DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action drafted on the merits of the subject application. Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 1-18 are rejected as cited below.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “…determine, using the virtual model to, a set of …” should be “determine, using the virtual model . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “…determining, by the external computing system and using the virtual model to, a set of …” should be “determining, by the external computing system and using the virtual model . Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner Note Regarding 35 USC § 101
Examiner has analyzed the claims under the lens of 35 USC 101 and found that both independent claims (1 and 10) contain at least one judicial exception (e.g. “ …determining … a set of optimized parameters …”). However, Examiner finds that the controlling of the electric motor based on the determined optimized parameters integrates the judicial exception into the practical application of reducing undesirable driveline vibrations.
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 7-8 and 16-17 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.
Regarding claim 7:
It is unclear how the damping ratio of the driveline is obtained for use in determining the gain value (PAEMD). The specification does not describe how the damping ratio is calculated, nor would a person skilled in the art understand how to calculate this value. Additionally, the equation listed in the claim is devoid of any units of measure. The scope of the claim is unclear, and thus indefinite.
Regarding claim 8:
Claim 8 describes the calculation of the damping ratio of the driveline by using a stiffness of the driveline (KDRIVELINE), however the disclosure is devoid of any chart, method, or equation to relate the KDRIVELINE value to the damping ratio of the driveline. One of ordinary skill in the art would not have the requisite information for calculating the damping ratio value by using the KDRIVELINE -value. The scope of the claim is unclear, and thus indefinite.
Claim 16 recites a method performed by the system detailed in claim 7, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 17 recites a method performed by the system in claim 8, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 9-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair et al. (US Pat. 11,707,987 B1; hereafter Nair) in view of Shinohara et al. (US Pub. 2023/0188067 A1; hereafter Shinohara).
Regarding claim 1, Nair teaches:
An active electric motor damping (AEMD) calibration and control system for an electrified vehicle, the AEMD calibration and control system comprising:
an external computing system (a cloud server 140 ) that is separate from the electrified vehicle (EV 110) and is configured to:
execute a virtual model to simulate operation of the electrified vehicle in a plurality of different operating modes (At least col 1, line 33: “creating a simulation model associating a plurality of target behaviors of a target vehicle with the EV; obtaining a plurality of vehicle parameters of the EV to generate a set of EV control parameters…”), wherein the electrified vehicle includes an electrified powertrain comprising an electric motor configured to generate drive torque that is transferred to a driveline (At least col 2, line 5: “the EV 110 may include a battery pack for providing power to the EV 110, a set of wheels, at least one electric motor couple to the battery pack for providing driving power to the set of wheels to drive the EV 110 …”), and
determine, using the virtual model to, a set of optimized parameters, for each of the plurality of different operating modes of the electrified vehicle, for AEMD control of the electric motor (At least col 9, line 58: “The simulator 402 may include any appropriate mathematical model or algorithm to generate certain simulation output parameters based on input parameters.” and at least col 19, line 58: “at S608, the simulation model is used to provide a set of simulated target-vehicle controls based on the set of EV control parameters and the plurality of configuration parameters of the target vehicle. More specifically, the set of EV control parameters and the plurality of configuration parameters of the target vehicle may be provided to the simulator 402 as input parameters such that the simulator 402 may generate the set of simulated target-vehicle controls that reflect the target behavior of the target vehicle.”).
While Nair teaches a control system (motor controller 218), it does not explicitly teach that the control system controls the electric motor to perform AEMD control.
However, Shinohara, within the same field of endeavor, teaches:
a control system (controller 6) of the electrified vehicle, the control system being configured to receive, from the external computing system, the sets of optimized parameters and control the electric motor based on the sets of optimized parameters to perform AEMD control (At least ¶ [0091] “a torque instruction distribution unit 6a for distributing torque instructions to the front and rear motors, the torque instruction distribution unit 6a being included in the controller 6, outputs the first torque instruction value to be given to the front wheel electric motor 1F, which is a front motor, to the front wheel electric motor 1F, which is a front-side control target, via the first subtractor 50a. A front-side damping control unit 500F (which is equivalent in configuration to the damping control unit 500 and is a front-side control unit, and is therefore referred to as front-side damping control unit 500F) outputs a front motor speed from the front-side control target and the first torque instruction value to the front motor 1F. The front-side damping control unit 500F then outputs a feedback signal to the first subtractor 50a.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nair with Shinohara. This modification would have been obvious as both Nair and Shinohara contain subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle control) and Nair (col 8, line 47) notes that “… and to safely control the EV 110 to realize the certain vehicle behaviors, actions, and/or characteristics of the target vehicle ...”. Introducing the Shinohara control method may help increase user safety. Changes in electric motor speed may create unwanted vibrations resulting from mismatched wheel and motor speed. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that unwanted vibrations/disturbances may cause a user to error when driving the vehicle, react impulsively, and cause an accident. The Shinohara control method may help prevent the unwanted vibrations, thus increasing user safety.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Nair and Shinohara teaches the AEMD calibration and control system of claim 1. Shinohara further teaches wherein the AEMD control involves determining a measured speed of the electric motor (At least ¶ [0012] “a first high-pass filter that receives input of a motor speed signal indicating a speed of the electric motor…”), passing the measured speed through a low-pass filter and then through a high-pass filter to obtain a filtered speed (At least ¶ [0049] “a motor speed signal passes through the first high-pass filter 50f, which yields a first signal…” and ¶ [0050] “a motor speed deviation signal indicating a deviation between the first signal and the second signal (first signal-second signal) passes through the low-pass filter 50g, where a low-frequency component is obtained to yield a third signal.”), and applying a gain value to the filtered speed to obtain an AEMD torque that is summed with a commanded motor torque (At least ¶ [0064] “The second amplifier 50m amplifies an output value from the low-pass filter 50g at a gain adjusted by the gain adjusting unit 50n, and outputs the amplified output value to the second adder 50h. The gain adjusting unit 50n adjusts respective gains of the first amplifier 50k and the second amplifier 50m, according to an output value from the low-pass filter 50g.”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Nair and Shinohara teaches the AEMD calibration and control system of claim 2. Shinohara further teaches wherein the set of optimized parameters includes (i) a cutoff frequency of the low-pass filter (At least ¶ [0047] “ωi and ω4 denote cutoff angular frequencies, which determine respective characteristics of the filters 50d, 50f, 50g, and 50j.” Filter 50g is designated as a low-pass filter.), (ii) a cutoff frequency of the high-pass filter (At least ¶ [0047] “ωi and ω4 denote cutoff angular frequencies, which determine respective characteristics of the filters 50d, 50f, 50g, and 50j.” Filter 50d is designated as a high-pass filter.), and (iii) the gain value (At least ¶ [0068] “a gain 1 of first amplifier 50k and a gain 2 …”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Nair and Shinohara teaches the AEMD calibration and control system of claim 3. Nair further teaches wherein the set of optimized parameters further includes non-constant or variable AEMD torque margins for corresponding varying operating conditions of the electrified vehicle (At least col 11, line 32: “The plurality of vehicle parameters may include torque parameters” and col 12, line 41: “the torque increases over time, and then drops sharply when the gear shifting occurs.” Torque increasing over time and then dropping is analogous to a variable torque margin.).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Nair and Shinohara teaches the AEMD calibration and control system of claim 3. Shinohara further teaches wherein the external computing system is configured to determine the cutoff frequencies of the low-pass and high-pass filters based on a three cycle average of a time-series signal of motor speed versus time (At least ¶ [0047] “ωi and ω4 denote cutoff angular frequencies, which determine respective characteristics of the filters 50d, 50f, 50g, and 50j. In the first embodiment, at least the characteristics H1(s) and the characteristics H2(s) are equivalent to each other. J denotes motor-side rotational inertia that is calculated with motor rotational inertia, wheel rotational inertia, vehicle weight, etc., being taken into consideration.”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Nair and Shinohara teaches the AEMD calibration and control system of claim 5. Shinohara further teaches wherein the external computing system is configured to determine the gain value by approximating the virtual model as a simplified two degree-of-freedom (DOF) two inertia, spring system (At least ¶ [0068] “when an output value from the low-pass filter 50g becomes larger than a preset rising threshold, the gain adjusting unit 50n reduces a gain 1 of first amplifier 50k and a gain 2 of the second amplifier 50m.”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Nair and Shinohara teaches the AEMD calibration and control system of claim 1. Nair further teaches wherein the electric motor is associated with a rear axle of the driveline, and wherein the electrified powertrain further comprises another electric motor associated with a front axle of the driveline (At least col 5, line 17: “One electric motor 222 drives two front wheels 240 and another electric motor 222 drives two rear wheels 240.”).
Claims 10-15 and 18 describe a method which is performed by the system described in claims 1-6, and 9, respectively, thus are rejected on the same basis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8, and 16-17 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.
-AND-
The 35 USC 112 rejections cited above are overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan E Reinert whose telephone number is (571)272-1260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 7AM - 5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668