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 amendments filed on 12/01/2025, in which claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended the drawings to overcome the drawing objections. Accordingly, the drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the claim objections. Accordingly, the claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections:
Applicant argues on page 10 of the remarks that Tang and Ienaga fail to disclose “considering total/first/second longitudinal forces in the generation of first/second slip requests” because “a torque is not the same as a longitudinal force.” Applicant argues on page 10 of the remarks that “there is no determination of slip requests in Tang…let alone any determination of slip requests corresponding to respective longitudinal forces.” Applicant argues on pages 10-11 of the remarks that Ienaga doesn’t teach “wherein the control unit is arranged to balance 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 the second EM arrangements” because “Ienaga seems to distribute torques; not slips.” Applicant further argues on page 11 of the remarks that Tang does not teach “determine first and second desired wheel slips for respective electric machines, where a magnitude of the first wheel slip relative to a magnitude of the second wheel slip is balanced in dependence of the respective efficiency characteristics of the first and second electric machine arrangements.” Applicant also argues on page 11 of the remarks that “Tang discloses sending torque requests to respective electric machine control units, where the two respective torque requests are optimized without considering wheel slip.”
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees that Tang in view of Ienaga fail to disclose all limitations of the independent claims. Instant application page 25, lines 21-24 states that a longitudinal force request determines the amount of torque. Instant application page 2, lines 28-31 also explains a longitudinal force can include a propulsion force for accelerating the vehicle or a braking force for decelerating the vehicle. Tang considers longitudinal force in the generation of slip requests because torque commands are generated based on vehicle speed, acceleration sensor data, and brake sensor data (Tang [0042]). Tang discloses calculating the difference between a computed wheel slip and target wheel slip to determine the optimized torque (Tang [0051]-[0052]). The difference between the computed wheel slip and target wheel slip is minimized using a feedback control system (Tang [0052]). Under broadest reasonable interpretation, Tang teaches a slip request corresponding to respective longitudinal forces because the torque is adjusted to bring the computed wheel slip closer to a target wheel slip. This interpretation of a wheel slip request including a target wheel slip is supported by instant application page 6, lines 1-5. Therefore, Tang discloses generating slip requests corresponding to longitudinal forces.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that Ienaga doesn’t teach “wherein the control unit is arranged to balance 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 the second EM arrangements,” the examiner respectfully disagrees. Ienaga teaches balancing the magnitude of wheel slips corresponding to respective efficiency characteristics because the torque is calculated from an efficiency-oriented front axis distribution ratio and each motor torque is calculated based on a final requested torque and the front-and-rear distribution torque (Ienaga [0054], [0045]-[0046]). Ienaga teaches balancing slip for each wheel because the calculated torque is based on whether the wheel is traveling without slip or whether a slip is detected (Ienaga [0054]). The torque is redistributed between wheels to suppress slipping (Ienaga [0032], [0058]-[0059]). Therefore, Ienaga teaches balancing magnitudes of wheel slip corresponding to respective efficiency characteristics because Ienaga redistributes torque between wheels to minimize wheel slip, and the torque is calculated based on an efficiency-oriented front axis distribution ratio.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that Tang does not teach “determine first and second desired wheel slips for respective electric machines, where a magnitude of the first wheel slip relative to a magnitude of the second wheel slip is balanced in dependence of the respective efficiency characteristics of the first and second electric machine arrangements,” applicant’s arguments are moot because the rejection relies on Ienaga to teach this specific limitation (see explanation above and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection below).
In response to applicant’s arguments that “Tang discloses sending torque requests to respective electric machine control units, where the two respective torque requests are optimized without considering wheel slip,” the examiner respectfully disagrees. Tang discloses optimizing torque based on minimizing the slip error, which is the difference between a computed wheel slip and target wheel slip (Tang [0051]-[0052]). Therefore, Tang discloses sending slip requests where the slip requests correspond to longitudinal force because a feedback control is used to adjust torque so the computed wheel slip converges to the target wheel slip (Tang [0051]-[0052]).
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).
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.”),
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.”).
Regarding claim 2, Tang in view of Ienaga 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 further in view of Shiozawa et al., U.S. Patent No. 8707756 B2 (hereinafter Shiozawa).
Regarding claim 8, Tang in view of Ienaga teach all elements of the vehicle control unit according to claim 1 as explained above. Tang in view of Ienaga 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 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 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 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 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Ienaga, and further in view of University at Buffalo, “Tire Model in Driving Simulator.”
Regarding claim 14, Tang in view of Ienaga teach all elements of the vehicle control unit according to claim 1 as explained above. Tang in view of Ienaga fail to expressly disclose the specific equation of longitudinal wheel slip. However, University at Buffalo teaches
wherein 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.”).
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 15, Tang in view of Ienaga teach all elements of the vehicle control unit according to claim 1 as explained above. Tang in view of Ienaga fail to expressly disclose the wheel slip request comprising angular velocity and longitudinal speed to obtain longitudinal wheel slip. However, University at Buffalo teaches
wherein the transmitted wheel slip request comprises 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.”).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Ienaga, and further in view of Guida, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0072381 A1.
Regarding claim 16, Tang in view of Ienaga teach all elements of the vehicle control unit according to claim 1 as explained above. Tang in view of Ienaga 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 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 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 teach all elements of the vehicle control unit according to claim 1 as explained above. Tang in view of Ienaga 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 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 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 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 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 fails to expressly disclose the towed vehicle unit as a self-powered trailer or self-powered dolly 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 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 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
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 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