DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed10/23/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 4 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Suzuki US 20090164078 A1 in view of Abe US 2009/0038866 A1.
Applicant’s other arguments are not persuasive and the citations have been expanded to address Applicant’s arguments.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “arithmetic unit”, “limiting unit” and “controlling unit” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language the preceding descriptive verb without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-6 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The units are disclosed as being a part of the ECU via figure 1.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Suzuki US 20160221446 A1.
As to claim 1, Suzuki discloses a vehicle control device that controls a slipping state of a wheel mounted on a vehicle, the vehicle control device comprising [Suzuki: Fig. 4, 5, 8]:
an arithmetic unit [Suzuki: #513 and #517] that calculates a target slip ratio serving as a target value of a slip ratio of the wheel;
a limiting unit [Suzuki: #516 and #518] that sets an upper limit value of the target slip ratio, the upper limit value being based on at least a vehicle velocity of the vehicle [Suzuki: Fig. 9], and limits the target slip ratio calculated by the arithmetic unit to a value equal to or less than the upper limit value; and
a controlling unit [Suzuki: #519] that controls driving torque of the vehicle such that a wheel velocity that achieves the target slip ratio limited by the limiting unit is obtained,
wherein the arithmetic unit calculates the target slip ratio based on a demanded driving force and an estimated driving force [Suzuki: Fig. 8 and Fig. 12 #513 and #516 demanded driving force is TDRV and VC is the estimated driving force/calculated drive wheel speeds. #517 changes the limits 0068 and receives inputs from both TDRV (via #516) and VC (via #513, #514, #515, #516)].
As to claim 2, Suzuki discloses wherein the limiting unit limits the upper limit value according to an amount of operation by a driver of the vehicle, a vehicle state [Suzuki: 0045, 0054-0055 acceleration and steering angel], or a road surface state.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 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.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki US 20090164078 A1 in view of Abe US 2009/0038866 A1.
As to claim 4, Suzuki discloses wherein the vehicle comprises a differential mechanism [Suzuki: #3] that applies a torque difference to left [Suzuki: FL] and right [Suzuki: FR]
the vehicle control device controls the slip states of the left and right wheels independently of each other by controlling operating states of the electric motors [Suzuki: 0081 occurs in a mu-jump], and
the limiting unit sets, based on a rotational angular velocity of the electric motors, respective upper limit values of the target slip ratios of the left and right wheels [Suzuki: 0081, 0085 occurs in a mu-jump].
Suzuki discloses the control aspects but does not disclose there being two electric motors. However, Abe discloses the vehicle comprises a differential mechanism [Abe: Fig. 2] that applies a torque difference to left [Abe: Fig. 2 WRL] and right [Abe: Fig. 2 WRR] wheels and a pair of electric motors [Abe: Fig. 2 #10, #11] coupled to the differential mechanism [Abe: Fig. 2]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the physical structure of Suzuki to have two motors as disclosed in Abe as it merely uses a known device (Abe) in a known way (Suzuki) with predictable results and a good likelihood of success for the benefit of applying the control structure to more physical configurations.
Claim 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki US 20090164078 A1 in view of OUE US 20090164078 A1.
As to claim 5, Suzuki does not explicitly disclose the mapping of limits. However, OUE discloses wherein the limiting unit has a map that defines a relationship between the vehicle velocity and the upper limit value [OUE: Fig. 6a-6b, with 7 OUE’s Target slip amount is treated as Applicant’s limit. The slope from t1 to t2 and from t2 to t3 of total target slip of Fig. 7 when used with the relationship from Fi.6B and 6A],
the map has a first vehicle velocity region in which the upper limit value increases with increase in the vehicle velocity and a second vehicle velocity region which is on a higher velocity side than the first vehicle velocity region and in which the upper limit value decreases with increase in the vehicle velocity [OUE: Fig. 6a-6b, with 7 OUE’s Target slip amount is treated as Applicant’s limit. The slope from t1 to t2 and from t2 to t3 of total target slip of Fig. 7 when used with the relationship from Fi.6B and 6A],
an absolute value of an ascent gradient of the upper limit value with respect to the vehicle velocity in the first vehicle velocity region is larger than an absolute value of a descent gradient of the upper limit value with respect to the vehicle velocity in the second vehicle velocity region [OUE: Fig. 6a-6b, with 7 OUE’s Target slip amount is treated as Applicant’s limit. The slope from t1 to t2 and from t2 to t3 of total target slip of Fig. 7 when used with the relationship from Fi.6B and 6A, The slope from t1 to t2 is greater than the slope from t2 to t3 of c]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the slip control of Suzuki to have the limit mapping of OUE as they are in similar fields of invention merely use known device in a known way with predictable results with a good likelihood of success for the benefit of smoother control.
As to claim 6, Suzuki does not explicitly disclose the mapping of limits. However, OUE discloses wherein the map further has a third vehicle velocity region which is on a lower velocity side than the first vehicle velocity region and in which the upper limit value is set to a first predetermined value irrespective of a largeness of the vehicle velocity and a fourth vehicle velocity region which is on a higher velocity side than the second vehicle velocity region and in which the upper limit value is set to a second predetermined value irrespective of a largeness of the vehicle velocity[OUE: Fig. 7 graph part c when viewed with the lines associated with speed the front tail and back tail of c (from y-axis to t1 and from t3 to the end have the flat c that is irrespective of speed.], and
the first predetermined value is smaller than the second predetermined value [OUE: Fig. 7 graph part c when viewed with the lines associated with speed]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the slip control of Suzuki to have the limit mapping of OUE as they are in similar fields of invention merely use known device in a known way with predictable results with a good likelihood of success for the benefit of smoother control.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 8886435 B2 A lock-up device supplies hydraulic pressure to a lock-up clutch when lock-up capacity becomes insufficient with increasing accelerator operation amount during slip control. The lock-up device (1) sets a hydraulic unit pressure command value corresponding to drive source torque so rotational speed difference becomes target slip speed when a variation in accelerator operation amount is in a predefined range, and deriving an estimated drive source output torque corresponding to the accelerator operation amount to set the pressure command value corresponding to the estimated drive source torque so the rotational speed difference becomes target slip speed when accelerator operation amount variation exceeds the range's upper limit, and (2) controls the hydraulic unit to supply hydraulic pressure corresponding to hydraulic pressure command value to the lock-up clutch.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK M BRUSHABER whose telephone number is (313)446-4839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/FREDERICK M BRUSHABER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665