least Tang [0026]: “As shown, each axle is coupled to an independent power source, specifically rear axle 101 is coupled to an electric motor 103 via a transmission/differential assembly 105, and front axle 107 is coupled to an electric motor 109 via a transmission/differential assembly 111.”; Tang discloses primary motor 103 is a startability EM arrangement and assist motor 109 is a cruise-mode EM arrangement; a front axle is a vehicle unit steered axle as evidenced by instant application page 20, lines 3-5 and vehicle unit steered axle 710).
Regarding claim 10, Tang in view of Ienaga and University at Buffalo teach all elements of the vehicle control unit according to claim 1 as explained above. Ienaga further teaches
wherein the control unit is arranged to balance the magnitude of the desired first wheel slip relative to the magnitude of the desired second wheel slip based on a relative power consumption of the first and the second EM arrangements in comparison to a magnitude relationship between the first longitudinal force and the second longitudinal force (see at least Ienaga [0052]-[0053]: “Therefore, electric power consumption is reduced to be the minimum by distributing larger torques to the rear wheels than the front wheels according to the implementation. On the other hand, when the slip occurs, the efficiency-oriented distribution ratio is switched to a stability-oriented distribution ratio, and the front wheel torque: the rear wheel torque=5:5 is substantially achieved. Thereby, it is possible to suppress the electric power consumption to be the minimum during ordinary travelling without slipping, and it is possible to drastically increase vehicle stability in the case where the slip occurs.”).
Regarding claim 12, Tang in view of Ienaga and University at Buffalo teach all elements of the vehicle control unit according to claim 1 as explained above. Tang further teaches
wherein the control unit is arranged to balance the magnitude of the desired first wheel slip relative to the magnitude of the desired second wheel slip based on a pre-determined balancing function parameterized by vehicle speed (see at least Tang [0028]: “Additionally, in a preferred embodiment assist motor 109 is designed to have a relatively flat torque curve over a wide range of speeds, and therefore is capable of augmenting the output of primary motor 103 at high speeds, specifically in the range in which the torque of primary motor 103 is dropping off. FIGS. 2 and 3 illustrate torque and power curves, respectively, of exemplary motors.”; [0029]: “FIGS. 2 and 3 illustrate that in at least one configuration, the maximum amount of assist torque can be substantially constant throughout the motor speed, and hence vehicle speed, range of operation (FIG. 2), and as a result the maximum amount of assist power increases as a function of motor speed (FIG. 3).”).
Regarding claim 13, Tang in view of Ienaga and University at Buffalo teach all elements of the vehicle control unit according to claim 1 as explained above. Tang further teaches
wherein the control unit is arranged to balance the magnitude of the desired first wheel slip relative to the magnitude of the desired second wheel slip based on a pre-determined balancing function parameterized by the total longitudinal force (see at least Tang [0052]: “The computed slip errors, C_sliperror 1 and C_sliperror2, along with the values for the optimized torque split, C_torque1e and C_torque2e, and the total requested torque, C_torque, are input into the first stage of the traction and stability control unit 611. Details of unit 611 are shown in FIG. 9. As shown, the first stage independently minimizes the wheel slip ratio errors using a feedback control system, for example using a lead-lag controller, sliding-mode controller, PID controller or other linear or non-linear controller type.”; [0053]: “Between the first and second stages is a transient torque boost feedforward control circuit, referred to in the figure as dynamic boost, which adds an amount of torque to each axle. The amount of added torque is proportional to the difference between the driver torque request after the first stage of traction control and the combined torque command, C_torque. The proportional constants K1 and K2 may be tuned to be different between the two axles.”).
Regarding claim 18, Tang in view of Ienaga and University at Buffalo teach all elements of the vehicle control unit according to claim 1 as explained above. Tang further teaches
a heavy-duty vehicle comprising a vehicle control unit according to claim 1 (see at least Tang [0002]: “The present invention relates generally to electric vehicles and, more particularly, to a control system for an all-wheel drive electric vehicle.”; Tang Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, this claim recites a method performed by the vehicle control unit of claim 1. The combination of Tang in view of Ienaga and University at Buffalo also teaches a method performed by the vehicle control unit as outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Ienaga and University at Buffalo, and further in view of Shiozawa et al., U.S. Patent No. 8707756 B2 (hereinafter Shiozawa).
Regarding claim 8, Tang in view of Ienaga and University at Buffalo teach all elements of the vehicle control unit according to claim 1 as explained above. Tang in view of Ienaga and University at Buffalo fail to expressly disclose balance the magnitude of the first wheel slip relative to the magnitude of the second wheel slip based on a relative gradient of the efficiency characteristics. However, Shiozawa teaches
wherein the control unit is arranged to balance the magnitude of the desired first wheel slip relative to the magnitude of the desired second wheel slip based on a relative gradient of the efficiency characteristics of the respective EM arrangements with respect to a control parameter (see at least Shiozawa Col. 29, lines 51-67: “Subsequently, the tire grip state calculating section 48 in vehicle travel state estimating device 8 estimates the .mu. gradient (the grip characteristic parameter) on the basis of the 3D .mu. gradient characteristic map (step S38). That is, tire grip state calculating section 48 calculates the .mu. gradient (.gamma./.gamma.0) for each of the front wheel pair and the rear wheel pair during traveling, corresponding to the ratio (Fx/.lamda.) of the longitudinal force Fxf or Fxr to the slip rate .lamda.f or .lamda.r and the ratio (Fy/.beta.t) of the lateral force Fyf or Fyr to the slip angle .beta.tf or .beta.tr by using the 3D .mu. gradient characteristic map for the front wheels or the 3D .mu. gradient characteristic map for the rear wheels. Then, tire grip state calculating section 48 decomposes each of the front wheel .mu. gradient and rear wheel .mu. gradient (.gamma./.gamma.0) into the component contributing in the longitudinal direction (the .mu. gradient longitudinal component) and the component contributing in the lateral direction (the .mu. gradient lateral component) (step S39).”; a tire grip state is a control parameter; efficiency characteristics include tire properties as evidenced by instant application page 9, lines 12-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the instant application to modify the system disclosed by Tang in view of Ienaga and University at Buffalo with Shiozawa with reasonable expectation of success. Shiozawa is directed towards the related field of estimating a friction state between a vehicle wheel and surface. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Tang in view of Ienaga and University at Buffalo with Shiozawa to improve grip state estimation (see at least Shiozawa Col. 1, lines 30-34: “However, the system according to the earlier technique of patent document 1 is unable to grasp the tire frictional limit, and hence unable to detect the margin to the tire frictional limit. A task of the present invention is to estimate grip state and margin to frictional limit more properly.”).
Regarding claim 9, Tang in view of Ienaga, University at Buffalo, and Shiozawa teach all elements of the vehicle control unit according to claim 8 as explained above. Shiozawa further teaches
wherein the control unit is arranged to increase the desired first wheel slip in case the gradient of the efficiency characteristics of the first EM arrangement is larger than the gradient of the efficiency characteristics of the second EM arrangement at a current state of the vehicle (see at least Shiozawa Col. 35, line 65-Col. 36, line 20: “In a greater ratio region greater than the predetermined critical ratio value, when at least one of the ratio of the first wheel force and the first wheel slip degree and the ratio of the second wheel force and the second wheel slip degree increases, the grip characteristic parameter increases nonlinearly so that a rate of increase of the grip characteristic parameter with respect to an increase of that ratio of the wheel force and the wheel slip degree increases…Alternatively, the grip characteristic parameter is equal to a predetermined critical parameter value when one of the ratio of the first wheel force and the first slip degree and the ratio of the second wheel force and the second wheel slip degree is equal to a greatest value in a range of that ratio, and the other of the ratio of the first wheel force and the first slip degree and the ratio of the second wheel force and the second wheel slip degree is equal to equal to a predetermined critical ratio value.”),
and to decrease the desired first wheel slip in case the gradient of the efficiency characteristics of the first EM arrangement is smaller than the gradient of the efficiency characteristics of the second EM arrangement at the current state of the vehicle (see at least Shiozawa Col. 37, lines 53-57: “In the first embodiment, the turning assist command calculating section 51 (the steering reaction adding control) controls the vehicle behavior controlling actuator so as to decrease the wheel slip angle when the grip characteristic parameter becomes lower.”; Col. 42, lines 11-16: “The grip characteristic parameter decreases below the critical parameter value when as at least one of the ratio of the first wheel force and the first wheel slip degree and the ratio of the second wheel force and the second wheel slip degree decreases below the critical ratio value.”).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Ienaga and University at Buffalo, and further in view of Guida, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0072381 A1.
Regarding claim 16, Tang in view of Ienaga and University at Buffalo teach all elements of the vehicle control unit according to claim 1 as explained above. Tang in view of Ienaga and University at Buffalo fail to expressly disclose balance the magnitude of the first wheel slip relative to the magnitude of the second wheel slip based on estimated tire wear or tire wear rate. However, Guida teaches
wherein the control unit is arranged to balance the magnitude of the desired first wheel slip relative to the magnitude of the desired second wheel slip based on an estimated tire wear or tire wear rate resulting from the desired first wheel slip and from the desired second wheel slip (see at least Guida [0102]: “In embodiments of a friction drive system, ATCS 150 may continuously vary the normal force for optimal system performance, maintaining sufficient friction between contact surface 109 and tire 102 to prevent slippage, while also improving battery efficiency and reducing wear on tire 202. For example, ATCS 150 may quickly increase the normal force when slippage is detected, until traction is regained between contact surface 109 and tire 202. another example, ATCS 150 may quickly reduce the normal force to maximize battery efficiency. And, in some embodiments, ATCS 150 may completely disengage contact surface 109 from tire 102 when drive motor 104 is not providing power to eliminate drag.”; [0104]: “Advantageously, slippage may be prevented regardless of the exact placement of friction drive system 100 relative to tire 202 and regardless of the amount of air pressure in tire 202, because worm gear 142 may continue advancing until the normal force reaches a value sufficient to prevent slippage while minimizing tear wear.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the instant application to modify the system disclosed by Tang in view of Ienaga and University at Buffalo with the estimated tire wear taught by Guida with reasonable expectation of success. Guida is directed towards the related field of friction drive systems. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Tang in view of Ienaga and University at Buffalo with Guida to optimize the normal force based on changing conditions while minimizing tire wear (see at least Guida [0009]: “None of these known friction drive systems provide a simple mechanism for adjusting the normal force. None of these known friction drive systems adjust the normal force dynamically in response to changing road conditions, weather, and the like. None of these known friction drive systems provide automatic traction control between the friction drive and the tire (or wheel). None of these known systems optimize the normal force to provide sufficient friction force to avoid slippage while minimizing tire wear and maximizing battery efficiency.”).
Regarding claim 17, Tang in view of Ienaga and University at Buffalo teach all elements of the vehicle control unit according to claim 1 as explained above. Tang in view of Ienaga and University at Buffalo fail to expressly disclose balance the magnitude of the first wheel slip relative to the magnitude of the second wheel slip based on normal loads. However, Guida teaches
wherein the control unit is arranged to balance the magnitude of the desired first wheel slip relative to the magnitude of the desired second wheel slip based on respective normal loads on axles associated with the first EM arrangement and the second EM arrangement (see at least Guida [0102]: “In embodiments of a friction drive system, ATCS 150 may continuously vary the normal force for optimal system performance, maintaining sufficient friction between contact surface 109 and tire 102 to prevent slippage, while also improving battery efficiency and reducing wear on tire 202. For example, ATCS 150 may quickly increase the normal force when slippage is detected, until traction is regained between contact surface 109 and tire 202. another example, ATCS 150 may quickly reduce the normal force to maximize battery efficiency. And, in some embodiments, ATCS 150 may completely disengage contact surface 109 from tire 102 when drive motor 104 is not providing power to eliminate drag.”; [0104]: “Advantageously, slippage may be prevented regardless of the exact placement of friction drive system 100 relative to tire 202 and regardless of the amount of air pressure in tire 202, because worm gear 142 may continue advancing until the normal force reaches a value sufficient to prevent slippage while minimizing tear wear.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the instant application to modify the system disclosed by Tang in view of Ienaga and University at Buffalo with the estimated tire wear taught by Guida with reasonable expectation of success. Guida is directed towards the related field of friction drive systems. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Tang in view of Ienaga and University at Buffalo with Guida to optimize the normal force based on changing conditions while minimizing tire wear (see at least Guida [0009]: “None of these known friction drive systems provide a simple mechanism for adjusting the normal force. None of these known friction drive systems adjust the normal force dynamically in response to changing road conditions, weather, and the like. None of these known friction drive systems provide automatic traction control between the friction drive and the tire (or wheel). None of these known systems optimize the normal force to provide sufficient friction force to avoid slippage while minimizing tire wear and maximizing battery efficiency.”).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Ienaga and University at Buffalo, and further in view of Naizghi et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0266777 A1 (hereinafter Naizghi).
Regarding claim 19, Tang in view of Ienaga and University at Buffalo teach all elements of the vehicle control unit according to claim 1 as explained above. Tang further teaches
where the towed vehicle unit comprises a first axle and a second axle, where the first axle is arranged to be driven by the first EM arrangement and where the second axle is arranged to be driven by the second EM arrangement (see at least Tang [0026]: “As shown, each axle is coupled to an independent power source, specifically rear axle 101 is coupled to an electric motor 103 via a transmission/differential assembly 105, and front axle 107 is coupled to an electric motor 109 via a transmission/differential assembly 111.”)
Tang in view of Ienaga and University at Buffalo fails to expressly disclose a towed vehicle unit. However, Naizghi teaches
a towed vehicle unit (see at least Naizghi [0021]: “As shown in FIG. 1, the autonomous vehicle 105 may be a semi-trailer truck.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the instant application to modify the system disclosed by Tang in view of Ienaga and University at Buffalo with Naizghi with reasonable expectation of success. Naizghi is directed towards the related field of redundant battery architecture in a vehicle. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a vehicle can include the specific examples of a self-powered trailer or dolly vehicle. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Tang in view of Ienaga and University at Buffalo with Naizghi to maintain power supply when failure occurs while decreasing the need for human intervention (see at least Naizghi [0019]-[0020]: “Any level of autonomous navigation relies on a consistent and reliable power supply, and that power supply needs to be resilient against safety critical faults in order to ensure proper operation of the vehicle…In contrast, existing systems do not implement the redundant hardware necessary to meet ASIL D requirements because they require continuous human supervision and intermittent human intervention. Redundant power bridges with intelligent control switches are typically not implemented in existing systems.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art teaches balancing wheel slip based on power consumption (Ienaga [0052]-[0053]). The prior art teaches adjusting regen braking torque to operate within an optimum tire slip rate (Wright et al., U.S. Patent No. 8718897 B2). The prior art teaches increasing or decreasing torque and power to affect wheel slip (Nahrwold, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0253101 A1). The prior art also teaches adjusting braking power based on a critical wheel slip value (Arsenault, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0225201 A1).
However, none of the references in the prior art of record taken together or in combination disclose the further limitations: “wherein the control unit is arranged to increase the first wheel slip in case a ratio between the power consumption of the first EM arrangement and the power consumption of the second EM arrangement is smaller than a corresponding ratio between the first longitudinal force and the second longitudinal force, and to decrease the first wheel slip in case the ratio between the power consumption of the first EM arrangement and the power consumption of the second EM arrangement is larger than the corresponding ratio between the first longitudinal force and the second longitudinal force” as recited in claim 11. Additionally, the examiner cannot determine a reasonable motivation, either in the known prior art or the existing case law, to combine the known elements to render the claimed limitation. Therefore, the known prior art fails to disclose or suggest each and every limitation together as claimed, and there is a lack of motivation to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Raste et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0311849 A1, directed towards a model-based predictive control for controlling actuators according to wheel parameters including slip.
Bailly et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0064905 A1, directed towards adjusting vehicle control based on comparing slip to a threshold value.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J SLOWIK whose telephone number is (571)270-5608. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI: 0900-1700.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/ELIZABETH J SLOWIK/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights