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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the invention of Group I in the reply filed on 22 January 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that although the different Groups are patentably distinct, the search required for examination of all claims would not be unduly burdensome on the Examiner, considering that the claim 9 and the elected claims clearly are linked with each other and relate to a single general invention. This is not found persuasive because the standard for determining propriety of restriction is not whether the claims are “linked with each other”, but whether the inventions are independent and/or distinct, each from the other, and whether there is a serious search/examination burden, wherein subcombinations are distinct (according to the MPEP) if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable, all of which the examiner has shown in the previous Office action at paragraphs 2 to 5. Applicant further indicates, in the argument against the restriction, that the claims “relate to a single general invention”, but has previously admitted in the same paragraph that “the different Groups are patentably distinct”. It is unclear to the examiner how (or why) the restricted claims would be considered both patentably distinct and related to the same general invention, or how such reasoning might bear on the propriety of restriction. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 9 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 22 January 2026.
Claim (Specification) Objections
Claims 6 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 6, line 10, and in claim 8, lines 8ff, “when being determined” should apparently read, “when it is being determined”, for grammatical correctness. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 to 8, 10, and 11 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 1, lines 6ff, and in claim 11, lines 10ff, “acquir[ing] a degree of decrease in an accelerator operation amount with lapse of time before start of the regeneration control” is indefinite and not reasonably certain1 from the teachings of the specification and in the claim context because i) it is unclear what is intended to be signified/modified by the clause “with lapse of time” (e.g., is it the acquiring that occurs with lapse of time or the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount that occurs with lapse of time?) and what “with lapse of time” means, ii) it is unclear whether applicant is intending to claim a degree of decrease of the accelerator operation amount or a rate (a degree per lapse of time) of decrease in the accelerator operation amount, in the claim phrase, and iii) it is unclear what “before start of the regeneration control” means or how the claimed “start” might be defined, since e.g., the whole method (including the first determining of the start condition and the acquiring) is apparently part of the “regeneration control” per the wording of claim 1, and nothing in the claim clarifies or requires or even defines any (e.g., other/different/actual) “regeneration control” that might possibly occur (or be limited to occurring) only subsequent to the acquiring, e.g., in order to make reasonably certain what the acquiring being performed “before start of regeneration control” might possibly mean/cover/encompass.
In claim 2, lines 3ff, “a predetermined period from the start of the regeneration control” is indefinite and not reasonably certain, since i) it is unclear from when the period might possibly “start” or be defined, and ii) what is meant by the start of “regeneration control”.
In claim 4, lines 3ff, “the lapse of time from the start of the regeneration control” is indefinite, since the previous recitation of lapse of time was before start of the regenerative control.
In claim 4, lines 4ff, “[a time point] when a predetermined condition is satisfied” is vague and indefinite, with indeterminate metes and bounds (e.g., near infinite “predetermined condition[s]” are always satisfied somewhere in the world, such as power being provided to processing circuitry, the vehicle moving, the vehicle not moving, etc.), so to claim a time point when any “predetermined condition” is satisfied is fully indefinite, and does not apparently limit the claim in any clear way.
In claim 5, lines 3ff, “[increasing, including increasing an increase amount per unit time, the required regenerative torque] as the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount increases” is indefinite and unclear, since the degree of decrease (in the accelerator operation amount) is apparently only acquired once, at S12 in FIG. 5, and it is therefore unclear how the required regenerative torque might be said to increase, including increasing the increase amount per unit time, “as” the degree of decrease (of the accelerator operation amount) increases. For example, while FIG. 5 shows the increase coefficient k increasing with time, such a depicted increase is apparently independent of any increase in the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount.
In claim 6, lines 4ff, “increasing the required regenerative torque with the lapse of time based on the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount” is indefinite and unclear, since “the lapse of time” (previously defined in claim 1) is apparently (?) a time lapse occurring during step S12 in FIG. 5, and not during the regeneration time t (e.g., in step S16) during which the required regenerative torque Tr might increase.
In claim 8, lines 4ff, “changing the required regenerative torque with the lapse of time based on the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount” is indefinite and unclear, since “the lapse of time” (previously defined in claim 1) is apparently (?) a time lapse occurring during step S12 in FIG. 5, and not the regeneration time t (e.g., in step S16) during which the required regenerative torque Tr might be changed.
In claim 8, line 8, “reducing the required regenerative torque with the lapse of time” is indefinite and unclear, since “the lapse of time” (previously defined in claim 1) is apparently (?) a time lapse occurring during step S12 in FIG. 5, and not the regeneration time t (e.g., in step S16) during which the required regenerative torque Tr might be reduced.
In claim 8, lines 9ff, “after or while changing the required regenerative torque based on the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount” because changing of changing of the regenerative torque has already been recited in lines 4ff of the claim, and it is therefore unclear whether the “changing” referred to in lines 9ff is the same as, different from, permissively the same as, permissively different from, necessarily the same as, necessarily different from, etc. the changing of the required regenerative torque in lines 4ff.
In claim 11, line 1, “straddle-type vehicle” is indefinite (e.g., see MPEP 2173.05(b), III., E.), with “straddle [] vehicle” also apparently being unclear (and apparently not defined) from the teachings of the specification.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 to 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong I:
Claim(s) 1 to 8, and 10, while (each) reciting a statutory category of invention defined in 35 U.S.C. 101 (a useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), is/are directed to an abstract idea, which is a judicial exception, the recited abstract idea being that of determining whether a start condition of regeneration control for requesting the electric motor to generate a regenerative torque is satisfied, acquiring a degree of decrease in an accelerator operation amount with lapse of time before start of the regeneration control, and 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, as well as the other mental determining steps in the dependent claims and the mental/mathematical increasing, maintaining, or decreasing/reducing values of torque in the dependent claims e.g., by performing a regeneration control method for a vehicle, the regeneration control method being executed in a processing circuitry of the vehicle including an electric motor as a drive source, the regeneration control method comprising: determining whether a start condition of regeneration control for requesting the electric motor to generate a regenerative torque is satisfied; acquiring a degree of decrease in an accelerator operation amount with lapse of time before start of the regeneration control; and 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 based on the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount is performed for a predetermined period from the start of the regeneration control; wherein determining the required regenerative torque based on the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount includes increasing the required regenerative torque as the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount increases; wherein determining the required regenerative torque based on the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount includes increasing the required regenerative torque with the lapse of time from the start of the regeneration control to a time point when a predetermined condition is satisfied; wherein increasing the required regenerative torque includes increasing an increase amount per unit time in the required regenerative torque as the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount increases; wherein determining the required regenerative torque based on the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount includes: increasing the required regenerative torque with the lapse of time based on the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount; maintaining the required regenerative torque at a predetermined upper limit value when the required regenerative torque reaches the upper limit value; determining whether a predetermined regeneration reduction condition is satisfied; and decreasing the required regenerative torque when being determined that the regeneration reduction condition is satisfied; wherein the upper limit value changes in accordance with a rotation speed of the electric motor; wherein determining the required regenerative torque based on the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount includes: changing the required regenerative torque with the lapse of time based on the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount; determining whether a predetermined regeneration reduction condition is satisfied; and reducing the regenerative torque with the lapse of time when being determined that the regeneration reduction condition is satisfied, after or while changing the required regenerative torque based on the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount; a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing the processing circuitry to execute the regeneration control method for the vehicle.
This abstract idea falls within the grouping(s) of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, distilled from case law, because it could be practically performed in the human mind as a mental process and also includes mathematical concepts (e.g., increasing, decreasing/reducing, etc. values of determined quantities).
Step 2A, Prong II and Step 2B:
Additionally, applying a preponderance of the evidence standard, the abstract idea is not integrated (e.g., at Step 2A, Prong II) by the recitation of additional elements/limitations into a practical application (using the considerations set forth in MPEP §§ 2106.04(a)-(h)) because merely using a computer (the processing circuitry, the medium) as a tool to perform an abstract idea or adding the words "apply it" is not integrating the idea into a practical application of the idea, and e.g., looking at the claim as a whole and considering any additional elements/limitations individually and in combination, no (additional) particular machine, transformation, improvement to the functioning of a computer or an existing technological process or technical field, or meaningful application of the idea, beyond generally linking the idea to a technological environment (e.g., "implementation via computers", Alice) or adding insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., acquiring the degree of decrease in the accelerator operation amount), is recited in or encompassed by the claims.
Moreover, applying a preponderance of the evidence standard, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements/limitations/steps (e.g., at Step 2B) that are, individually or in ordered combination, sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements/limitations/steps are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., a vehicle including an electric motor as a preamble limitation, regeneration control, etc.) so as to not favor eligibility (MPEP § 2106.05(d)) and/or are used e.g., for data/information gathering only or for other activities that were well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the industry, for example as indicated in applicant's specification at published paragraph [0003], and moreover, the generically recited computer elements (e.g., a processor circuitry, a medium, etc.; see e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 115 USPQ2d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362; Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-1355, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.”); Mobile Acuity, Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd., Case No. 22-2216 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 2024); see also the 2019 PEG Advanced Module at pages 89, 145, etc.) do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because their use would be routine (and conventional) in any computer implementation of the idea.
Moreover, limiting or linking the use of the idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., to control of/in a vehicle, as a preamble limitation, including an electric motor as a conventional drive source) is not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (Flook[2]) e.g., because the preemptive effect of the claims on the idea within the field of use would be broad.
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 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda3 (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], the regeneration control method being executed in a processing circuitry [e.g., 22] of the vehicle including an electric motor [e.g., 5] as a drive source, the regeneration control method comprising:
determining whether a start condition of regeneration control for requesting the electric motor to generate a regenerative torque is satisfied [e.g., at S1, YES];
acquiring [e.g., from the accelerator sensor 40] a degree of decrease in an accelerator operation amount with lapse of time before start of the regeneration control [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], etc.]; and
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.”];
While the claim language is unclear, it may be alleged that Matsuda et al. (‘898) does not reveal a degree of decrease in an accelerator operation amount with lapse of time before start of the regeneration control, or the reduction/decrease in the required regenerative torque and other features of the dependent claims, 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, 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 when a brake pedal is released (as shown prior to 112) and when a subsequent acceleration event 114 (representing an increase in the accelerator pedal depression/actuation, as shown after 116).
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 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], the regeneration control method being executed in a processing circuitry [e.g., in Matsuda (‘898), 22] of the vehicle including an electric motor [e.g., in Matsuda (‘898), 5] as a drive source, the regeneration control method comprising:
determining whether a start condition of regeneration control for requesting the electric motor to generate a regenerative torque is satisfied [e.g., in Matsuda (‘898), at S1, YES];
acquiring [e.g., in Matsuda (‘898), from 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 an accelerator operation amount with lapse of time before start of the regeneration control [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], etc.; and the progressive release of the accelerator pedal, as described e.g., at paragraphs [0026], etc. of Crisp et al. (‘209)]; and
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”];
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 as 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 4, 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 the lapse of time from the start of the regeneration control to a time point when a predetermined condition is satisfied [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)];
per claim 5, depending from claim 4, wherein
increasing the required regenerative torque includes increasing an increase amount per unit time in the required regenerative torque as 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 the lapse of time 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 a predetermined 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 predetermined regeneration reduction condition is satisfied [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]; and
decreasing the required regenerative torque when 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 a 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:
changing the required regenerative torque with the lapse of time 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.];
determining whether a predetermined 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)] when 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 changing 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 the processing circuitry to execute the regeneration control method for the vehicle according to claim 1;
per claim 11, a straddle-type vehicle [e.g., FIG. 1 in Matsuda (‘898)] comprising:
an accelerator operator [e.g., the accelerator grip 30 in Matsuda (‘898)] 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)] serving as a drive source for driving the driving wheel; and
a processing circuitry [e.g., 22, 26, etc. in Matsuda (‘898)] configured to control a regenerative torque of the electric motor for braking the driving wheel [e.g., title in Matsuda (‘898)], wherein
the processing circuitry is configured to:
determine whether a start condition of regeneration control for requesting the electric motor to generate the regenerative torque is satisfied [e.g., in Matsuda (‘898), at S1, YES];
acquire [e.g., in Matsuda (‘898), from 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 an accelerator operation amount with lapse of time before start of the regeneration control [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], etc.; and the progressive release of the accelerator pedal, as described e.g., at paragraphs [0026], etc. of Crisp et al. (‘209)]; and
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”];
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For example only, Taga et al. (5,915,801) teaches in conjunction with FIG. 5 that, when the accelerator pedal is released, the target regenerative braking torque increases with increases in accelerator pedal releasing speed, as reproduced below/on the next page by the examiner:
PNG
media_image1.png
436
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
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.
[This part of the page intentionally left blank.]
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 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.”)
2 See e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use . . . did not make the concept patentable.")
3 Corresponds to U.S. Patent 9,387,764 B2.