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 . Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits (FAOM).
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below 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. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety 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. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I and Ib in the reply filed on 10/23/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species Ia and Ib are obvious variants of each other and that this reasoning extends to the requirement to elect between Species I and II (see page 2 filed 10/23/2025). This is found persuasive and the Requirement for Restriction/Election has been withdrawn. Claims 1-15 have been examined in this application.
Claim Interpretation
Use of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(-f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with
sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(-f)
(pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function
but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using
the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element
(also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the
specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following
three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for
“means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term
having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional
language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”)
or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being
interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as
otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do
not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word
“means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with
functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the
generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control unit” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the
corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and
equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim
limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2)
present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform
the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The above-referenced claim limitations has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because: “control unit” in claim 15 uses a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language 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, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in
the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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. l 12(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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim recites “control unit”. The specification doesn’t recite the structural elements of said limitations. The specification labels the control unit as 60 in Figure 1, however Figure 1 only shows that 60 is a box.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “A method for monitoring the state of health… establishing a state of health”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations. It is unclear if these are referring to the same or different states of health. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted to refer to --A method for monitoring a state of health… establishing the state of health--.
Claim 1 recites “at least one electric motor… the electric motor” and so it is unclear if the claim encompasses one or more electric motors or only a single electric motor. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted to refer to --the at least one electric motor--. Any dependent claims will be interpreted in the same manner.
Claim 1 recites “establishing a state of health of the powertrain by analyzing said first motor torque, and wherein the method further comprises: comparing the state of health established during the analysis cycle of the powertrain to a reference value to detect wear of the powertrain.” It is unclear to the examiner what the state of health is and how it is determined. It is unclear of the torque itself is considered representative of the state of health, or if a calculation is performed to convert the torque to some measure of a state of health. Paragraph [75] of the specification states that the evolution of said resistive torque is representative of a degradation, or wear, of the components of the drivetrain 18 connected to the electric motor 16 and of the components of the electric motor. Hence, based on the evolution of the states of health, it is possible to detect wear and degradation of said components. This paragraph in the specification appears to indicate that the torque itself when compared to a reference value or past value is what indicates the state of health of the powertrain and thereby provides an indication of wear. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that the state of health of the powertrain is established by comparing the first torque to a reference value to detect wear of the powertrain.
Claim 7 recites “a motor torque” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted to read --the motor torque--.
Claim 15 recites “A vehicle comprising: mechanical components, a powertrain including at least one electric motor and a drivetrain, the drivetrain being configured to deliver a motor torque produced by the electric motor to the mechanical components to drive the mechanical components, a sensor configured to measure a motor torque delivered by the electric motor to the drivetrain, and a control unit, wherein the control unit is configured to perform the method according to claim 1.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for multiple limitations in the claim since claim 15 depends from claim 1. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, all the limitations in claim 15 will be interpreted to be referring to the same limitations as recited in claim 1. Claim 15 should be rewritten in independent form, or rewritten to establish proper antecedent basis with respect to the limitations already introduced in claim 1.
Claim limitation “control unit” in claim 15 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-7, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gaully (FR 2 914 742 A1, a machine translation is attached and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Gaully discloses a method for monitoring the state of health of a powertrain of an electric vehicle (see at least page 1 – vehicle with an electric powertrain), the powertrain comprising at least one electric motor and a drivetrain (see at least page 1 – gearbox… electric traction machine), the drivetrain being configured to deliver a motor torque produced by the electric motor to mechanical components of the electric vehicle to drive the mechanical components (see at least page 1 – to transmit torque and drive wheels of the vehicle), wherein the method comprises an analysis cycle that includes: running the electric motor in a first direction of rotation until a first preset speed of the electric motor is reached (see at least pages 2-5 – speed setting applied to the electric machine… rotation reaches the speed); maintaining the first preset speed until stabilization of the powertrain (see at least pages 2-5 – speed setting applied to the electric machine… rotation reaches the speed); measuring a first motor torque delivered by the electric motor to the drivetrain (see at least pages 2-5 – torque actually applied); and establishing a state of health of the powertrain by analyzing said first motor torque (see at least pages 2-3 – torque actually applied by the electric machine to drive the assembly at the setpoint speed is compared to the estimated torque), and wherein the method further comprises: comparing the state of health established during the analysis cycle of the powertrain to a reference value to detect wear of the powertrain (see at least pages 2-3 – if the discrepancy between the torque actually applied and the estimated torque exceeds a given threshold, a potential malfunction of the gearbox is detected).
Regarding claim 4, Gaully discloses wherein the method further comprises an initial cycle, performed before the analysis cycle (see at least page 4 – previous measurement), wherein the initial cycle includes, in this order: running the electric motor in the first direction of rotation until the first preset speed of the electric motor is reached (see at least pages 2-5 – speed setting applied to the electric machine… rotation reaches the speed); maintaining the first preset speed until stabilization of the powertrain (see at least pages 2-5 – speed setting applied to the electric machine… rotation reaches the speed); measuring a first initial motor torque delivered by the electric motor to the drivetrain (see at least pages 2-5 – torque actually applied); and establishing an initial state of health of the powertrain by analyzing said first initial motor torque (see at least pages 2-3 – if the discrepancy between the torque actually applied and the estimated torque exceeds a given threshold, a potential malfunction of the gearbox is detected), and wherein the reference value against which the state of heath of the powertrain established during the analysis cycle is compared is the initial state of health of the powertrain established during the initial cycle (see at least pages 2-5 – the torque can be compared to an acceptance value or to the last stored value to detect a discrepancy and alert of a potential failure).
Regarding claim 6, Gaully discloses wherein the method further comprises: repeating the analysis cycle over time to monitor an evolution over time of the states of health of the powertrain established during the repeated analysis cycles (see at least pages 2-5 – Diagnosis can be carried out preventively, during a warranty visit or in the event of an actual breakdown or in masked time (when the ignition is switched off or when gears area disengaged while driving). This diagnostic procedure carried out according to the invention makes it possible to check the functions of the gearbox before removing it in the event of a breakdown and can also make it possible to monitor the evolution of the functional performance of the gearbox during a preventive operation.).
Regarding claim 7, Gaully discloses wherein the drivetrain is operable between a coupled configuration, in which the drivetrain delivers a motor torque produced by the electric motor to the mechanical components of the electric vehicle, and an uncoupled configuration, in which the electric motor is disconnected from the mechanical components, and wherein the method is performed when the drivetrain is in the uncoupled configuration (see at least pages 2-5 – clutch moves between an open position and a closed position… diagnosis can be carried out preventively, during a warranty visit or in the event of an actual breakdown or in masked time (when the ignition is switched off or when gears area disengaged while driving)).
Regarding claim 13, Gaully discloses wherein the method is performed when the mechanical components of the electric vehicle are running (see at least pages 1-5 – drive wheels… diagnosis can be carried out preventively, during a warranty visit or in the event of an actual breakdown or in masked time (when the ignition is switched off or when gears area disengaged while driving)).
Regarding claim 14, Wang discloses wherein the mechanical components of the electric vehicle include drive wheels of the electric vehicle (see at least pages 1-5 – drive wheels… diagnosis can be carried out preventively, during a warranty visit or in the event of an actual breakdown or in masked time (when the ignition is switched off or when gears area disengaged while driving)).
Regarding claim 15, Wang discloses a vehicle comprising: mechanical components, a powertrain including at least one electric motor and a drivetrain, the drivetrain being configured to deliver a motor torque produced by the electric motor to the mechanical components to drive the mechanical components (see at least page 1 – vehicle with an electric powertrain… transmit torque to the drive wheels), a sensor configured to measure a motor torque delivered by the electric motor to the drivetrain, and a control unit, wherein the control unit is configured to perform the method according to claim 1 (see at least pages 2-5 – control unit 20 associated with sensors… diagnose a failure of the gearbox through measurement).
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.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaully in view of Kopp (US 6,662,671 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Gaully does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the analysis cycle further includes, in this order: running the electric motor in a second direction of rotation until a second preset speed of the electric motor is reached; maintaining the second preset speed until stabilization of the powertrain; and measuring a second motor torque delivered by the electric motor to the drivetrain, and wherein establishing the state of health of the powertrain is performed by analyzing said first motor torque and said second motor torque.
However, Gaully does disclose wherein the analysis cycle further includes, in this order: running the electric motor in the first direction of rotation until the first preset speed of the electric motor is reached (see at least pages 2-5 – speed setting applied to the electric machine… rotation reaches the speed); maintaining the first preset speed until stabilization of the powertrain (see at least pages 2-5 – speed setting applied to the electric machine… rotation reaches the speed); and measuring the first motor torque delivered by the electric motor to the drivetrain, and wherein establishing the state of health of the powertrain is performed by analyzing said first motor torque (see at least pages 2-3 – torque actually applied by the electric machine to drive the assembly at the setpoint speed is compared to the estimated torque).
Kopp, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the analysis cycle further includes, in this order: running the electric motor in a second direction of rotation until a second preset speed of the electric motor is reached (see at least column 3, lines 3-32 – testing is performed at constant speed… gear set 12 is tested in both directions… gear set 12 is reversed); maintaining the second preset speed until stabilization of the powertrain (see at least column 3, lines 3-32 – testing is performed at constant speed); and measuring a second motor torque delivered by the electric motor to the drivetrain, and wherein establishing the state of health of the powertrain is performed by analyzing said first motor torque and said second motor torque (see at least column 3, lines 3-32 – testing is performed at constant speed… gear set 12 is tested in both directions… gear set 12 is reversed… torque).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Kopp into the invention of Gaully with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of fully and thoroughly testing the gear set by testing in both directions (Kopp – column 1, lines 24-30, column 3, lines 3-16). Testing in both directions would help diagnose any performance discrepancies that could be different in the forward and reverse directions. Furthermore, this is merely duplicating Gaully’s steps in the opposite direction and doing so would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, Gaully does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the initial cycle further includes, in this order: running the electric motor in the second direction of rotation until the second preset speed of the electric motor is reached; maintaining the second preset speed until stabilization of the powertrain; and measuring a second initial motor torque delivered by the electric motor to the drivetrain, and wherein establishing the initial state of health of the powertrain during the initial cycle is performed by analyzing said first initial motor torque and said second initial motor torque.
However, Gaully does disclose wherein the initial cycle further includes, in this order: running the electric motor in the first direction of rotation until the first preset speed of the electric motor is reached (see at least pages 2-5 – speed setting applied to the electric machine… rotation reaches the speed… previous measurement); maintaining the first preset speed until stabilization of the powertrain (see at least pages 2-5 – speed setting applied to the electric machine… rotation reaches the speed); and measuring the first initial motor torque delivered by the electric motor to the drivetrain, and wherein establishing the initial state of health of the powertrain during the initial cycle is performed by analyzing said first initial motor torque (see at least pages 2-3 – torque actually applied by the electric machine to drive the assembly at the setpoint speed is compared to the estimated torque).
Kopp, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the initial cycle further includes, in this order: running the electric motor in the second direction of rotation until the second preset speed of the electric motor is reached (see at least column 3, lines 3-32 – testing is performed at constant speed… gear set 12 is tested in both directions… gear set 12 is reversed); maintaining the second preset speed until stabilization of the powertrain (see at least column 3, lines 3-32 – testing is performed at constant speed); and measuring a second initial motor torque delivered by the electric motor to the drivetrain, and wherein establishing the initial state of health of the powertrain during the initial cycle is performed by analyzing said first initial motor torque and said second initial motor torque (see at least column 3, lines 3-32 – testing is performed at constant speed… gear set 12 is tested in both directions… gear set 12 is reversed… torque).
The motivation to combine Gaully and Kopp is the same as in the rejection of claim 2.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaully in view of Kopp and Yasuda (US 2017/0299452 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Gaully does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein establishing the state of health of the powertrain is performed by analyzing an average of the first motor torque and the second motor torque.
However, Gaully does disclose wherein establishing the state of health of the powertrain is performed by analyzing the first motor torque (see at least pages 2-3 – torque actually applied by the electric machine to drive the assembly at the setpoint speed is compared to the estimated torque).
Kopp, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: the first motor torque and the second motor torque (see at least column 3, lines 3-32 – testing is performed at constant speed… gear set 12 is tested in both directions… gear set 12 is reversed… torque).
The motivation to combine Gaully and Kopp is the same as in the rejection of claim 2.
Yasuda teaches the following limitations: analyzing an average of the first motor torque and the second motor torque (see at least [0034] – average value of the load torques of the forward and reverse directions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Yasuda into the invention of Gaully with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is that by testing in both directions and averaging, the analysis cycle can be compared to expected or estimated values that also account for both forward and reverse torque. Comparing measured averages to expected averages would establish a more reliable baseline against which any discrepancies can be identified than just comparing one direction of rotation. Furthermore, comparing average values instead of single values can provide a more accurate representation of the current state. Comparing averages of the forward and reverse torques could be implemented to yield predictable results.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaully in view of Tanaka (JP 2010-12897 A, a machine translation is attached and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 8, Gaully does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the analysis cycle is performed: after a driver of the electric vehicle requests the electric vehicle to start, and before the vehicle actually starts, and/or after a driver of the electric vehicle requests the electric vehicle to stop, and before the vehicle actually stops.
However, Gaully does disclose wherein the analysis cycle is performed: at various convenient times including an uncoupled configuration (see at least pages 2-5 – Diagnosis can be carried out preventively, during a warranty visit or in the event of an actual breakdown or in masked time (when the ignition is switched off or when gears are disengaged while driving).).
Tanaka teaches the following limitations: wherein the analysis cycle is performed during a recharge of the battery (see at least [0007, 0057] – diagnostic control unit performs diagnoses while the on-board battery is being charged by the external power supply).
On page 2 of the Arguments/Remarks filed with the Response to Election/Restriction dated 10/23/2025, Applicant traversed on the ground that the species are obvious variants. Since Applicant has clearly admitted on the record that this is the case, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, this admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the other species. See MPEP 809.02(a). Applicant submits on page 2 that the core method of generic claim 1 is applied identically, the only difference is the timing of when the identical test is initiated and that these are simply different convenient moments to run the same diagnostic test. This timing variation has no bearing on the substance of the claimed method and thus does not rise to the level of patentable distinction. Applicant further submits that this generic method is performed under different, known operational conditions and prior art directed towards the invention of claim 1 is relevant to performing this test at any stable condition, whether coupled or uncoupled.
Gaully discloses performing the analysis cycle at various convenient times including an uncoupled configuration (warranty visit, ignition off, or when gears are disengaged). Tanaka discloses performing the analysis cycle while the battery is being recharged.
Therefore, in light of the teachings of Gaully and Tanaka disclosing various times to perform the analysis cycle and the Applicant’s clear admission on the record, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated performing Gaully’s analysis cycle before actually starting the vehicle or before actually stopping the vehicle as is recited with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is that the core generic analysis cycle is the same, and this identical analysis cycle can be run at different convenient moments under various operational conditions. Doing would allow the evolution of the functional performance of the gearbox to be tracked in order to guarantee proper functioning (Gaully – page 3). The analysis cycle could be performed at different convenient times under different stable conditions while still yielding predictable results. Tanaka teaches performing analysis during recharging to reduce the impact on fuel economy of the hybrid vehicle (Tanaka – [0057]).
Regarding claim 9, Gaully discloses wherein the electric vehicle is a rechargeable battery electric vehicle, the electric motor being powered by a battery (see at least page 2 – battery or set of batteries supplies electrical energy to traction machine 12)
Gaully does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the analysis cycle is performed during a recharge of the battery.
However, Gaully does disclose wherein the analysis cycle is performed: at various convenient times including when the vehicle is switched off (see at least pages 2-5 – Diagnosis can be carried out preventively, during a warranty visit or in the event of an actual breakdown or in masked time (when the ignition is switched off or when gears are disengaged while driving).).
Tanaka teaches the following limitations: wherein the analysis cycle is performed during a recharge of the battery (see at least [0007, 0057] – diagnostic control unit performs diagnoses while the on-board battery is being charged by the external power supply).
On page 2 of the Arguments/Remarks filed with the Response to Election/Restriction dated 10/23/2025, Applicant traversed on the ground that the species are obvious variants. Since Applicant has clearly admitted on the record that this is the case, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, this admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the other species. See MPEP 809.02(a). Applicant submits on page 2 that the core method of generic claim 1 is applied identically, the only difference is the timing of when the identical test is initiated and that these are simply different convenient moments to run the same diagnostic test. This timing variation has no bearing on the substance of the claimed method and thus does not rise to the level of patentable distinction. Applicant further submits that this generic method is performed under different, known operational conditions and prior art directed towards the invention of claim 1 is relevant to performing this test at any stable condition, whether coupled or uncoupled.
Gaully discloses performing the analysis cycle at various convenient times including an uncoupled configuration (warranty visit, ignition off, or when gears are disengaged). Tanaka discloses performing the analysis cycle while the battery is being recharged.
Therefore, in light of the teachings of Gaully and Tanaka disclosing various times to perform the analysis cycle and the Applicant’s clear admission on the record, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated performing Gaully’s analysis cycle while charging the vehicle as is recited with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is that the core generic analysis cycle is the same, and this identical analysis cycle can be run at different convenient moments under various operational conditions. Doing would allow the evolution of the functional performance of the gearbox to be tracked in order to guarantee proper functioning (Gaully – page 3). The analysis cycle could be performed at different convenient times under different stable conditions while still yielding predictable results. Tanaka teaches performing analysis during recharging to reduce the impact on fuel economy of the hybrid vehicle (Tanaka – [0057]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaully in view of Morselli (US 2021/0380114 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Gaully does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the drivetrain comprises a gearbox including gears and at least two dog clutches that can be engaged or disengaged with the gears, the uncoupled configuration of the drivetrain being achieved when at least one dog clutch of the gearbox is not engaged.
However, Gaully does disclose the uncoupled configuration of the drivetrain being achieved when at least one clutch of the gearbox is not engaged (see at least pages 2-5 – clutch moves between an open position and a closed position… diagnosis can be carried out preventively, during a warranty visit or in the event of an actual breakdown or in masked time (when the ignition is switched off or when gears area disengaged while driving)).
Morselli, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the drivetrain comprises a gearbox including gears and at least two dog clutches that can be engaged or disengaged with the gears, the uncoupled configuration of the drivetrain being achieved when at least one dog clutch of the gearbox is not engaged (see at least Fig. 1, [0032-0034] – transmission unit… a first dog clutch 31 is arranged between the first gear set 12, 13 and the transmission output shaft 30 and a second dog clutch 32 is arranged between the second gear set 14, 15 and the transmission output shaft 30… before closing the first or second dog clutch 31, 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Morselli into the invention of Gaully with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to provide a powertrain with increased efficiency for electric vehicles that enables powershifting without the use of complex and expensive clutches (Morselli – [0004, 0006]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 does not disclose or render obvious the following limitation in its entirety:
“wherein the method comprises an analysis phase, during which the analysis cycle is repeated for several distinct uncoupled configurations of the drivetrain, each uncoupled configuration of the drivetrain having a different configuration of engaged and disengaged dog clutches. “
Gaully discloses wherein the method comprises an analysis phase, during which the analysis cycle is repeated for several distinct uncoupled configurations of the drivetrain (see at least pages 2-5 – Diagnosis can be carried out preventively, during a warranty visit or in the event of an actual breakdown or in masked time (when the ignition is switched off or when gears area disengaged while driving). This diagnostic procedure carried out according to the invention makes it possible to check the functions of the gearbox before removing it in the event of a breakdown and can also make it possible to monitor the evolution of the functional performance of the gearbox during a preventive operation… the torque can be compared to an acceptance value or to the last stored value to detect a discrepancy and alert of a potential failure).
Morselli, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: uncoupled configurations of the drivetrain, each uncoupled configuration of the drivetrain having a different configuration of engaged and disengaged dog clutches (see at least Fig. 1, [0032-0034] – transmission unit… a first dog clutch 31 is arranged between the first gear set 12, 13 and the transmission output shaft 30 and a second dog clutch 32 is arranged between the second gear set 14, 15 and the transmission output shaft 30… before closing the first or second dog clutch 31, 32).
Nonetheless, it would not have been obvious to repeat Gaully’s drivetrain to include Morselli’s dog clutches, and further to repeat Gaully’s analysis cycle at different uncoupled configurations of the modified drivetrain. These modifications would require impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-982. The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Raftari (US 6,490,511 B1) discloses a torque based monitor method, apparatus, and system, for a torque splitting hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) powertrain and regenerative brake system. The preferred powertrain configuration includes an internal combustion engine, generator, and electric traction motor combined to produce the vehicle's output shaft torque. The invention has a set of vehicle state sensors and communication interfaces connected independently to a main controller and an independent plausibility check (IPC). The IPC monitors and mitigates the powertrain output shaft torque (OST) by reducing powertrain torque when the detected OST is greater than the desired OST. The IPC has a second mode of operation to shut down the powertrain OST of the HEV powertrain when a fault or failure is detected. Additional features include a quizzer function to continuously verify the functionality of the IPC.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669