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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Application filed on June 20, 2024. Claims 1-26 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 20, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 11-16 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oh et al. (US 20250001877).
In regards to claim 1, Oh discloses of a method (“In a torque control method of a drive system of an electric vehicle, in which torque is generated while evading a backlash band to prevent occurrence of backlash in the drive system, a front wheel torque command is determined as a value of equal to or less than a maximum front wheel torque threshold set to a negative (−) torque value, a rear wheel torque command is determined as a value of equal to or greater than a minimum rear wheel torque threshold set to a positive (+) torque value, and when an absolute value of the maximum front wheel torque threshold, and the minimum rear wheel torque threshold are referred to as offset torques, the offset torques are values varied depending on drive system state information.” (Abstract)) comprising:
generating a torque command for a motor of a vehicle, the torque command generated by a motor controller based at least in part on driver input (“In an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, the controller 20 may include a first controller 21 which is configured to determine requested torque based on a driving input value input by a driver or receives requested torque from other controllers such as an Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS) controller, and generates and outputs the final torque command (i.e., a requested torque command) based on the requested torque, and a second controller 22 which is configured to control operation of the front wheel motor 31 and the rear wheel motor 41 depending on the final torque command input from the first controller 21..” (Para 0083));
generating, by a feedback control scheme of the motor controller, a correction for the torque command (“The torque control method according to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure includes a method of varying offset torques set to evade backlash bands by the controller 20 to effectively prevent backlash shock and deterioration of driving efficiency.” (Para 0172), “For the present purpose, correction by an offset torque may be applied to both the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command. Here, the term “correction” indicates correction of the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command using respective torque thresholds set depending on offset torque values thereof. That is, such correction refers to determination of the front wheel torque command as the value of the maximum front wheel torque threshold, or determination of the rear wheel torque command as the value of the minimum rear wheel torque threshold.” (Para 0179), see also Para 0177);
determining, by the motor controller, whether a lash crossing event is expected to occur within a time period (“The torque control method according to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure includes a method of varying offset torques set to evade backlash bands by the controller 20 to effectively prevent backlash shock and deterioration of driving efficiency.” (Para 0172), “Accordingly, for the time when the torques pass through the backlash bands, the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command are not rapidly decreased by performing torque slope control in which the slopes (i.e., the change rates) of the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command are limited.” (Para 0146), see also Para 0136-0137);
in response to a determination that the lash crossing event is expected to occur within the time period, modifying the torque command with the correction to generate a resulting torque command (“The torque control method according to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure includes a method of varying offset torques set to evade backlash bands by the controller 20 to effectively prevent backlash shock and deterioration of driving efficiency.” (Para 0172), “Accordingly, for the time when the torques pass through the backlash bands, the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command are not rapidly decreased by performing torque slope control in which the slopes (i.e., the change rates) of the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command are limited.” (Para 0146), see also Para 0136-0137); and
controlling the motor using the resulting torque command “For the present purpose, correction by an offset torque may be applied to both the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command. Here, the term “correction” indicates correction of the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command using respective torque thresholds set depending on offset torque values thereof. That is, such correction refers to determination of the front wheel torque command as the value of the maximum front wheel torque threshold, or determination of the rear wheel torque command as the value of the minimum rear wheel torque threshold.” (Para 0179), see also Para 0150).
In regards to claim 2, Oh discloses of the method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the lash crossing event is expected to occur within the time period comprises performing an estimation of motor torque for the time period (“Accordingly, for the time when the torques pass through the backlash bands, the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command are not rapidly decreased by performing torque slope control in which the slopes (i.e., the change rates) of the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command are limited.” (Para 0146), “The present disclosure relates a torque control method of a drive system of an electric vehicle, and to a torque command generation and torque control method in which a torque command may be generated while evading a backlash band, in which backlash may occur, to prevent occurrence of backlash in a drive system, rather than a control method in which problems caused by backlash in a drive system are alleviated.” (Para 0042)).
In regards to claim 3, Oh discloses of the method of claim 2, wherein performing the estimation comprises determining a slope of the motor torque, the slope corresponding to a time when the estimation is performed (“Accordingly, for the time when the torques pass through the backlash bands, the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command are not rapidly decreased by performing torque slope control in which the slopes (i.e., the change rates) of the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command are limited.” (Para 0146), “Accordingly, for the time when the torques pass through the backlash bands, the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command are not rapidly increased by performing torque slope control in which the slopes (i.e., the change rates) of the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command are limited. In the case of the output preferred mode, backlash control is performed so that, in the case of both the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command, torques are slowly changed within the corresponding backlash bands.” (Para 0137)).
In regards to claim 6, Oh discloses of the method of claim 1,wherein occurrence of the lash crossing event corresponds to a change of sign of a motor torque (“As described above, in the output preferred mode, when the driver depresses the accelerator pedal, that is, in an acceleration situation, both the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command are converted from negative (−) torque values into positive (+) torque values, and when such a torque direction is changed, both the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command pass through the corresponding backlash bands.” (Para 0141), “However, when the direction of torque is changed, the direction of transmission of force is changed, backlash occurs, and then, the teeth of the gears are aligned in the reverse direction. While force is continuously transmitted in the same direction after alignment of the teeth of the gears in the reverse direction, engagement between the gears is not released, and thus, problems due to the backlash do not occur.” (Para 0056)).
In regards to claim 7, Oh discloses of the method of claim 1,wherein the correction is generated to attenuate disturbance in the motor (“The torque control method according to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure includes a method of varying offset torques set to evade backlash bands by the controller 20 to effectively prevent backlash shock and deterioration of driving efficiency.” (Para 0172), “Furthermore, vibration, noise and shock due to the backlash may be effectively solved, the turning performance of the vehicle may be improved, torque may be generated without causing backlash problems, and thereby, longitudinal responsiveness of the vehicle may be greatly improved.” (Para 0274)).
In regards to claim 11, Oh discloses of the method of claim 1,wherein the determination indicates that the lash crossing event is expected to occur within the time period, the lash crossing event occurring due to the driver input corresponding to a deceleration of the vehicle (“However, when the direction of torque is changed, the direction of transmission of force is changed, backlash occurs, and then, the teeth of the gears are aligned in the reverse direction. While force is continuously transmitted in the same direction after alignment of the teeth of the gears in the reverse direction, engagement between the gears is not released, and thus, problems due to the backlash do not occur.” (Para 0056), “On the other hand, in the output preferred mode, when the driver suddenly releases the accelerator pedal (i.e., tip-out) in the state in which the driver depresses the accelerator pedal, the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command are converted from the positive (+) torque values into negative (−) torque values. Even when the torque direction is changed reversely, both the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command inevitably pass through the corresponding backlash bands.” (Para 0143)).
In regards to claim 12, Oh discloses of the method of claim 1,wherein the determination indicates that the lash crossing event is expected to occur within the time period, the lash crossing event occurring due to the driver input corresponding to an acceleration of the vehicle (“However, when the direction of torque is changed, the direction of transmission of force is changed, backlash occurs, and then, the teeth of the gears are aligned in the reverse direction. While force is continuously transmitted in the same direction after alignment of the teeth of the gears in the reverse direction, engagement between the gears is not released, and thus, problems due to the backlash do not occur.” (Para 0056), “Thereafter, in the output preferred mode, when the driver depresses the accelerator pedal to accelerate the vehicle, both the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command are converted from the negative (−) torque values into positive (+) torque values. In the output preferred mode, when the torque direction is changed, both the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command inevitably pass through the respective backlash bands.” (Para 0133), see also Para 0136).
In regards to claim 13, Oh discloses of the method of claim 1, wherein modifying the torque command with the correction to generate the resulting torque command comprises summing the torque command and the correction (“Although offsets stated in the following description will be expressed as positive (+) values, the maximum front wheel torque threshold (the negative value) is set to a value obtained by subtracting the corresponding offset torque from 0, and the minimum rear wheel torque threshold (the positive value) is set to a value obtained by adding the corresponding offset torque to 0.” (Para 0170), “For the present purpose, correction by an offset torque may be applied to both the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command. Here, the term “correction” indicates correction of the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command using respective torque thresholds set depending on offset torque values thereof. That is, such correction refers to determination of the front wheel torque command as the value of the maximum front wheel torque threshold, or determination of the rear wheel torque command as the value of the minimum rear wheel torque threshold.” (Para 0179), see also Para 0180-0182).
In regards to claim 14, Oh discloses of the method of claim 1,further comprising disabling modification of the torque command with the correction based on an event recognized by the motor controller (“Furthermore, after passing through the backlash bands, the controller 20 is configured to perform the conventional front and rear wheel torque distribution to satisfy regenerative torque required for coasting deceleration driving, and is configured to determine a front wheel torque command and a rear wheel torque command which may satisfy a regenerative torque command (a torque command before distribution), which is a total torque command during coasting deceleration driving.” (Para 0148), see also Para 0140).
In regards to claim 15, Oh discloses of the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the motor is an electric motor (“Here, the main torque source may be the driving device 41 to drive the vehicle, the driving device 41 in the electric vehicle is mainly a motor, and therefore, the command may be an input torque command which is a motor torque command (a final torque command).” (Para 0192), and “FIG. 3 shows the front wheel motor 31 and the rear wheel motor 41 as the driving devices of an electric vehicle. The front wheel motor 31 and the rear wheel motor 41 are connected to the front wheels 33 and the rear wheels 43, which are driving wheels, through driving elements, such as reducers and differentials 32 and 42, and axles, respectively so that power may be transmitted between the front and rear wheel motors 31 and 41 and the front and rear wheels 33 and 43.” (Para 0077)).
In regards to claim 16, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
In regards to claim 25, Oh discloses of the vehicle of claim 16, further comprising:
a second motor (“In an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, the controller 20 may include a first controller 21 which is configured to determine requested torque based on a driving input value input by a driver or receives requested torque from other controllers such as an Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS) controller, and generates and outputs the final torque command (i.e., a requested torque command) based on the requested torque, and a second controller 22 which is configured to control operation of the front wheel motor 31 and the rear wheel motor 41 depending on the final torque command input from the first controller 21.” (Para 0083), “FIG. 3 shows the front wheel motor 31 and the rear wheel motor 41 as the driving devices of an electric vehicle. The front wheel motor 31 and the rear wheel motor 41 are connected to the front wheels 33 and the rear wheels 43, which are driving wheels, through driving elements, such as reducers and differentials 32 and 42, and axles, respectively so that power may be transmitted between the front and rear wheel motors 31 and 41 and the front and rear wheels 33 and 43.” (Para 0077));
a second motor controller for the second motor (“In an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, the controller 20 may include a first controller 21 which is configured to determine requested torque based on a driving input value input by a driver or receives requested torque from other controllers such as an Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS) controller, and generates and outputs the final torque command (i.e., a requested torque command) based on the requested torque, and a second controller 22 which is configured to control operation of the front wheel motor 31 and the rear wheel motor 41 depending on the final torque command input from the first controller 21.” (Para 0083); and
a vehicle controller configured to control at least the first motor controller and the second motor controller (“In an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, the controller 20 may include a first controller 21 which is configured to determine requested torque based on a driving input value input by a driver or receives requested torque from other controllers such as an Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS) controller, and generates and outputs the final torque command (i.e., a requested torque command) based on the requested torque, and a second controller 22 which is configured to control operation of the front wheel motor 31 and the rear wheel motor 41 depending on the final torque command input from the first controller 21.” (Para 0083), see also Para 0095).
In regards to claim 26, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 15, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8-10, 17, and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Huh et al. (US 10256762; hereinafter Huh; already of record from IDS).
In regards to claim 8, Oh discloses of the method of claim 1.
However, Oh does not specifically disclose of wherein the feedback with control scheme includes a proportional-derivative loop.
Huh, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein the feedback with control scheme includes a proportional-derivative loop (“The virtual damper algorithm 47 applies a first compensator 164 to the torque signal 160 (e.g., high-frequency torque change) to generate a first adjustment signal 166. The first compensator 164 may be one of various types of compensators that include, but is not limited to, a proportional controller, a PI controller, a PD controller, a PID controller, a lead controller, a lag controller, a lead/lag controller, or a nonlinear controller. As may be appreciated, the first compensator 164 may utilize a closed-loop feedback system where previous adjustment signals are utilized to determine future adjustment signals. The format of the first adjustment signal 166 may be based at least in part on the configuration of the modulator 116 that receives the adjustment command 120 described above. For example, the first adjustment signal 166 may be a voltage command, a frequency command, a position (e.g., angle) command, or a speed command, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, the first adjustment signal 166 is the adjustment command 120 provided from the virtual damper algorithm 47 described above with FIGS. 3 and 4.” (Column 12 lines 48-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feedback control scheme, as taught by Oh, to include including a proportional-derivative loop, as taught by Huh, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to utilize a closed-loop feedback system where previous adjustment signals are utilized to determine future adjustment signals (Huh Column 12 lines 48-67).
In regards to claim 9, Oh in view of Huh teaches of the method of claim 8, wherein the correction is continuously generated by the proportional-derivative loop during use of the motor, and whether the torque command is modified using the correction only in response to the determination that the lash crossing event is expected to occur within the time period (“The virtual damper algorithm 47 applies a first compensator 164 to the torque signal 160 (e.g., high-frequency torque change) to generate a first adjustment signal 166. The first compensator 164 may be one of various types of compensators that include, but is not limited to, a proportional controller, a PI controller, a PD controller, a PID controller, a lead controller, a lag controller, a lead/lag controller, or a nonlinear controller. As may be appreciated, the first compensator 164 may utilize a closed-loop feedback system where previous adjustment signals are utilized to determine future adjustment signals. The format of the first adjustment signal 166 may be based at least in part on the configuration of the modulator 116 that receives the adjustment command 120 described above. For example, the first adjustment signal 166 may be a voltage command, a frequency command, a position (e.g., angle) command, or a speed command, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, the first adjustment signal 166 is the adjustment command 120 provided from the virtual damper algorithm 47 described above with FIGS. 3 and 4.” (Huh Column 12 lines 48-67), (“Accordingly, for the time when the torques pass through the backlash bands, the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command are not rapidly decreased by performing torque slope control in which the slopes (i.e., the change rates) of the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command are limited.” (Oh Para 0146), “The present disclosure relates a torque control method of a drive system of an electric vehicle, and to a torque command generation and torque control method in which a torque command may be generated while evading a backlash band, in which backlash may occur, to prevent occurrence of backlash in a drive system, rather than a control method in which problems caused by backlash in a drive system are alleviated.” (Oh Para 0042)).
The motivation of combining Oh and Huh is the same as that recited for claim 8 above.
In regards to claim 10, Oh in view of Huh teaches of the method of claim 8, wherein the correction is generated by the proportional-derivative loop only in response to the determination that the lash crossing event is expected to occur within the time period (“The virtual damper algorithm 47 applies a first compensator 164 to the torque signal 160 (e.g., high-frequency torque change) to generate a first adjustment signal 166. The first compensator 164 may be one of various types of compensators that include, but is not limited to, a proportional controller, a PI controller, a PD controller, a PID controller, a lead controller, a lag controller, a lead/lag controller, or a nonlinear controller. As may be appreciated, the first compensator 164 may utilize a closed-loop feedback system where previous adjustment signals are utilized to determine future adjustment signals. The format of the first adjustment signal 166 may be based at least in part on the configuration of the modulator 116 that receives the adjustment command 120 described above. For example, the first adjustment signal 166 may be a voltage command, a frequency command, a position (e.g., angle) command, or a speed command, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, the first adjustment signal 166 is the adjustment command 120 provided from the virtual damper algorithm 47 described above with FIGS. 3 and 4.” (Huh Column 12 lines 48-67), (“Accordingly, for the time when the torques pass through the backlash bands, the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command are not rapidly decreased by performing torque slope control in which the slopes (i.e., the change rates) of the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command are limited.” (Oh Para 0146), “The present disclosure relates a torque control method of a drive system of an electric vehicle, and to a torque command generation and torque control method in which a torque command may be generated while evading a backlash band, in which backlash may occur, to prevent occurrence of backlash in a drive system, rather than a control method in which problems caused by backlash in a drive system are alleviated.” (Oh Para 0042)).
The motivation of combining Oh and Huh is the same as that recited for claim 8 above.
In regards to claim 17, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 8, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
In regards to claim 19, Oh in view of Huh teaches of the vehicle of claim 17, wherein the first motor controller further includes a bandpass filter before the proportional-derivative loop (“The filtered power signal 158 is divided by the estimated speed 110 of the PMM 30 to determine a torque signal 160 representative of the torque on the shaft of the PMM 30. In some embodiments, the estimated speed 110 is a weighted average of a measured speed of the PMM 30 and a speed set point of the PMM 30. Optionally, the torque signal 160 may be filtered with a secondary filter 162. The secondary filter 162 may have a dynamically determined filter frequency to accommodate varying motor speeds during operation. The secondary filter 162 may be a high pass filter with a higher frequency than filter 152, or the secondary filter 162 may be a band pass filter with a narrower band than the filter 152. It may be appreciated that during steady-state operation of the PMM 30, there may be no high-frequency torque changes that would be identified by torque signals 160 that pass through the filters 152, 162. That is, the torque signals 160 may only pass through the filters 152, 162 during transient events.” (Huh Column 12 lines 30-47) and “The virtual damper algorithm 47 applies a first compensator 164 to the torque signal 160 (e.g., high-frequency torque change) to generate a first adjustment signal 166. The first compensator 164 may be one of various types of compensators that include, but is not limited to, a proportional controller, a PI controller, a PD controller, a PID controller, a lead controller, a lag controller, a lead/lag controller, or a nonlinear controller. As may be appreciated, the first compensator 164 may utilize a closed-loop feedback system where previous adjustment signals are utilized to determine future adjustment signals. The format of the first adjustment signal 166 may be based at least in part on the configuration of the modulator 116 that receives the adjustment command 120 described above. For example, the first adjustment signal 166 may be a voltage command, a frequency command, a position (e.g., angle) command, or a speed command, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, the first adjustment signal 166 is the adjustment command 120 provided from the virtual damper algorithm 47 described above with FIGS. 3 and 4.” (Huh Column 12 lines 48-67), see also Huh Fig 6).
The motivation of combining Oh and Huh is the same as that recited for claim 8 above.
In regards to claim 20, Oh in view of Huh teaches of the vehicle of claim 17, wherein the proportional-derivative loop includes a proportional gain path (“The virtual damper algorithm 47 applies a first compensator 164 to the torque signal 160 (e.g., high-frequency torque change) to generate a first adjustment signal 166. The first compensator 164 may be one of various types of compensators that include, but is not limited to, a proportional controller, a PI controller, a PD controller, a PID controller, a lead controller, a lag controller, a lead/lag controller, or a nonlinear controller. As may be appreciated, the first compensator 164 may utilize a closed-loop feedback system where previous adjustment signals are utilized to determine future adjustment signals. The format of the first adjustment signal 166 may be based at least in part on the configuration of the modulator 116 that receives the adjustment command 120 described above. For example, the first adjustment signal 166 may be a voltage command, a frequency command, a position (e.g., angle) command, or a speed command, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, the first adjustment signal 166 is the adjustment command 120 provided from the virtual damper algorithm 47 described above with FIGS. 3 and 4.” (Huh Column 12 lines 48-67), wherein by definition a PD controller has a proportional gain path).
In regards to claim 21, Oh in view of Huh teaches of the vehicle of claim 17, wherein the proportional-derivative loop includes a derivative path (“The virtual damper algorithm 47 applies a first compensator 164 to the torque signal 160 (e.g., high-frequency torque change) to generate a first adjustment signal 166. The first compensator 164 may be one of various types of compensators that include, but is not limited to, a proportional controller, a PI controller, a PD controller, a PID controller, a lead controller, a lag controller, a lead/lag controller, or a nonlinear controller. As may be appreciated, the first compensator 164 may utilize a closed-loop feedback system where previous adjustment signals are utilized to determine future adjustment signals. The format of the first adjustment signal 166 may be based at least in part on the configuration of the modulator 116 that receives the adjustment command 120 described above. For example, the first adjustment signal 166 may be a voltage command, a frequency command, a position (e.g., angle) command, or a speed command, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, the first adjustment signal 166 is the adjustment command 120 provided from the virtual damper algorithm 47 described above with FIGS. 3 and 4.” (Huh Column 12 lines 48-67), wherein by definition a PD controller has a derivative path).
In regards to claim 22, Oh in view of Huh teaches of the vehicle of claim 21, wherein the derivative path includes a derivative component and a derivative gain component (“The virtual damper algorithm 47 applies a first compensator 164 to the torque signal 160 (e.g., high-frequency torque change) to generate a first adjustment signal 166. The first compensator 164 may be one of various types of compensators that include, but is not limited to, a proportional controller, a PI controller, a PD controller, a PID controller, a lead controller, a lag controller, a lead/lag controller, or a nonlinear controller. As may be appreciated, the first compensator 164 may utilize a closed-loop feedback system where previous adjustment signals are utilized to determine future adjustment signals. The format of the first adjustment signal 166 may be based at least in part on the configuration of the modulator 116 that receives the adjustment command 120 described above. For example, the first adjustment signal 166 may be a voltage command, a frequency command, a position (e.g., angle) command, or a speed command, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, the first adjustment signal 166 is the adjustment command 120 provided from the virtual damper algorithm 47 described above with FIGS. 3 and 4.” (Huh Column 12 lines 48-67), wherein by definition a PD controller has a derivative path with a derivative component and a derivative gain component).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Huh, as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of Orita (US 20140062345).
In regards to claim 18, Oh in view of Huh teaches of the vehicle of claim 17.
However, Oh in view of Huh does not specifically teach of wherein the first motor controller further includes a bandpass filter before the proportional-derivative loop.
Orita, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein the first motor controller further includes a bandpass filter before the proportional-derivative loop (“FIG. 3 is an electric block diagram of the controller 24. The controller 24 basically includes a slip amount calculator 50 and a motor controller (rotation controller) 52. The motor controller 52 includes a torque value calculator 60, operators 62, 64, and 66, a low-pass filter 68, a PD controller 70, and a driver 72. Successive values of the target torque .tau.ref are supplied to the controller 24. The successive values of the target torque .tau.ref are applied from the motor 12 to the angularly movable member 22 from a non-illustrated external control apparatus.” (Para 0041), “The slip amount calculator 50 calculates (estimates) a slip amount S according to equation (4) from the rotational angle .theta.m of the motor 12, which is detected by the displacement encoder 26, the rotational angle .theta.2 of the second pulley 20, which is detected by the displacement encoder 28, and the torque .tau.r, which is detected by the torque sensor 30. The slip amount calculator 50 then performs a low-pass filtering process on the calculated slip amount S, thereby correcting the slip amount S. The rotational angle .theta.1 of the first pulley 16 is determined by dividing the rotational angle .theta.m of the motor 12, which is detected by the displacement encoder 26, by the speed reduction ratio of the coupling mechanism 14.” (Para 0042), see also Fig 3 and Para 0046).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motor controller, as taught by Oh in view of Huh, to include including a band pass filter being before a proportional-derivative loop, as taught by Orita, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to correct the slipping amount caused by the backlash (Orita Para 0042 and 0040).
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Jones (US 20250376045).
In regards to claim 23, Oh discloses of the vehicle of claim 16, wherein the first motor controller includes a lash controller wherein the feedback control scheme is included in the lash controller (“Furthermore, the controller 20 may be configured to determine whether or not backlash occurs by comparing the determined backlash speed to a set backlash determination threshold, and may be configured to generate a backlash flag indicating whether or not backlash occurs depending on a result of determination.” (Para 0230), “Therefore, while the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command are increased and pass through the corresponding backlash bands, the controller 20 is configured to determine the front wheel torque command and the rear wheel torque command as values changed slowly depending on the maximum allowable change rates set to the small values.” (Para 0139).
However, Oh does not specifically disclose of wherein the vehicle further comprises a first watchdog component configured to monitor the lash controller.
Jones, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of the vehicle further comprises a first watchdog component configured to monitor the lash controller (“The DDCP may also enter the SAFE state 122 if a pre-defined time limit has been breached since the last pSTATUS frame has been sent by the micro-controller. By this means, an independent watchdog function is performed and acts as a countermeasure in the event that the micro-controller is locked up or otherwise malfunctioning.” (Para 0108), see also Para 0105).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lash controller , as taught by Oh, to include including watchdog component to monitor the lash controller, as taught by Jones, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to act as a countermeasure if the controller is locked up or malfunctioning (Jones Para 0105).
In regards to claim 24, Oh in view of Jones of the vehicle of claim 23, further comprising a second watchdog component configured to monitor the first motor controller (“The DDCP may also enter the SAFE state 122 if a pre-defined time limit has been breached since the last pSTATUS frame has been sent by the micro-controller. By this means, an independent watchdog function is performed and acts as a countermeasure in the event that the micro-controller is locked up or otherwise malfunctioning.” (Jones Para 0108), see also Jones Para 0105).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 4, the closest prior art of record is Oh et al. (US 20250001877) in view of Shen et al. (US 20200391598; hereinafter Shen). Oh in view of Shen teaches of the method of claim 3. However, Oh in view of Shen does not fully teach of wherein performing the estimation further comprises multiplying the slope by a duration of a prediction outlook. It is noted that the prior art teaches of a slope of the motor torque and of limiting the slope when a backlash is estimated to take place during a time period. However, there is no teaching of multiplying the slope by a duration of a prediction outlook, when combined with the remaining claim limitations. Therefore the claim contains allowable subject matter.
In regards to claim 5, the claim is dependent upon a claim containing allowable subject matter, and therefore contains allowable subject matter as well.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Deller et al. (US 20060036402) discloses of using a watchdog software to determine if there is an error with a controller.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle J Kingsland whose telephone number is (571)272-3268. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-4:30.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-9855. 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.
/KYLE J KINGSLAND/ Examiner, Art Unit 3663