DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is drafted in response to Amendments and Arguments filed 12/08/2025. Claims 1-7 are pending. Claims 1-7 are rejected as cited below. This action is made FINAL.
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 Specification Objection
Examiner withdraws the title objection in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Claim Objections
Examiner withdraws the previous objection to claim 1 in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Claim Interpretation
Examiner withdraws the invocation of 35 USC 112(f) in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Examiner withdraws the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-6 in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Examiner withdraws the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 1-6 in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Takaki et al. (US Pub. 2018/0264928 A1; hereafter Takaki).
Yamaguchi was cited in the previous Office action.
Takaki was cited in the previous Office action, but not applied for any claim mappings.
Regarding claim 1, Yamaguchi teaches:
An electric work vehicle (At least ¶ [0002] “electric vehicle”) comprising:
a battery in a machine body (battery 114);
an inverter to convert DC power output from the battery to AC power (inverter 112);
a motor drivable by the AC power converted by the inverter (electric motor 110);
a rotational speed sensor to obtain rotational speed information indicative of a rotational speed of the motor (motor rotational speed sensor 210);
a transmission drivable by the motor (At least ¶ [0026] “a manual transmission 120, a
clutch 130, a propeller shaft 140, and a differential gear 150.” and ¶ [0030] “left and right rear wheels 160 …”);
an user-operated controller to change a required rotational speed required for the motor (accelerator pedal 222);
a storage to store an output map defining a relationship between a torque value that the motor is allowed to output and a rotational speed of the motor (At least ¶ [0037] “a map and a program stored in the ROM (Read Only Memory).”); and
a controller configured or programmed to control a current flowing through the motor by operating the inverter based on the rotational speed information, the required rotational speed, and the output map (ECU 200).
Yamaguchi does not teach:
the output map includes a high rotation range, where the rotational speed of the motor is at least a predetermined rotational speed, and a low rotation range, where the rotational speed of the motor is less than the predetermined rotational speed; and
only the high rotation range in the output map has a shape that is based on a shape of a torque curve defining a relationship between an output torque and a rotational speed of an engine in a non-electric work vehicle.
However, Takaki, within the same field of endeavor, teaches:
the output map includes a high rotation range, where the rotational speed of the motor is at least a predetermined rotational speed (See at least FIG. 36, the area to the right of point P detailed on the torque map. This area is analogous to a high rotation range, where the rotation speed of the motor (rpm) is at least a predetermined rotation speed (i.e. point P).), and a low rotation range, where the rotational speed of the motor is less than the predetermined rotational speed (See at least FIG. 36, the area to the left of point P detailed on the torque map. This area is analogous to a low rotation range, where the rotation speed of the motor (rpm) is less than a predetermined rotation speed (i.e. point P).); and
only the high rotation range in the output map has a shape that is based on a shape of a torque curve defining a relationship between an output torque and a rotational speed of an engine in a non-electric work vehicle (See at least FIG. 36, the area to the right of point P. This area shows a torque curve in which output torque decreases as rotation speed increases. This is analogous to only the high rotation range having a shape which is based on a shape of a non-electric engine torque curve because the low rotation range shows the torque value decreasing as rotation speed increases, which is the opposite of a non-electric engine torque curve in the low rotation range per applicant FIG. 6. Applicant FIG. 6 shows the shape of a non-electric engine torque curve (dashed line), in the low rotation range, with torque increasing when rotation speed increases, and in the high rotation range, with torque decreasing when rotation speed increases. Therefore, FIG. 36 of Takaki shows only the high rotation range of the output map having a shape which is based on the shape of a non-electric engine torque curve as the low rotation range on Takaki FIG. 36 shows the opposite of Applicant FIG. 6. low rotation range.).
PNG
media_image1.png
531
649
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamaguchi with Takaki. This modification would have been obvious as both Yamaguchi and Takaki contain subject matter within the same field of endeavor (electric motor control) and Yamaguchi [Abstract] notes that “The target output torque of a positive value is set so as to have characteristics similar to those (torque curve) of the output torque of the internal combustion engine.” Introducing Takaki to Yamaguchi helps further refine the system to have characteristics more similar to an internal combustion engine. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having an electric vehicle behave more like an internal combustion engine, especially, in the high rotation range, may increase passenger comfort. This is due to the fact that a decrease in torque at higher speeds may help the operator reduce judder and jerkiness of the vehicle at higher speeds. This would lead to increased vehicle stability, higher user confidence, and thus, more comfort.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Yamaguchi and Takaki teaches The electric work vehicle according to claim 1. Yamaguchi further teaches wherein the high rotation range of the output map is defined such that the torque value that the motor is allowed to output decreases as the rotational speed of the motor increases from the predetermined rotational speed (FIG. 3 shows the maximum torque (short dashed line) decreasing at the high end of the rotation speed axis (x axis).).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yamaguchi and Takaki teaches The electric work vehicle according to claim 1. Yamaguchi further teaches wherein the output map is defined such that the motor stops when the rotational speed of the motor is not higher than a first rotational speed set in advance (At least ¶ [0063] “When the clutch 130 is in the engaged state and the manual transmission 120 is in the neutral state while the vehicle is stopped, the stop control unit 306 performs control such that the output shaft rotation speed of the electric motor 110 becomes 0. That is, the power supply to the electric motor 110 is cut off. Thus, when the driver does not have an intention to travel, the output shaft rotation speed of the electric motor 110 can be set to 0 by cutting off the power supply to the electric motor 110. Therefore, wasteful consumption of electric power can be suppressed.” The motor is stopped (i.e. power supply is cut off) when the rotational speed of the motor is not higher than a first RPM (e.g. the rotational speed of the electric motor is 0 when the vehicle is in the stopped state).).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yamaguchi and Takaki teaches The electric work vehicle according to claim 3. Yamaguchi further teaches wherein the output map is defined such that the motor stops when the rotational speed of the motor is higher than or equal to a second rotational speed that is set in advance and higher than the first rotational speed (At least ¶ [0059] “in order to quickly converge the output shaft rotation speed of the electric motor 110 to the target rotation speed, the rotation speed control unit 304 increases the gain in the feedback control when the clutch is in the released state and the output shaft rotation speed of the electric motor 110 is higher than a predetermined rotation speed that is higher than the target rotation speed while the vehicle is stopped.” The vehicle being in a stopped state indicates that the motor has stopped. Also see ¶ [0070] “When the output shaft rotation speed of the electric motor 110 is greater than a predetermined limit value, the limiting unit 310 performs control such that the output torque of the electric motor 110 becomes 0. For example, the output torque of the electric motor 110 is controlled to be 0 by cutting off the power supply to the electric motor 110. This makes it possible to avoid over-rotation of the electric motor 110.”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yamaguchi and Takaki teaches The electric work vehicle according to claim 4. Yamaguchi further teaches wherein the output map is defined such that, when a range of rotational speed at which the motor is rotatable is divided into the low rotation range including the first rotational speed and the high rotation range including the second rotational speed, the torque value that the motor is allowed to output increases as the rotational speed of the motor increases from the first rotational speed to the predetermined rotational speed (Fig. 3 – Fig. 5 show the torque value (y-axis value of the long-dashed line) increasing from the first rotational speed (low rotation range – left side of x-axis) as it moves toward the predetermined rotational speed (located in the high rotation range - right side of the x-axis).).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yamaguchi and Takaki teaches The electric work vehicle according to claim 4. Yamaguchi further teaches wherein the output map is defined such that, when a range of rotational speed at which the motor is rotatable is divided into the low rotation range including the first rotational speed and the high rotation range including the second rotational speed, the torque value that the motor is allowed to output is constant when the rotational speed of the motor is within a range from the first rotational speed to the predetermined rotational speed (Fig. 3 shows the torque value (y-axis value of the short-dashed line) remaining constant as it moves left to right on the x-axis (i.e. the RPM range in between the first rotational speed and the predetermined rotational speed).).
Claim 7 details a vehicle with limitations contained within claim 6, thus is rejected on the same basis. Additionally, Examiner notes that the claim 7 limitation of “in a low rotation range, where the rotational speed of the motor is less than the predetermined rotational speed, the output map has a constant output torque irrespective of the rotational speed of the motor other than when driving of the motor is stopped.” is analogous to the claim 6 limitation of “… the torque value that the motor is allowed to output is constant when the rotational speed of the motor is within a range from the first rotational speed to the predetermined rotational speed …”. This is due to the fact that the low rotation range (claim 7) is analogous to the rotation speed being within a range from the first rotational speed to the predetermined rotational speed (claim 6).
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 Jonathan E Reinert whose telephone number is (571)272-1260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 7AM - 5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668