DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are persuasive only in part.
First, the amendments to claims 6 and 8 overcome the claim objection, which is withdrawn.
Second, the amendments to the claims in conjunction with applicant’s arguments overcome most of the issues previously raised. However, a remaining issue in the dependent claims (e.g., in claim 8) and new issues in the new claims are dealt with below.
Third, the amendments to the claims overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, which is withdrawn.
Fourth, regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, applicant argues after discussing the references:
Crisp generally teaches a technique in which the regeneration amount in a subsequent operation is modified based on an operation history such as how the accelerator pedal is released (i.e., whether the accelerator pedal is gradually and slowly released or suddenly released), whether the brake pedal is depressed, and whether the clutch or gear is operated, and regeneration control is executed using the modified regeneration amount (see, e.g., the regenerative braking force in the section denoted by reference sign 106c in Crisp FIG. 1) (see also Crisp ¶¶ 0031-0036). Consequently, Crisp teaches a different technique than the claimed invention.
Furthermore, in the regeneration control according to amended independent claim 1, the required regenerative torque is increased during a period from the start of the regeneration control until a regeneration reduction condition is satisfied, but such regeneration control is not taught or suggested in Matsuda or Crisp.
In other words, it is clear that the proposed Matsuda/Crisp combination fails to teach, suggest or otherwise render obvious the above-noted step recited in amended independent claim 1 of determining a required regenerative torque, which is the regenerative torque required for the electric motor, based on the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount, wherein determining the required regenerative torque includes increasing the required regenerative torque with lapse of time after the start of the regeneration control, in a period from the start of the regeneration control to a time point when a regeneration reduction condition is satisfied, the regeneration reduction condition including a condition in which a regeneration time reaches a set time period.
Applicant argues the “required regenerative torque is increased during a period from the start of the regeneration control until a regeneration reduction condition is satisfied”, but the claims do not require that the required regenerative torque increase throughout the period or “during” the entire period, but only that required regenerative torque increases at any point or points “in” the period, and Crisp et al. (‘209) teaches such increases in the regeneration level required to be maintained by the vehicle at points shown by 106a, 106b in FIG. 1, and he also teaches time points for regeneration reduction conditions, as annotated by the examiner below/on the next page:
PNG
media_image1.png
1132
832
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in this respect.
Specification
[The Specification section is divided into two parts, I. and II., below:]
I. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in published paragraph [0038] (filed paragraph [0032]), it appears “an absolute value of the strong regenerative torque T2 is less than an absolute value of the normal regenerative torque T1” should read, “an absolute value of the strong regenerative torque T2 is more than an absolute value of the normal regenerative torque T1”, to agree with FIG. 3.
In these respects, the specification at published paragraphs [0069] and [0094] (filed paragraphs [0063] and [0088]) may also incorrectly describe the ratio of the strong regenerative torque “to” the required regenerative torque (see footnote 3 herein), e.g., as apparently contradicting FIG. 3 and the plain meaning of “strong”, and should be revised as appropriate.
II. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o)1. Correction of the following is required: antecedent basis should be provided in the specification for the new claim terminology in claim 16, “wherein a seat of the vehicle is configured to be straddled”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding the “wherein” clause in method claim 12 (which depends from method claim 1), the examiner follows the guidance provided by the CAFC in Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2002), with the “wherein” clause in claim 12 being understood by the examiner to give (e.g., additional) meaning and purpose to the manipulative (“calculating”) step of method claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 6 to 8, 10, and 12 to 16 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.
In claim 6, lines 9ff, “determining whether a regeneration reduction condition is satisfied the regeneration reduction condition including a condition where a regeneration time reaches a set time” is indefinite and not reasonably certain2 because i) “a regeneration reduction condition” has already been recited in claim 1, and so it is unclear (e.g., due to the use of the indefinite article in claim 6) whether the “regeneration reduction condition” of claim 6 is the same as, different from, permissively the same as, permissively different from, necessarily the same as, necessarily different from, etc. the regeneration reduction condition of claim 1, ii) it is unclear whether the “a set time” in claim 6 is meant to refer to the same or a different “set time period” as recited in claim 1, and why different terminology is being used for these set time(s) or set time period(s) and what a difference between the set time period and set time might possibly be, from the teachings of the specification, and iii) the punctuation in the clause is incorrect (e.g., a comma is apparently missing between “satisfied” and “the”).
In claim 8, lines 8ff, and in claim 13, lines 4ff “determining whether a regeneration reduction condition is satisfied” is indefinite and not reasonably certain because “a regeneration reduction condition” has already been recited in claim 1, and so it is unclear (e.g., due to the use of the indefinite article in claim 8/13) whether the “regeneration reduction condition” of claim 8/13 is the same as, different from, permissively the same as, permissively different from, necessarily the same as, necessarily different from, etc. the regeneration reduction condition of claim 1.
In claim 8, lines 12ff, “[reducing the regenerative torque] after or while increasing the required regenerative torque based on the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount” is indefinite, confusing, and contradictory in the claim context (e.g., why or how would the regenerative torque be reduced “while increasing the required regenerative torque”, from the teachings of the specification?)
In claim 10, line 2, “a processing circuitry” is indefinite in the claim context, because “a processing circuitry” has already been recited in claim 1, and so it is unclear (e.g., due to the use of the indefinite article in claim 10) whether the “processing circuitry” of claim 10 is the same as, different from, permissively the same as, permissively different from, necessarily the same as, necessarily different from, etc. the processing circuitry of claim 1.
In claim 12, lines 3ff, “an index for determining a magnitude of change in a speed and an operation amount of a deceleration operation with respect to the accelerator operator” is vague and indefinite and not reasonably certain from the teachings of the specification (e.g., “index” in what respect particularly and defined particularly how and “for determining” by whom or what and how, particularly, “change in a speed” of what particularly, “an operation amount of a deceleration operation”, which is unclearly worded, defined particularly how, etc.?)
In claim 15, lines 12ff, “determining the required regenerative torque by a coefficient . . .” to the end of the claim is indefinite and unclear in its entirety, e.g., as lacking essential elements and/or proper context to give clear metes and bounds to the claim limitations. For example, in what context does the recited “coefficient” or “ratio” act or exist or become larger? Moreover, that a ratio might become larger is apparently also based on unclear description of the concept of the particularly claimed “ratio” in the specification (e.g., that is, when the coefficient k becomes larger, the ratio of T2/Tr[3] will [apparently/necessarily/in reality?] become smaller mathematically, when Tr is given by the equation in S21 of FIG. 5 or formula (3) in the specification, since Tr will become more weighted toward T2 than T1 as the coefficient k becomes larger, and will thus become closer to T2, and the ratio T2/Tr will thus become smaller and closer to [but greater than or equal to] 1).
In claim 16, lines 1ff, “. . . to be straddled” is indefinite from the teachings of the specification (e.g., straddled by whom or what?) Applicant may change, in this claim, “a seat of the vehicle is configured to be straddled” to “the vehicle has two wheels” (or to “the vehicle is a two-wheel vehicle”) in order to overcome this portion of the rejection and also the corresponding specification objection, if such be applicant’s intent.
Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given.
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.
Claims 1 to 3, 5 to 8, 10 to 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda4 (2015/0258898) in view of Crisp et al. (2015/0222209).
Matsuda (‘898) reveals:
per claim 1, a regeneration control method for a vehicle [e.g., FIG. 1] including an electric motor [e.g., 5] as a drive source and an inverter [e.g., 20] configured to supply power to the electric motor, the regeneration control method being executed in a processing circuitry [e.g., 22] of the vehicle, the regeneration control method including regeneration control for requesting the electric motor to generate a regenerative torque [e.g., title], the regeneration control method comprising:
acquiring a normal torque corresponding to an accelerator operation amount of the vehicle and a rotation speed of the electric motor [e.g., FIG. 5];
determining whether a start condition of the regeneration control is satisfied [e.g., at S1, YES], the start condition including a condition in which the normal torque is changed [e.g., has already changed, such that the torque condition is “changed”] from a positive value to a negative value [e.g., FIG. 5 (e.g., paragraphs [0063], [0069], etc.) and paragraph [0034], “In the present embodiment, the regeneration condition is defined as conditions relating to the vehicle states, which are used to determine whether or not to shift the electric motor 5 to the regenerative running”; see also paragraph [0035], “On the other hand, in a case where the target torque is a negative value, this means that the control unit 22 provides a command to the inverter unit 20 and shifts the electric motor 5 to the regenerative running to allow the electric motor 5 to generate regenerative torque which is equal to target regenerative torque”; see also FIG. 4, where the reference driving torque Trd is obviously positive (to drive) and the reference regenerative torque Trr is obviously negative (to [re]generate energy)];
calculating [e.g., from the acceleration operation amount of the accelerator sensor 40] a degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount from a change amount of the accelerator operation amount during a predetermined time, in a period before start of the regeneration control which is a time point when the start condition of the regeneration control is satisfied [e.g., paragraph [0053], “the regeneration condition is such that the accelerator operation amount is 0[%] and a change ΔTH in the accelerator operation amount which occurs with time and is just before the accelerator operation amount reaches 0[%], is not a positive value, for example, a negative value”; see also paragraphs [0055], [0075], [0083], [0084], etc.];
determining a required regenerative torque [e.g., the target torque Trc in FIG. 4 provided to the motor control section 25, where Trc = Trr + ΔTrr, where Trr is the reference regenerative torque and ΔTrr is a compensation amount (which acts to increase the regenerative torque in accordance with an increase in the operation amount of the regeneration adjustment lever 32, claim 6 and paragraphs [0014], [0044], etc.), which may be zero], which is the regenerative torque required for the electric motor, based on the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount [e.g., paragraph [0055], “In addition, the reference regenerative torque [Trr] is set such that the reference regenerative torque increases as a change in an accelerator opening degree, which occurs with time until the accelerator operation amount reaches zero, increases. The change in the accelerator operation amount which occurs with time may be a change in the accelerator operation amount which occurs with time before the regeneration condition is satisfied. Or, in a case where the regeneration condition is satisfied even when the accelerator operation amount is equal to or larger than zero, the change in the accelerator operation amount which occurs with time may be a change in the accelerator operation amount which occurs with time after the regeneration condition is satisfied”; see also paragraph [0075], “In a case where the absolute value of a change in the accelerator operation amount, which occurs with time until the accelerator operation amount reaches a predetermined value or less, is large, specifically, in a case where the accelerator grip is relatively quickly rotated, the regeneration amount may be set larger than in a case where the accelerator grip is relatively slowly rotated.”],
outputting a control command for causing the electric motor to generate the required regenerative torque to the inverter [e.g., paragraph [0058], “Then, the calculation section 24 provides the calculated target torque Trc to the motor control section 25”; see also paragraph [0035], “On the other hand, in a case where the target torque is a negative value, this means that the control unit 22 provides a command to the inverter unit 20 and shifts the electric motor 5 to the regenerative running to allow the electric motor 5 to generate regenerative torque which is equal to target regenerative torque.”];
It may be alleged that Matsuda et al. (‘898) does not reveal a degree of decrease in an accelerator operation amount during the predetermined time before start of the regeneration control, or the increase of the required regenerative torque with lapse of time in (e.g., within) a period that exists from the start of regenerative control to a time point when a regeneration reduction condition is satisfied, although Matsuda et al. (‘898) teaches at paragraph [0055] that, “the reference regenerative torque is set such that the reference regenerative torque increases as a change in an accelerator opening degree, which occurs with time until the accelerator operation amount reaches zero, increases. The change in the accelerator operation amount which occurs with time may be a change in the accelerator operation amount which occurs with time before the regeneration condition is satisfied. Or, in a case where the regeneration condition is satisfied even when the accelerator operation amount is equal to or larger than zero, the change in the accelerator operation amount which occurs with time may be a change in the accelerator operation amount which occurs with time after the regeneration condition is satisfied.” Further Matsuda et al. (‘898) teaches at paragraph [0075] that, “In a case where the absolute value of a change in the accelerator operation amount, which occurs with time until the accelerator operation amount reaches a predetermined value or less, is large, specifically, in a case where the accelerator grip is relatively quickly rotated, the regeneration amount may be set larger than in a case where the accelerator grip is relatively slowly rotated.” Therefore, the examiner believes Matsuda et al. (‘898) reveals or renders obvious the independent claim limitations regarding an increasing of the required regenerative torque, even without further teaching.
However, in the context/field of an improved method and system for controlling the regenerative braking of a vehicle, Crisp et al. (‘209) teaches e.g., at paragraph [0026] and in FIG. 1 that, “the level of regenerative braking 106a is dependent upon the progressive release of the accelerator pedal”, whereby, “a slight release of the accelerator may cause a lower level of regenerative braking 106a whilst greater release may cause a higher level of regenerative braking 106a”, with the release beginning, as shown in FIG. 1 , before the level of regenerative braking 106a increases from zero, and with the level(s) of regenerative braking 106a, 106b, 106d increasing when the accelerator pedal is progressively released and when the brake pedal is depressed/actuated (e.g., at control input 108), and decreasing both at a time point when a brake pedal is released (as shown prior to 112 and after the peak braking force at 110 is reached) and when a subsequent acceleration event 114 (representing an increase in the accelerator pedal depression/actuation, as shown after 116) occurs[5].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement of modify the Matsuda (‘898) straddle vehicle regeneration brake control system so that the level of regenerative braking 106a would have been dependent upon the progressive release of the accelerator pedal and the depression/actuation of the brake pedal, as taught by Crisp et al. (‘209), whereby a slight release of the accelerator would have caused a lower level of regenerative braking 106a whilst greater release would have caused a higher level of regenerative braking 106a, as taught by Crisp et al. (‘209), and so that the level of regenerative braking (required to be maintained by the vehicle) would have increased with time initially at 102 and e.g., after a control input 108, as taught by Crisp et al. (‘209) in FIG. 1, and then decreased/been reduced both when the brake pedal was released during a deceleration event and/or when the degree of actuation of the accelerator pedal was increased after the deceleration event, as taught by Crisp et al. (‘209) in FIG. 1, in order to improve the customer's perception of the drivability and associated economy of a hybrid system and maximize the pedal-released regenerative braking without altering the driver's perceived deceleration characteristics of the vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or modified Matsuda (‘898) straddle vehicle regeneration brake control system would have rendered obvious:
per claim 1, a regeneration control method for a vehicle [e.g., in Matsuda (‘898), FIG. 1] including an electric motor [e.g., in Matsuda (‘898), 5] as a drive source and an inverter [e.g., in Matsuda (‘898), 20] configured to supply power to the electric motor, the regeneration control method being executed in a processing circuitry [e.g., in Matsuda (‘898), 22] of the vehicle, the regeneration control method including regeneration control for requesting the electric motor to generate a regenerative torque [e.g., in Matsuda (‘898), title], the regeneration control method comprising:
acquiring a normal torque corresponding to an accelerator operation amount of the vehicle and a rotation speed of the electric motor [e.g., in Matsuda (‘898), FIG. 5];
determining whether a start condition of the regeneration control is satisfied [e.g., in Matsuda (‘898), at S1, YES], the start condition including a condition in which the normal torque is changed [e.g., has already changed, such that the torque condition is “changed”, in Matsuda (‘898)] from a positive value to a negative value [e.g., in Matsuda (‘898), FIG. 5 (e.g., paragraphs [0063], [0069], etc.) and paragraph [0034], “In the present embodiment, the regeneration condition is defined as conditions relating to the vehicle states, which are used to determine whether or not to shift the electric motor 5 to the regenerative running”; see also paragraph [0035], “On the other hand, in a case where the target torque is a negative value, this means that the control unit 22 provides a command to the inverter unit 20 and shifts the electric motor 5 to the regenerative running to allow the electric motor 5 to generate regenerative torque which is equal to target regenerative torque”; see also FIG. 4, where the reference driving torque Trd is obviously positive (to drive) and the reference regenerative torque Trr is obviously negative (to [re]generate energy)];
calculating [e.g., in Matsuda (‘898), from the acceleration operation amount of the accelerator sensor 40; and from the one or more sensors configured to determine the operational state of the accelerator, etc. at paragraph [0038] in Crisp et al. (‘209)] a degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount from a change amount of the accelerator operation amount during a predetermined time [e.g., in Matsuda (‘898) the time in which the change ΔTH in the accelerator operation amount is exhibited in paragraphs [0053], etc., which occurs just before the accelerator operation amount reaches 0[%]; and Crisp et al. (‘209), the time before the control input 108 in FIG. 1], in a period before start of the regeneration control which is a time point when the start condition of the regeneration control is satisfied [e.g., in Matsuda (‘898), paragraph [0053], “the regeneration condition is such that the accelerator operation amount is 0[%] and a change ΔTH in the accelerator operation amount which occurs with time and is just before the accelerator operation amount reaches 0[%], is not a positive value, for example, a negative value”; see also paragraphs [0055], [0075], [0083], [0084], etc.; and the progressive release of the accelerator pedal, as described e.g., at paragraphs [0026], etc. of Crisp et al. (‘209)];
determining a required regenerative torque [e.g., in Matsuda (‘898), the target torque Trc in FIG. 4 provided to the motor control section 25, where Trc = Trr + ΔTrr, where Trr is the reference regenerative torque and ΔTrr is a compensation amount (which acts to increase the regenerative torque in accordance with an increase in the operation amount of the regeneration adjustment lever 32, claim 6 and paragraphs [0014], [0044], etc.), which may be zero; and as shown and described (at 106) in/with respect to FIG. 1 of Crisp et al. (‘209)], which is the regenerative torque required for the electric motor, based on the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount [e.g., in Matsuda (‘898), paragraph [0055], “In addition, the reference regenerative torque [Trr] is set such that the reference regenerative torque increases as a change in an accelerator opening degree, which occurs with time until the accelerator operation amount reaches zero, increases. The change in the accelerator operation amount which occurs with time may be a change in the accelerator operation amount which occurs with time before the regeneration condition is satisfied. Or, in a case where the regeneration condition is satisfied even when the accelerator operation amount is equal to or larger than zero, the change in the accelerator operation amount which occurs with time may be a change in the accelerator operation amount which occurs with time after the regeneration condition is satisfied”; see also paragraph [0075], “In a case where the absolute value of a change in the accelerator operation amount, which occurs with time until the accelerator operation amount reaches a predetermined value or less, is large, specifically, in a case where the accelerator grip is relatively quickly rotated, the regeneration amount may be set larger than in a case where the accelerator grip is relatively slowly rotated”; and paragraph [0026] in Crisp et al. (‘209), whereby, “a slight release of the accelerator may cause a lower level of regenerative braking 106a whilst greater release may cause a higher level of regenerative braking 106a”], wherein determining the required regenerative torque includes increasing the required regenerative torque with lapse of time after the start of the regeneration control [e.g., as described generally at paragraphs [0055], [0075], etc. of Matsuda (‘898); and as particularly shown by the increasing levels of regenerative braking at 106a, 106b in FIG. 1 of Crisp et al. (‘109)], in a period from the start of the regeneration control to a time point when a regeneration reduction condition is satisfied [e.g., “in” a period, in Crisp et al. (‘109) that extends from the initiating control input 102 to either the Time point 1 or the Time point 2 in the examiner’s footnote above, with the Time point 2 being the subsequent application of the accelerator pedal at 116 in FIG. 1], the regeneration reduction condition including a condition in which a regeneration time [e.g., the timeline after 102 in FIG. 1 of Crisp et al. (‘’109)] reaches a set time period [e.g., the time period when the braking force 110 is decreasing (e.g., after the Time point 1 annotated by the examiner in the footnote above) in FIG. 1 of Crisp et al. (‘109) or the time period after the application of the accelerator pedal at 116 (e.g., the Time point 2 annotated by the examiner in the footnote above) in FIG. 1 of Crisp et al. (‘109)]; and
outputting a control command for causing the electric motor to generate the required regenerative torque to the inverter [e.g., in Matsuda (‘898), paragraph [0058], “Then, the calculation section 24 provides the calculated target torque Trc to the motor control section 25”; see also paragraph [0035], “On the other hand, in a case where the target torque is a negative value, this means that the control unit 22 provides a command to the inverter unit 20 and shifts the electric motor 5 to the regenerative running to allow the electric motor 5 to generate regenerative torque which is equal to target regenerative torque.”];
per claim 2, depending from claim 1, wherein
determining the required regenerative torque based on the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount is performed for a predetermined period from the start of the regeneration control [e.g., in Matsuda (‘898), paragraph [0055], “In addition, the reference regenerative torque [Trr] is set such that the reference regenerative torque increases as a change in an accelerator opening degree, which occurs with time until the accelerator operation amount reaches zero, increases. The change in the accelerator operation amount which occurs with time may be a change in the accelerator operation amount which occurs with time before the regeneration condition is satisfied. Or, in a case where the regeneration condition is satisfied even when the accelerator operation amount is equal to or larger than zero, the change in the accelerator operation amount which occurs with time may be a change in the accelerator operation amount which occurs with time after the regeneration condition is satisfied”; and as shown in FIG. 1 of Crisp et al. (‘209) where the sensed/determined progressive release of the accelerator pedal, e.g., at paragraph [0026], controls the level of regenerative braking];
per claim 3, depending from claim 1, wherein
determining the required regenerative torque based on the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount includes increasing the required regenerative torque when the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount increases [e.g., in Matsuda (‘898), paragraph [0055], “In addition, the reference regenerative torque [Trr] is set such that the reference regenerative torque increases as a change in an accelerator opening degree, which occurs with time until the accelerator operation amount reaches zero, increases. The change in the accelerator operation amount which occurs with time may be a change in the accelerator operation amount which occurs with time before the regeneration condition is satisfied. Or, in a case where the regeneration condition is satisfied even when the accelerator operation amount is equal to or larger than zero, the change in the accelerator operation amount which occurs with time may be a change in the accelerator operation amount which occurs with time after the regeneration condition is satisfied”; and as shown in FIG. 1 of Crisp et al. (‘209) where the sensed/determined progressive release of the accelerator pedal, e.g., at paragraph [0026], controls the level of regenerative braking];
per claim 5, depending from claim 1, wherein
increasing the required regenerative torque includes increasing an increase amount per unit time in the required regenerative torque when the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount increases [e.g., as taught by Matsuda (‘898) at paragraphs [0055], [0075], etc.; and as taught in conjunction with the progressive release of the accelerator pedal by Crisp et al. (‘209) at paragraphs [0026], etc.];
per claim 6, depending from claim 1, wherein
determining the required regenerative torque based on the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount includes:
increasing the required regenerative torque with lapse of time after the start of the regeneration control, based on the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount [e.g., responsive to the progressive release of the accelerator pedal, as shown between control inputs 102 and 108 in FIG. 1, as taught by Crisp et al. (‘209), and responsive to the actuation/depression of the brake pedal/control input 108, as taught by Crisp et al. (‘209); and as taught at paragraphs [0055], [0075], etc. by Matsuda (‘898), where the increase in regenerative braking obviously occurs over a finite amount of time (since nothing happens without the passage of time)m in Matsuda (‘898)];
maintaining the required regenerative torque at an upper limit value when the required regenerative torque reaches the upper limit value [e.g., before the control input 108, or between the control inputs 108 and 112, or between the control inputs 112 and 116, in FIG. 1 of Crisp et al. (‘209), where the regeneration level is maintained at the level 106a or 106b or 106c of regenerative braking, and is maintained at that elevated value as a limit value for a finite period of time, e.g., when the brake pedal is depressed/actuated or after the brake pedal is released and before the accelerator pedal is depressed/actuated; and where the level of e.g., 106a in Crisp et al. (‘209) would obviously have been e.g., the 0% level in FIG. 5 of Matsuda (‘898), as being the reference regenerative torque Trr for the vehicle speed/motor rotation speed in Matsuda (‘898)];
determining whether a regeneration reduction condition is satisfied the regeneration reduction condition including a condition where a regeneration time reaches a set time [e.g., condition(s) being the release of the brake pedal before the control input 112 in FIG. 1 of Crisp et al. (‘209); or the depression/actuation 114 of the accelerator pedal at control input 116, with the “set time” being e.g., the Time point 1 or the Time point 2 as annotated by the examiner in the footnote above, and/or the time after which the braking force 110 in Crisp et al. (‘209) is decreasing or the time (116) when the accelerator pedal is subsequently applied]; and
decreasing the required regenerative torque when it is being determined that the regeneration reduction condition is satisfied [e.g., as taught when the brake pedal is released before the control input 112 in FIG. 1 of Crisp et al. (‘209); or when the accelerator pedal is depressed/actuated (114) at control input 116 in FIG. 1 of Crisp et al. (‘209)];
per claim 7, depending from claim 6, wherein the upper limit value changes in accordance with the rotation speed of the electric motor [e.g., as shown by Matsuda (‘898) in FIG. 5 for the reference regenerative torque Trr];
per claim 8, depending from claim 1, wherein
determining the required regenerative torque based on the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount includes:
increasing the required regenerative torque with lapse of time after the start of the regeneration control, based on the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount [e.g., as shown and described both by Crisp et al. (‘209) in FIG. 1 (after 102) and by Matsuda (‘898) in paragraphs [0055], [0075], etc., as described above];
determining whether a regeneration reduction condition is satisfied [e.g., as taught when the brake pedal is released before the control input 112 in FIG. 1 of Crisp et al. (‘209); or when the accelerator pedal is depressed/actuated 114 at control input 116 in FIG. 1 of Crisp et al. (‘209)]; and
reducing the regenerative torque with the lapse of time e.g., as shown at 106 in FIG. 1 of Crisp et al. (‘209)] after the start of the regeneration control when it is being determined that the regeneration reduction condition is satisfied [e.g., as taught when the brake pedal is released before the control input 112 in FIG. 1 of Crisp et al. (‘209); or when the accelerator pedal is depressed/actuated 114 at control input 116 in FIG. 1 of Crisp et al. (‘209)], after or while increasing the required regenerative torque based on the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount [e.g., after the initiation of regenerative braking at 102 in Crisp et al. (‘209)];
per claim 10, a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program [e.g., the control unit 22 configured as a microcontroller having programs and a storage section 26 configured to store programs, at paragraphs [0037], [0038], etc. of Matsuda (‘898)] causing a processing circuitry to execute the regeneration control method according to claim 1;
per claim 11, a vehicle [e.g., FIG. 1 in Matsuda (‘898)] comprising:
an accelerator operator [e.g., the accelerator grip 30 in Matsuda (‘898)] configured to be operated by a user;
a driving wheel [e.g., the rear wheel 3 in Matsuda (‘898)];
an electric motor [e.g., 5 in Matsuda (‘898)] configured to be a drive source for the driving wheel;
an inverter [e.g., 20 in Matsuda (‘898)] configured to supply power to the electric motor; and
a processing circuitry [e.g., 22, 26, etc. in Matsuda (‘898)] configured to perform regeneration control for requesting the electric motor to generate a regenerative torque [e.g., title in Matsuda (‘898)], wherein
the processing circuitry is configured to:
acquire a normal torque corresponding to an accelerator operation amount of the vehicle and a rotation speed of the electric motor e.g., in Matsuda (‘898), FIG. 5];
determine whether a start condition of the regeneration control is satisfied [e.g., in Matsuda (‘898), at S1, YES], the start condition including a condition in which the normal torque is changed [e.g., has already changed, such that the torque condition is “changed”, in Matsuda (‘898)] from a positive value to a negative value [e.g., in Matsuda (‘898), FIG. 5 (e.g., paragraphs [0063], [0069], etc.) and paragraph [0034], “In the present embodiment, the regeneration condition is defined as conditions relating to the vehicle states, which are used to determine whether or not to shift the electric motor 5 to the regenerative running”; see also paragraph [0035], “On the other hand, in a case where the target torque is a negative value, this means that the control unit 22 provides a command to the inverter unit 20 and shifts the electric motor 5 to the regenerative running to allow the electric motor 5 to generate regenerative torque which is equal to target regenerative torque”; see also FIG. 4, where the reference driving torque Trd is obviously positive (to drive) and the reference regenerative torque Trr is obviously negative (to [re]generate energy)];
calculate [e.g., in Matsuda (‘898), from the acceleration operation amount of the accelerator sensor 40; and from the one or more sensors configured to determine the operational state of the accelerator, etc. at paragraph [0038] in Crisp et al. (‘209)] a degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount from a change amount of the accelerator operation amount during a predetermined time [e.g., in Matsuda (‘898) the time in which the change ΔTH in the accelerator operation amount is exhibited in paragraphs [0053], etc., which occurs just before the accelerator operation amount reaches 0[%]; and Crisp et al. (‘209), the time before the control input 108 in FIG. 1], in a period before start of the regeneration control which is a time point when the start condition of the regeneration control is satisfied [e.g., in Matsuda (‘898), paragraph [0053], “the regeneration condition is such that the accelerator operation amount is 0[%] and a change ΔTH in the accelerator operation amount which occurs with time and is just before the accelerator operation amount reaches 0[%], is not a positive value, for example, a negative value”; see also paragraphs [0055], [0075], [0083], [0084], etc.; and the progressive release of the accelerator pedal, as described e.g., at paragraphs [0026], etc. of Crisp et al. (‘209)];
determine a required regenerative torque [e.g., in Matsuda (‘898), the target torque Trc in FIG. 4 provided to the motor control section 25, where Trc = Trr + ΔTrr, where Trr is the reference regenerative torque and ΔTrr is a compensation amount (which acts to increase the regenerative torque in accordance with an increase in the operation amount of the regeneration adjustment lever 32, claim 6 and paragraphs [0014], [0044], etc.), which may be zero; and as shown and described (at 106) in/with respect to FIG. 1 of Crisp et al. (‘209)], which is the regenerative torque required for the electric motor, based on the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount [e.g., in Matsuda (‘898), paragraph [0055], “In addition, the reference regenerative torque [Trr] is set such that the reference regenerative torque increases as a change in an accelerator opening degree, which occurs with time until the accelerator operation amount reaches zero, increases. The change in the accelerator operation amount which occurs with time may be a change in the accelerator operation amount which occurs with time before the regeneration condition is satisfied. Or, in a case where the regeneration condition is satisfied even when the accelerator operation amount is equal to or larger than zero, the change in the accelerator operation amount which occurs with time may be a change in the accelerator operation amount which occurs with time after the regeneration condition is satisfied”; see also paragraph [0075], “In a case where the absolute value of a change in the accelerator operation amount, which occurs with time until the accelerator operation amount reaches a predetermined value or less, is large, specifically, in a case where the accelerator grip is relatively quickly rotated, the regeneration amount may be set larger than in a case where the accelerator grip is relatively slowly rotated”; and paragraph [0026] in Crisp et al. (‘209), whereby, “a slight release of the accelerator may cause a lower level of regenerative braking 106a whilst greater release may cause a higher level of regenerative braking 106a”], wherein determining the required regenerative torque includes increasing the required regenerative torque with lapse of time after the start of the regeneration control [e.g., as described generally at paragraphs [0055], [0075], etc. of Matsuda (‘898); and as particularly shown by the increasing levels of regenerative braking at 106a, 106b in FIG. 1 of Crisp et al. (‘109)], in a period from the start of the regeneration control to a time point when a regeneration reduction condition is satisfied [e.g., “in” a period, in Crisp et al. (‘109) that extends from the initiating control input 102 to either the Time point 1 or the Time point 2 in the examiner’s footnote above, with the Time point 2 being the subsequent application of the accelerator pedal at 116 in FIG. 1], the regeneration reduction condition including a condition in which a regeneration time [e.g., the timeline after 102 in FIG. 1 of Crisp et al. (‘’109)] reaches a set time period [e.g., the time period when the braking force 110 is decreasing (e.g., after the Time point 1 annotated by the examiner in the footnote above) in FIG. 1 of Crisp et al. (‘109) or the time period after the application of the accelerator pedal at 116 (e.g., the Time point 2 annotated by the examiner in the footnote above) in FIG. 1 of Crisp et al. (‘109)]; and
output a control command for causing the electric motor to generate the required regenerative torque to the inverter [e.g., in Matsuda (‘898), paragraph [0058], “Then, the calculation section 24 provides the calculated target torque Trc to the motor control section 25”; see also paragraph [0035], “On the other hand, in a case where the target torque is a negative value, this means that the control unit 22 provides a command to the inverter unit 20 and shifts the electric motor 5 to the regenerative running to allow the electric motor 5 to generate regenerative torque which is equal to target regenerative torque.”];
per claim 12, depending from claim 1, wherein:
the vehicle includes an accelerator operator [e.g., the accelerator grip 30 in Matsuda (‘898)] operated by a user; and
the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount is an index for determining a magnitude of change in a speed and an operation amount of a deceleration operation with respect to the accelerator operator [e.g., as shown and described with respect to FIG. 4 and paragraphs [0006], [0007], [0053], etc. in Matsuda (‘898)];
per claim 13, depending from claim 1, wherein
determining the required regenerative torque based on the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount includes:
determining whether a regeneration reduction condition is satisfied, the regeneration reduction condition including a condition where a regeneration time reaches a set time [e.g., condition(s) being e.g., the release of the brake pedal before the control input 112 in FIG. 1 of Crisp et al. (‘209); or the depression/actuation 114 of the accelerator pedal at control input 116, with the “set time” being e.g., the Time point 1 or the Time point 2 as annotated by the examiner in the footnote above, and/or the time after which the braking force 110 in Crisp et al. (‘209) is decreasing or the time (116) when the accelerator pedal is subsequently applied]; and
decreasing the required regenerative torque when it is being determined that the regeneration reduction condition is satisfied [e.g., as taught when the brake pedal is released before the control input 112 in FIG. 1 of Crisp et al. (‘209); or when the accelerator pedal is depressed/actuated (114) at control input 116 in FIG. 1 of Crisp et al. (‘209)];
per claim 14, depending from claim 13, wherein determining the required regenerative torque based on the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount includes:
maintaining the required regenerative torque at an upper limit value, before it is determined that the regeneration reduction condition is satisfied and when the required regenerative torque reaches the upper limit value [e.g., before the control input 108, or between the control inputs 108 and 112, or between the control inputs 112 and 116, in FIG. 1 of Crisp et al. (‘209), where the regeneration level is maintained at the level 106a or 106b or 106c of regenerative braking, and is maintained at that elevated value as a limit value for a finite period of time, e.g., when the brake pedal is depressed/actuated or after the brake pedal is released and before the accelerator pedal is depressed/actuated; and where the level of e.g., 106a in Crisp et al. (‘209) would obviously have been e.g., the 0% level in FIG. 5 of Matsuda (‘898), as being the reference regenerative torque Trr for the vehicle speed/motor rotation speed in Matsuda (‘898)];
per claim 16, depending from claim 11, wherein a seat of the vehicle is configured to be straddled [e.g., FIG. 1 in Matsuda (‘898)];
per claim 17, depending from claim 11, wherein the vehicle is a motorcycle [e.g., FIG. 1 in Matsuda (‘898)];
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
It is possible that claim 15 would allowable if rewritten (e.g., in a manner in line with footnote 3) 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.
Conclusion
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 David A Testardi whose telephone number is (571)270-3528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, 8:30am - 5:30pm E.T., and Friday, 8:30 am - 12:30 pm E.T.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. 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.
/DAVID A TESTARDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
1 Quoting the MPEP: “New claims, including claims first presented after the application filing date where no claims were submitted on filing, and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification. See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01(i) and § 1302.01 and § 2103. Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner’s amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced.”
2 See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014) which held, "A patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention." See also In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed.Cir.2014)(“[A] claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear,” i.e., “ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention.”) and Ex Parte McAward, Appeal No. 2015-006416 (PTAB, Aug. 25, 2017, Precedential) (“Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim, then, the Office establishes a prima facie case of indefiniteness with a rejection explaining how the metes and bounds of a pending claim are not clear because the claim contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.”)
3 That is, T2/Tr is the ratio of the “strong regenerative torque to the required regenerative torque”, as claimed, and (per equation (3)) Tr will equal T1 when k = 0 and will equal T2 when k = 1, such that i) the ratio T2/Tr = T2/T1 (where T2/T1 is apparently greater than 1 per FIG. 3 and the teachings of published paragraph [0038]) when k = 0 and ii) the ratio T2/Tr = 1 (T2/T2) when k = 1. Perhaps (?) applicant intends, at the end of claim 15, “a ratio of the strong regenerative torque relative to the normal torque in the required regenerative torque becomes larger as the coefficient becomes larger”, but this would not solve the fact that the recited coefficient/ratio has insufficient context within the claim. In order to solve this context problem, it may be sufficient to (as additional corrections in claim 15) add to the claim, i) before “a coefficient” in lines 12ff, the word “utilizing”, and ii) before “a ratio . . .” in line 15, the phrase, “wherein, in the determining of the required regenerative torque based on the degree of decrease in the acceleration operation amount,” if such be applicant’s intent.
4 Corresponds to U.S. Patent 9,387,764 B2.
5 For example only, the examiner below/on the next page annotates, onto FIG. 1 in Crisp et al. (‘109), two time points (e.g., “Time point 1” and “Time point 2”) when regeneration reduction conditions are met, and also the increasing of the required regenerative torque in/within time period(s) from the start of regeneration control (e.g., at 102) to the time point(s) (e.g., to 116, for the annotated later time point 2) in Crisp et al. (‘109):
PNG
media_image1.png
1132
832
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prosecution Insights