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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Priority is being given back to 12/15/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/04/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendments filed on 05/04/2026.
Claims 8-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 8-13 and 15-19 were amended.
Claims 8-19 are currently rejected.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 101 rejection, in light of the amendments the 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the 112 rejections, in light of the amendments these rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the art rejections have been considered and appear to be directed solely to the instant amendments to the claims. Accordingly, the claims are addressed in the body of the rejections below.
Claim Objections
Claims 15-19 are objected to for improper ordering. No correction is required at this time and will be corrected upon allowance.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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(s) 8, 9, 11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Dea et. al. (US 2012/0109483), herein O’Dea in view of Darnell et. al. (US 2018/0274466), herein Darnell.
Regarding claim 8:
O’Dea teaches:
A drive device (fig. 1, a torque control system 12) for a vehicle (fig. 1, an exemplary vehicle 10), comprising:
an accelerator pedal (FP) (fig. 1, an accelerator sensor 22) which is in signal connection with a drive control (ASG) (fig. 1, torque control unit 34) which requests a torque (MASG) on the basis of an accelerator pedal raw value (RFP) (the raw sensor readings from sensors 20 and 22 are provided to torque control unit 34 for further processing and analysis [0031]), with which torque an actuator control (PWR) (Motor units 50-56 may include AC motors (e.g., a three phase AC induction motor), DC motors, brushed or brushless motors, permanent magnet motors, etc., and may include a variety of components, like cooling features, sensors, control units and/or any other suitable components known in the art [0028]) a drive unit (EM) (fig. 1, motor units 50-56) is controlled during driving operation (an exemplary method 100 for controlling torque at one or more wheels of a vehicle, including controlling both positive torque (acceleration) and negative torque (braking) [0030]),
wherein the enabling device carries out an error determination of the torque (MASG) requested by the drive control (ASG) (signal processing steps and techniques may be applied to the signals gathered in step 110, including but certainly not limited to, filtering, plausibility checks, redundancy checks, error checks [0031]), and
wherein, based on the error determination (any number of different signal processing steps and techniques may be applied to the signals gathered in step 110, including but certainly not limited to, filtering, plausibility checks, redundancy checks, error checks, etc. [0031]; step 120 uses the accelerator and brake signals gathered in the previous step to determine an integrated torque request, which is generally representative of the overall torque being requested and takes into account both the accelerating and the braking intent of the driver [0032]), a drive torque (MA) is released (step 130 apportions the single integrated torque request into front and rear torque requests [0033]), and wherein the actuator control (PWR) actuates the drive unit (EM) (Motor units 50-56 may include AC motors (e.g., a three phase AC induction motor), DC motors, brushed or brushless motors, permanent magnet motors, etc., and may include a variety of components, like cooling features, sensors, control units and/or any other suitable components known in the art. [0028]) on the basis of the released drive torque (MA) (step 160 may convert individual torque requests that are positive (accelerating requests) into individual torque commands that are properly formatted for use with motor units 50-56 [0039]).
Darnell also teaches:
A drive device (fig. 3, drive system 110) for a vehicle (fig. 2, vehicle 106), comprising:
an accelerator pedal (FP) (The first input is an accelerator, or throttle, pedal position 112 [0047]) which is in signal connection with a drive control (ASG) (fig. 3, controller 116) which requests a torque (MASG) on the basis of an accelerator pedal [raw value] (RFP) (The controller 116 has a terminal for receiving inputs. In particular, the terminal is arranged to receive a first and a second primary inputs. In addition, the terminal is arranged to receive a plurality of ancillary inputs 119. The first input is an accelerator, or throttle, pedal position 112 and the second input is the drive mode selection 114 [0047]), with which torque an actuator control (PWR) (fig. 3, verification module 118) [a drive unit (EM)] is controlled during driving operation (The torque demand is used by an engine control unit (ECU), or referenced more broadly as ‘engine’ in FIG. 3, for configuring the engine 108 to operate to output a particular engine torque [0048]),
wherein the enabling device carries out an error determination of the torque (MASG) requested by the drive control (ASG) (the error distribution calculator 125 calculates an error between the ‘actual torque demand’ and the ‘expected torque demand’ by subtraction. In this way, an error is generated [0052]), and
wherein, based on the error determination (), a drive torque (MA) is released (the comparator 134 compares the torque demand error 124 to a threshold value. If the torque demand error 124 is less than the threshold, no action 140 is taken by the verification module 118. However, if the torque demand error 124 is greater than the threshold, the comparator outputs a command to limit the torque demand. In response to receiving the command, the limiter 136 limits the torque demand to a predefined threshold value [0055]), and wherein the actuator control (PWR) actuates the drive unit (EM) on the basis of the released drive torque (MA) (The torque demand is used by an engine control unit (ECU), or referenced more broadly as ‘engine’ in FIG. 3, for configuring the engine 108 to operate to output a particular engine torque [0048]).
O’Dea does not explicitly teach, however Darnell teaches:
wherein an enabling device (fig. 3, calculation module 120, a torque demand error 124, and comparator 134) is directly installed in the actuator control (PWR) (fig. 3, verification module 118),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified O’Dea to include the teachings as taught by Darnell with a reasonable expectation of success. Both reference are in the same field of endeavor of controlling the drive torque of a vehicle. Darnell teaches the benefits of “a verification module operates independently to the second input of the controller since the expected demand is based only on the first input and modified based on the error between itself and the actual demand. In this way, updating the response of the controller to the second input would require no updates to the verification module. In addition, the verification module can be made much simpler since no detailed knowledge of the controller is required in terms of controller response to the second input. The correction module may be arranged to reduce the error by applying an offset value to the expected demand. By applying the error offset, the verification module will adapt to the behavior of the controller without needing to be aware of what is causing the required adaptation. [Darnell, 0011-0012]”.
Regarding claim 9:
O’Dea in view of Darnell teaches all the limitations of claim 8, upon which this claim is dependent.
O’Dea further teaches:
wherein, when an error-free torque (MASG) is determined (examiner notes that with the controller making it past step 110 it has determined the request to be error free.), the enabling device releases the torque (MASG) as the drive torque(MA) in the direction of the drive unit (EM), so that the actuator control (PWR) actuates the drive unit (EM) on the basis of the torque (MASG) requested by the drive control (ASG) (step 110, the method determines the accelerating intent and the braking intent of the driver. This can be accomplished in a number of different ways. For example, step 110 may receive an accelerator signal from accelerator sensor 22 and a brake signal from brake sensor 20, along with any other signals or data that are needed to interpret the driver's accelerating and braking intent. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that any number of different signal processing steps and techniques may be applied to the signals gathered in step 110, including but certainly not limited to, filtering, plausibility checks, redundancy checks, error checks, etc. In one embodiment, the raw sensor readings from sensors 20 and 22 are provided to torque control unit 34 for further processing and analysis, but instead they could be indirectly provided to the torque control unit via some other component or piece of hardware. Step 110 may gather other sensor readings and signals in addition to the exemplary ones described here. [0031]),
Darnell also teaches:
wherein, when an error-free torque (MASG) is determined (fig. 3, step 134 - no), the enabling device releases the torque (MASG) as the drive torque(MA) in the direction of the drive unit (EM) (If the torque demand error 124 is less than the threshold, no action 140 is taken by the verification module 118 [0055]), so that the actuator control (PWR) actuates the drive unit (EM) on the basis of the torque (MASG) requested by the drive control (ASG) (The torque demand is used by an engine control unit (ECU), or referenced more broadly as ‘engine’ in FIG. 3, for configuring the engine 108 to operate to output a particular engine torque. [0048]), and wherein, when a faulty torque (MASG) is determined (fig. 3, step 134 – yes), the enabling device inhibits the torque (MASG) in the direction of the drive unit (EM) and instead releases a minimum torque (Mmin) in the direction of the drive unit (EM) (if the torque demand error 124 is greater than the threshold, the comparator outputs a command to limit the torque demand. In response to receiving the command, the limiter 136 limits the torque demand to a predefined threshold value [0055]).
Regarding claim 11:
O’Dea in view of Darnell teaches all the limitations of claim 8, upon which this claim is dependent.
O’Dea further teaches:
wherein the error determination takes place at least when the torque (MASG) requested by the drive control (ASG) is greater than a vehicle-specific destabilization threshold (MD) (It is possible for steps 130-150 to be designed such that they do not preemptively limit torque before a special vehicle dynamics condition is detected (e.g., wheel slip or over-steer), but rather they correct or adjust the torque once such a condition is detected. Steps 130-150 are not limited only to input from vehicle dynamics sensor units 74-78, as these steps may also receive and consider input and readings from any combination of sensors 20-32 or others and may utilize any suitable feedback or non-feedback structure known in the art [0036]).
Regarding claim 15:
O’Dea in view of Darnell teaches all the limitations of claim 9, upon which this claim is dependent.
O’Dea further teaches:
wherein the error determination takes place at least when the torque (MASG) requested by the drive control (ASG) is greater than the vehicle-specific destabilization threshold (MD) (It is possible for steps 130-150 to be designed such that they do not preemptively limit torque before a special vehicle dynamics condition is detected (e.g., wheel slip or over-steer), but rather they correct or adjust the torque once such a condition is detected. Steps 130-150 are not limited only to input from vehicle dynamics sensor units 74-78, as these steps may also receive and consider input and readings from any combination of sensors 20-32 or others and may utilize any suitable feedback or non-feedback structure known in the art [0036]).
Claim(s) 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Dea et. al. (US 2012/0109483), herein O’Dea in view of Darnell et. al. (US 2018/0274466), herein Darnell in further view of Kumar (US 5,480,220), herein Kumar.
Regarding claim 10:
O’Dea in view of Darnell teaches all the limitations of claim 9, upon which this claim is dependent.
O’Dea in view of Darnell does not explicitly teach, however Kumar teaches:
wherein the minimum torque (Mmin) is smaller than a vehicle-specific destabilization threshold (MD) (inhibit wheel slip while permitting the vehicle to operate at maximum tractive effort [col 4, lines 8-10]), above which a static friction coefficient limit between vehicle wheels and a road surface is exceeded in driving operation, so that vehicle destabilization occurs (The circuit 106 limits the maximum excursions of the torque regulator signal to predetermined variable limit values corresponding to a torque regulator slip positive maximum limit and a torque regulator slip negative maximum limit, designated T.sub.RSPM and T.sub.RSNM, respectively [col 4, lines 43-48]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified O’Dea in view of Darnell to include the teachings as taught by Kumar with a reasonable expectation of success. Both reference are in the same field of endeavor of controlling the drive torque of a vehicle. Kumar teaches the benefits of “faster response when wheel-to-rail adhesion is reduced and which enhances the available tractive and braking effort [Kumar, col 2, lines 19-21]”.
Regarding claim 16:
O’Dea in view of Darnell and Kumar teaches all the limitations of claim 10, upon which this claim is dependent.
O’Dea further teaches:
wherein the error determination takes place at least when the torque (MASG) requested by the drive control (ASG) is greater than a vehicle-specific destabilization threshold (MD) (It is possible for steps 130-150 to be designed such that they do not preemptively limit torque before a special vehicle dynamics condition is detected (e.g., wheel slip or over-steer), but rather they correct or adjust the torque once such a condition is detected. Steps 130-150 are not limited only to input from vehicle dynamics sensor units 74-78, as these steps may also receive and consider input and readings from any combination of sensors 20-32 or others and may utilize any suitable feedback or non-feedback structure known in the art [0036]).
Claim(s) 12, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Dea et. al. (US 2012/0109483), herein O’Dea in view of Darnell et. al. (US 2018/0274466), herein Darnell in further view of Eberl et. al. (US 2024/0190263), herein Eberl.
Regarding claim 12:
O’Dea in view of Darnell teaches all the limitations of claim 8, upon which this claim is dependent.
O’Dea in view of Darnell does not explicitly teach, however Eberl teaches:
wherein the enabling device has a comparator module (the control unit 3 includes a torque-limiting function module 6 [0038]) in which the accelerator pedal raw value (RFP) generated by the accelerator pedal (FP) is comparable with a limit value (RD), and wherein the limit value (RD) is formed from the accelerator pedal raw value correlating with the vehicle-specific destabilization threshold (MD) (A torque-limiting function can be carried out due to an appropriate design or programming of the torque-limiting module 6. Upon detection of an expected change in the all-wheel drive factor F.sub.AWD_target—in this case from 100:0 to 50:50—at a point in time to, which is shortly before the point in time t1, due to a defined signal, namely the unfiltered raw signal AP_raw of the accelerator pedal sensor, which precedes the filtered driver-input signal AP_int, the torque limits T_target_1_limit and T_target_2_limit for the individual target torques T_target_1 and T_target_2 of the electric drive motors 1 and 2 [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified O’Dea in view of Darnell to include the teachings as taught by Eberl with a reasonable expectation of success. Both reference are in the same field of endeavor of controlling the drive torque of a vehicle. Eberl teaches the benefits of “improving an all-wheel drive vehicle of the aforementioned type with respect to performance, efficiency, and comfort. [Eberl, 0005]”.
Regarding claim 17:
O’Dea in view of Darnell teaches all the limitations of claim 9, upon which this claim is dependent.
O’Dea in view of Darnell does not explicitly teach, however Eberl teaches:
wherein the enabling device has a comparator module (the control unit 3 includes a torque-limiting function module 6 [0038]) in which the accelerator pedal raw value (RFP) generated by the accelerator pedal (FP) is comparable with a limit value (RD), and wherein the limit value (RD) is formed from the accelerator pedal raw value correlating with the vehicle-specific destabilization threshold (MD) (A torque-limiting function can be carried out due to an appropriate design or programming of the torque-limiting module 6. Upon detection of an expected change in the all-wheel drive factor F.sub.AWD_target—in this case from 100:0 to 50:50—at a point in time to, which is shortly before the point in time t1, due to a defined signal, namely the unfiltered raw signal AP_raw of the accelerator pedal sensor, which precedes the filtered driver-input signal AP_int, the torque limits T_target_1_limit and T_target_2_limit for the individual target torques T_target_1 and T_target_2 of the electric drive motors 1 and 2 [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified O’Dea in view of Darnell to include the teachings as taught by Eberl with a reasonable expectation of success. Both reference are in the same field of endeavor of controlling the drive torque of a vehicle. Eberl teaches the benefits of “improving an all-wheel drive vehicle of the aforementioned type with respect to performance, efficiency, and comfort. [Eberl, 0005]”.
Regarding claim 19:
O’Dea in view of Darnell teaches all the limitations of claim 11, upon which this claim is dependent.
O’Dea in view of Darnell does not explicitly teach, however Eberl teaches:
wherein the enabling device has a comparator module (the control unit 3 includes a torque-limiting function module 6 [0038]) in which the accelerator pedal raw value (RFP) generated by the accelerator pedal (FP) is comparable with a limit value (RD), and wherein the limit value (RD) is formed from the accelerator pedal raw value correlating with the vehicle-specific destabilization threshold (MD) (A torque-limiting function can be carried out due to an appropriate design or programming of the torque-limiting module 6. Upon detection of an expected change in the all-wheel drive factor F.sub.AWD_target—in this case from 100:0 to 50:50—at a point in time to, which is shortly before the point in time t1, due to a defined signal, namely the unfiltered raw signal AP_raw of the accelerator pedal sensor, which precedes the filtered driver-input signal AP_int, the torque limits T_target_1_limit and T_target_2_limit for the individual target torques T_target_1 and T_target_2 of the electric drive motors 1 and 2 [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified O’Dea in view of Darnell to include the teachings as taught by Eberl with a reasonable expectation of success. Both reference are in the same field of endeavor of controlling the drive torque of a vehicle. Eberl teaches the benefits of “improving an all-wheel drive vehicle of the aforementioned type with respect to performance, efficiency, and comfort. [Eberl, 0005]”.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Dea et. al. (US 2012/0109483), herein O’Dea, Darnell et. al. (US 2018/0274466), herein Darnell, and Eberl et. al. (US 2024/0190263), herein Eberl in further view of Kumar (US 5,480,220), herein Kumar and Pettersson (US 2022/0080837), herein Pettersson.
Regarding claim 13:
O’Dea in view of Darnell and Eberl teaches all the limitations of claim 12, upon which this claim is dependent.
O’Dea in view of Darnell and Eberl does not explicitly teach, however Kumar teaches:
wherein, [if the accelerator pedal raw value (RFP) generated by the accelerator pedal (FP) is greater than the limit value (RD)], the comparator module generates an enable signal (SF), by which a release module releases the torque (MASG) in the direction of the drive unit (EM) (The circuit 106 limits the maximum excursions of the torque regulator signal to predetermined variable limit values corresponding to a torque regulator slip positive maximum limit and a torque regulator slip negative maximum limit, designated T.sub.RSPM and T.sub.RSNM, respectively [col 4, lines 43-48]; examiner notes that ), or wherein, [if the accelerator pedal raw value (RFP) generated by the accelerator pedal (FP) is less than the limit value (RD)], the comparator module generates an inhibit signal (Ss), by which the release module inhibits the torque (MASG) in the direction of the drive unit (EM) and instead releases the minimum torque (Mmin) in the direction of the drive unit (EM) (In block 126 of FIG. 3, the T.sub.SPM signal is summed with the torque reference signal T.sub.REF (from FIG. 2) and the difference becomes the torque regulator slip positive maximum signal T.sub.RSPM which sets the positive limit in block 106. [col 6, lines 16-21]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified O’Dea in view of Darnell and Eberl to include the teachings as taught by Kumar with a reasonable expectation of success. Both reference are in the same field of endeavor of controlling the drive torque of a vehicle. Kumar teaches the benefits of “faster response when wheel-to-rail adhesion is reduced and which enhances the available tractive and braking effort [Kumar, col 2, lines 19-21]”.
O’Dea in view of Darnell, Eberl, and Kumar does not explicitly teach, however Pettersson teaches:
wherein, if the accelerator pedal raw value (RFP) generated by the accelerator pedal (FP) is greater than the limit value (RD) (the accelerator pedal position being within a threshold envelope of the accelerator pedal position [0041]), the comparator module generates an enable signal (SF), by which a release module releases the torque (MASG) as the drive torque (MA) in the direction of the drive unit (EM) (the target wheel speed may be equal or approximate the actuator speed prior to entering drift mode in response to the accelerator pedal position being within a threshold envelope of the accelerator pedal position just prior to drift mode. [0041]), or wherein, if the accelerator pedal raw value (RFP) generated by the accelerator pedal (FP) is less than the limit value (RD) (If the accelerator pedal deviates from this threshold envelope during the drift mode [0041]), the comparator module generates an inhibit signal (Ss), by which the release module inhibits the torque (MASG) in the direction of the drive unit (EM) and instead releases the minimum torque (Mmin) as the drive torque (MA) in the direction of the drive unit (EM) (If the accelerator pedal deviates from this threshold envelope during the drift mode, then the speed target of the actuator may be set to one or more predetermined values. For example, the speed target may multiple predetermined values, one for when the accelerator is released outside of the threshold envelope, and another for when the accelerator pedal is depressed outside of the threshold envelope. [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified O’Dea in view of Darnell, Eberl, and Kumar to include the teachings as taught by Pettersson with a reasonable expectation of success. Both reference are in the same field of endeavor of controlling the drive torque of a vehicle. Pettersson teaches the benefits of “the ABS 52 (or other braking control system) in an opposite and counterintuitive manner from typical ABS functionality to enable locking and/or significant braking of the wheels 22 during a controlled driving maneuver that intentionally induces tire slippage, such as drifting [Pettersson, 0025]”.
Regarding claim 14:
O’Dea in view of Darnell, Eberl, Kumar, and Pettersson teaches all the limitations of claim 13, upon which this claim is dependent.
Kumar further teaches:
wherein the enabling device has a minimum selection module, which is in signal connection with the release module, and wherein the minimum selection module selects the smaller value from a torque limit (DML), which is smaller than the destabilization threshold (MD), and from the torque (MASG) requested by the drive control (ASG) and defines it as the minimum torque (Mmin) (The circuit 106 limits the maximum excursions of the torque regulator signal to predetermined variable limit values corresponding to a torque regulator slip positive maximum limit and a torque regulator slip negative maximum limit, designated T.sub.RSPM and T.sub.RSNM, respectively [col 4, lines 43-48]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Dea et. al. (US 2012/0109483), herein O’Dea in view of Darnell et. al. (US 2018/0274466), herein Darnell and Kumar (US 5,480,220), herein Kumar in further view of Eberl et. al. (US 2024/0190263), herein Eberl.
Regarding claim 18:
O’Dea in view of Darnell and Kumar teaches all the limitations of claim 10, upon which this claim is dependent.
O’Dea in view of Darnell and Kumar do not explicitly teach, however Eberl teaches:
wherein the enabling device has a comparator module (the control unit 3 includes a torque-limiting function module 6 [0038]) in which the accelerator pedal raw value (RFP) generated by the accelerator pedal (FP) is comparable with a limit value (RD), and wherein the limit value (RD) is formed from an accelerator pedal raw value correlating with the vehicle-specific destabilization threshold (MD) (A torque-limiting function can be carried out due to an appropriate design or programming of the torque-limiting module 6. Upon detection of an expected change in the all-wheel drive factor F.sub.AWD_target—in this case from 100:0 to 50:50—at a point in time to, which is shortly before the point in time t1, due to a defined signal, namely the unfiltered raw signal AP_raw of the accelerator pedal sensor, which precedes the filtered driver-input signal AP_int, the torque limits T_target_1_limit and T_target_2_limit for the individual target torques T_target_1 and T_target_2 of the electric drive motors 1 and 2 [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified O’Dea in view of Darnell and Kumar to include the teachings as taught by Eberl with a reasonable expectation of success. Both reference are in the same field of endeavor of controlling the drive torque of a vehicle. Eberl teaches the benefits of “improving an all-wheel drive vehicle of the aforementioned type with respect to performance, efficiency, and comfort. [Eberl, 0005]”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cho (US 2023/0202308) discloses A system for controlling anti jerk of an xEV vehicle using power of a motor, includes a battery configured to supply driving power to the motor, a battery control unit (BCU) configured to manage and control charging and discharging of the battery, and a motor control unit (MCU) configured to control driving of the motor, wherein the motor control unit is configured to execute a command for performing a method of controlling anti jerk of an xEV vehicle.
Iwahana (US 2018/0056811) discloses A drive power control device includes: a modeling error reduction unit configured to calculate a correction torque by performing high-pass filter processing on a correction amount calculated by a correction amount calculation unit; a control motor torque command value calculation unit configured to calculate a control motor torque command value by adding the correction torque to a motor torque command value; and a slip reduction control unit configured to perform, when the vehicle starts traveling or slip is detected, control to reduce slip by switching the cutoff frequency of a high-pass filter HPF to be low as compared with normal traveling.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Scott R Jagolinzer whose telephone number is (571)272-4180. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8AM - 4PM Eastern.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571)272-4190. 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.
Scott R. Jagolinzer
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/S.R.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights