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 Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on May 13, 2026. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant's Amendments dated May 13, 2026, Examiner withdraws the previous prior art rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 13, 2026 have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejections.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 20230339489 (hereinafter, "Roques"; previously of record), in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20190092188 (hereinafter, "Plianos"; previously of record), and in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 20160339904 (hereinafter, "Nuber"; newly of record).
Regarding claim 1, Roques discloses a method of operating a vehicle, comprising:
receiving, at a processor of the vehicle (Fig. 2, #208), a raw total axle torque request for the vehicle (“receiving a total torque request for total driven wheel torque” (para 0029)), the vehicle including a primary axle (Fig. 2, #222a), one or more electric motors on the primary axle (Fig. 2, #216), an engine coupled to the primary axle (Fig. 2, #202), a secondary axle (Fig. 2, #224a), and an additional electric motor on the secondary axle (Fig. 2, #212);
controlling the primary axle using the primary axle torque target at the one or more electric motors and the engine (“controlling torque output of a first torque source of the vehicle and of a second torque source of the vehicle, wherein the first torque source is configured to provide drive torque to a first axle of the vehicle for generating first axle wheel torque” (para 0029)); and
controlling the secondary axle using the secondary axle torque target at the additional electric motor (“controlling torque output of a first torque source of the vehicle and of a second torque source of the vehicle,..., wherein the second torque source is configured to provide drive torque to a second axle of the vehicle for generating second axle wheel torque” (para 0029)).
However, Roques does not explicitly teach
performing an optimization at the processor to determine a primary axle torque target and a secondary axle torque target that meets the raw total axle torque request while locating a value representative of a minimum of an objective cost function for the vehicle, wherein the optimization includes a first iteration loop through propulsion range states of the vehicle within which is a second iteration loop through a range of possible axle torque splits.
Plianos, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
performing an optimization at the processor to determine a primary axle torque target and a secondary axle torque target that meets the raw total axle torque request (“A loop procedure is initiated (block 102) to determine the optimum torque split between the first and second propulsion units 5, 6 to meet the total requested torque TQ” (para 0099)) while locating a value representative of a minimum of an objective cost function for the vehicle (“The total power cost TPC provides an indication of the overall efficiency of the first and second propulsion units 5, 6. The torque split module 23 identifies when the total power cost TPC is at a minimum and determines the corresponding torque split between the first and second propulsion units 5, 6” (para 0098)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Roques with the teachings of Plianos in order to identify a minimum total power cost (TPC) and determine the optimum torque split between the first and second propulsion units to meet the total requested torque; see Plianos at least at [0099],
Nuber, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the optimization includes a first iteration loop through propulsion range states of the vehicle (Fig. 2, #S2, “with steps S2 to S5, a mode of operation, ideal in respect of the optimization criteria, with an ideal power distribution is selected within the scope of a multi-stage process from the set of all modes of operation possible using the system” (para 0068), and “Optionally, the number of possible modes of operation 1 b can thus be restricted further in step S22 due to predetermined restriction rules such that ultimately a first selection of possible modes of operation 1 c is fed to the subsequent two-stage selection method of steps S3 to S5” (para 0075), wherein “propulsion range states” is throughout the reference is the “the number of possible modes of operation” which are restricted or selected based on the optimization criteria) within which is a second iteration loop through a range of possible axle torque splits (Fig. 2, #S4-S5, “possible power distributions in the drivetrain are established initially for each one of the modes of operation 1 c remaining after the reduction of the modes of operation” (para 0076), “Then, the ideal E-machine torque for each mode of operation is calculated in step S4” (para 0077), and “Then, the ideal mode of operation is determined in step S5 on the basis of the results from step S4” (para 0100)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Roques with the teachings of Nuber in order to select a mode of operation, ideal for the current instant of operation in respect of predetermined target criteria, with a corresponding ideal power distribution in the drivetrain from a predetermined set of possible modes of operation of the hybridized drivetrain.; see Nuber at least at [0015].
Regarding claim 2, Roques discloses the method of claim 1. Additionally, Roques discloses wherein performing the optimization further generates a secondary axle reserved power (“If the primary torque source is off-target, block 420 enables the secondary torque source to provide compensation torque” (para 0145) and “Compensation torque refers to requesting additional positive or negative torque from the on-target torque source” (para 0146)), further comprising using the secondary axle reserved power to determine an operating point of the engine and the one or more electric motors coupled to the primary axle and to generate the primary axle torque target (“the control system may be configured to: control the modification of at least one of the torque requests to enable an increased rate of torque change from the one of the first and second torque sources that satisfies its corresponding torque request. This enables the torque source which is on-target (typically the more responsive of the two) to momentarily compensate for the shortcomings of the off-target torque source that cannot respond quickly enough” (para 0012)).
Regarding claim 3, Roques discloses the method of claim 2. However, Roques does not explicitly teach further comprising:
determining a shaped total axle torque request from the primary axle torque target and the secondary axle torque target;
determining a desired primary axle torque from the primary axle torque target, the secondary axle torque target and the shaped total axle torque request;
determining a desired secondary axle torque from the primary axle torque target, the secondary axle torque target and the shaped total axle torque request;
determining a primary axle torque command and a primary axle power used from the desired primary axle torque and the secondary axle reserved power;
determining a secondary axle torque command from the primary axle torque command, the primary axle power used and the desired secondary axle torque;
controlling the primary axle using the primary axle torque command; and
controlling the secondary axle using the secondary axle torque command.
Plianos, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
further comprising:
determining a shaped total axle torque request from the primary axle torque target and the secondary axle torque target (“The front and rear torque demand signals DS1, DS2 are output to the torque shaping module 24. The torque shaping module 24 is configured to re-profile the front and rear torque demand signals DS1, DS2 and to generate front and rear final torque demand signals DSF1, DSF2 which are output to the respective first and second inverters 8, 11” (para 0097));
determining a desired primary axle torque from the primary axle torque target, the secondary axle torque target and the shaped total axle torque request (Fig. 2, #DS1 and “The front and rear torque demand signals DS1, DS2 are output to the torque shaping module 24. The torque shaping module 24 is configured to re-profile the front and rear torque demand signals DS1, DS2 and to generate front and rear final torque demand signals DSF1, DSF2 which are output to the respective first and second inverters 8, 11” (para 0097));
determining a desired secondary axle torque from the primary axle torque target, the secondary axle torque target and the shaped total axle torque request (Fig. 2, #DS2 and “The front and rear torque demand signals DS1, DS2 are output to the torque shaping module 24. The torque shaping module 24 is configured to re-profile the front and rear torque demand signals DS1, DS2 and to generate front and rear final torque demand signals DSF1, DSF2 which are output to the respective first and second inverters 8, 11” (para 0097));
determining a primary axle torque command and a primary axle power used from the desired primary axle torque and the secondary axle reserved power (Fig. 2, #DSF1 and “The front and rear torque demand signals DS1, DS2 are output to the torque shaping module 24. The torque shaping module 24 is configured to re-profile the front and rear torque demand signals DS1, DS2 and to generate front and rear final torque demand signals DSF1, DSF2 which are output to the respective first and second inverters 8, 11” (para 0097));
determining a secondary axle torque command from the primary axle torque command, the primary axle power used and the desired secondary axle torque (Fig. 2, #DSF2 and “The front and rear torque demand signals DS1, DS2 are output to the torque shaping module 24. The torque shaping module 24 is configured to re-profile the front and rear torque demand signals DS1, DS2 and to generate front and rear final torque demand signals DSF1, DSF2 which are output to the respective first and second inverters 8, 11” (para 0097));
controlling the primary axle using the primary axle torque command; and controlling the secondary axle using the secondary axle torque command (Fig. 2, #DSF1 and #DSF2, and “The first and second inverters 8, 11 control operation of the first and second electric machines 7, 10 in dependence on said front and rear final torque demand signals DSF1, DSF2” (para 0097)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Roques with the teachings of Plianos in order to control operation of the first and second electric machines based on front and rear final torque demand signals; see Plianos at least at [0097].
Regarding claim 4, Roques discloses the method of claim 3. Additionally, Roques discloses …determining the shaped total axle torque request at a subsequent time using the total axle torque command (“The drivability torque shaping determining means 506 comprises a function configured to shape (e.g. smooth) the received total torque request to produce a drivability-shaped total torque request” (para 0088)).
However, Roques does not explicitly teach
further comprising determining a total axle torque command from the primary axle torque command and the secondary axle torque command and…
Plianos, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
further comprising determining a total axle torque command from the primary axle torque command and the secondary axle torque command and… (Fig. 2, #DSF1 and #DSF2, and “The aggregate of the front and rear torques TQ1, TQ2 is at least substantially equal to a total requested torque TQ” (para 0097)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Roques with the teachings of Plianos such that the aggregate of the front and rear torques TQ1, TQ2 is at least substantially equal to a total requested torque TQ; see Plianos at least at [0097].
Regarding claim 5, Roques discloses the method of claim 3. Additionally, Roques discloses further comprising filling the raw total axle torque request using the secondary axle torque command when the primary axle torque command does not meet the desired primary axle torque (“If the primary torque source is off-target, block 420 enables the secondary torque source to provide compensation torque. If the secondary torque source is off-target, block 424 enables the primary torque source to provide compensation torque” (para 0145) and “Compensation torque refers to requesting additional positive or negative torque from the on-target torque source” (para 0146)).
Regarding claim 6, Roques discloses the method of claim 1. Additionally, Roques discloses further comprising adjusting an axle torque split between the primary axle and the secondary axle to control a sum of the primary axle torque target and the secondary axle torque target (“determine the torque requests so that a sum of the first torque request and the second torque request adds up to the drivability-shaped total torque request” (para 0091) and “The ratio between the first torque request and the second torque request may be fixed or variable…In some examples, the required torque split may vary dynamically. The required torque split may depend on variables such as: a driving dynamics mode; a terrain mode and/or a terrain or surface type; vehicle speed; vehicle steering; lateral acceleration; and/or longitudinal acceleration; and/or other factors” (para 0092)).
Regarding claim 7, Roques discloses the method of claim 1. Additionally, Roques discloses further comprising maintaining a charge-neutral flow of current at a high voltage battery that provides current to the one or more electric motors and the additional electric motor (“The traction battery 200 may be a high voltage battery. High voltage traction batteries provide nominal voltages in the hundreds of volts…The traction battery 200 may have a capacity of several kilowatt-hours, to maximise range” (para 0071) and “The first electric machine 216 and second electric machine 212 may be configured to receive electrical energy from the same traction battery 200” (para 0073)).
Regarding claim 8, Roques discloses a system for operating a vehicle, comprising:
a processor (“The one or more controllers may collectively comprise: at least one electronic processor having an electrical input for receiving information” (para 0031)) configured to:
receive a raw total axle torque request for the vehicle (“receiving a total torque request for total driven wheel torque” (para 0029)), the vehicle including a primary axle (Fig. 2, #222a), one or more electric motors on the primary axle (Fig. 2, #216), an engine coupled to the primary axle (Fig. 2, #202), a secondary axle (Fig. 2, #224a), and an additional electric motor on the secondary axle (Fig. 2, #212);
control the one or more electric motors and the engine at the primary axle using the primary axle torque target (“controlling torque output of a first torque source of the vehicle and of a second torque source of the vehicle, wherein the first torque source is configured to provide drive torque to a first axle of the vehicle for generating first axle wheel torque” (para 0029)); and
control the additional electric motor at the secondary axle using the secondary axle torque target (“controlling torque output of a first torque source of the vehicle and of a second torque source of the vehicle,..., wherein the second torque source is configured to provide drive torque to a second axle of the vehicle for generating second axle wheel torque” (para 0029)).
However, Roques does not explicitly teach
perform an optimization to determine a primary axle torque target and a secondary axle torque target that meets the raw total axle torque request while locating a value representative of a minimum of an objective cost function for the vehicle, wherein the optimization includes a first iteration loop through propulsion range states of the vehicle within which is a second iteration loop through a range of possible axle torque splits.
Plianos, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
perform an optimization to determine a primary axle torque target and a secondary axle torque target that meets the raw total axle torque request (“A loop procedure is initiated (block 102) to determine the optimum torque split between the first and second propulsion units 5, 6 to meet the total requested torque TQ” (para 0099)) while locating a value representative of a minimum of an objective cost function for the vehicle (“The total power cost TPC provides an indication of the overall efficiency of the first and second propulsion units 5, 6. The torque split module 23 identifies when the total power cost TPC is at a minimum and determines the corresponding torque split between the first and second propulsion units 5, 6” (para 0098)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Roques with the teachings of Plianos in order to identify a minimum total power cost (TPC) and determine the optimum torque split between the first and second propulsion units to meet the total requested torque; see Plianos at least at [0099],
Nuber, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the optimization includes a first iteration loop through propulsion range states of the vehicle (Fig. 2, #S2, “with steps S2 to S5, a mode of operation, ideal in respect of the optimization criteria, with an ideal power distribution is selected within the scope of a multi-stage process from the set of all modes of operation possible using the system” (para 0068), and “Optionally, the number of possible modes of operation 1 b can thus be restricted further in step S22 due to predetermined restriction rules such that ultimately a first selection of possible modes of operation 1 c is fed to the subsequent two-stage selection method of steps S3 to S5” (para 0075), wherein “propulsion range states” is throughout the reference is the “the number of possible modes of operation” which are restricted or selected based on the optimization criteria) within which is a second iteration loop through a range of possible axle torque splits (Fig. 2, #S4-S5, “possible power distributions in the drivetrain are established initially for each one of the modes of operation 1 c remaining after the reduction of the modes of operation” (para 0076), “Then, the ideal E-machine torque for each mode of operation is calculated in step S4” (para 0077), and “Then, the ideal mode of operation is determined in step S5 on the basis of the results from step S4” (para 0100)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Roques with the teachings of Nuber in order to select a mode of operation, ideal for the current instant of operation in respect of predetermined target criteria, with a corresponding ideal power distribution in the drivetrain from a predetermined set of possible modes of operation of the hybridized drivetrain.; see Nuber at least at [0015].
Regarding claim 9, Roques discloses the system of claim 8. Additionally, Roques discloses wherein the processor is further configured to perform the optimization by generating a secondary axle reserved power (“If the primary torque source is off-target, block 420 enables the secondary torque source to provide compensation torque” (para 0145) and “Compensation torque refers to requesting additional positive or negative torque from the on-target torque source” (para 0146)) and the processor is further configured to use the secondary axle reserved power to determine an operating point of the engine and the one or more electric motors coupled to the primary axle and to generate the primary axle torque target (“the control system may be configured to: control the modification of at least one of the torque requests to enable an increased rate of torque change from the one of the first and second torque sources that satisfies its corresponding torque request. This enables the torque source which is on-target (typically the more responsive of the two) to momentarily compensate for the shortcomings of the off-target torque source that cannot respond quickly enough” (para 0012)).
Regarding claim 10, Roques discloses the system of claim 9. However, Roques does not explicitly wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine a shaped total axle torque request from the primary axle torque target and the secondary axle torque target;
determine a desired primary axle torque from the primary axle torque target, the secondary axle torque target and the shaped total axle torque request;
determine a desired secondary axle torque from the primary axle torque target, the secondary axle torque target and the shaped total axle torque request;
determine a primary axle torque command and a primary axle power used from the desired primary axle torque and the secondary axle reserved power;
determine a secondary axle torque command from the primary axle torque command, the primary axle power used and the desired secondary axle torque;
control the primary axle using the primary axle torque command; and
control the secondary axle using the secondary axle torque command.
Plianos, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine a shaped total axle torque request from the primary axle torque target and the secondary axle torque target (“The front and rear torque demand signals DS1, DS2 are output to the torque shaping module 24. The torque shaping module 24 is configured to re-profile the front and rear torque demand signals DS1, DS2 and to generate front and rear final torque demand signals DSF1, DSF2 which are output to the respective first and second inverters 8, 11” (para 0097));
determine a desired primary axle torque from the primary axle torque target, the secondary axle torque target and the shaped total axle torque request (Fig. 2, #DS1 and “The front and rear torque demand signals DS1, DS2 are output to the torque shaping module 24. The torque shaping module 24 is configured to re-profile the front and rear torque demand signals DS1, DS2 and to generate front and rear final torque demand signals DSF1, DSF2 which are output to the respective first and second inverters 8, 11” (para 0097));
determine a desired secondary axle torque from the primary axle torque target, the secondary axle torque target and the shaped total axle torque request (Fig. 2, #DS2 and “The front and rear torque demand signals DS1, DS2 are output to the torque shaping module 24. The torque shaping module 24 is configured to re-profile the front and rear torque demand signals DS1, DS2 and to generate front and rear final torque demand signals DSF1, DSF2 which are output to the respective first and second inverters 8, 11” (para 0097));
determine a primary axle torque command and a primary axle power used from the desired primary axle torque and the secondary axle reserved power (Fig. 2, #DSF1 and “The front and rear torque demand signals DS1, DS2 are output to the torque shaping module 24. The torque shaping module 24 is configured to re-profile the front and rear torque demand signals DS1, DS2 and to generate front and rear final torque demand signals DSF1, DSF2 which are output to the respective first and second inverters 8, 11” (para 0097));
determine a secondary axle torque command from the primary axle torque command, the primary axle power used and the desired secondary axle torque (Fig. 2, #DSF2 and “The front and rear torque demand signals DS1, DS2 are output to the torque shaping module 24. The torque shaping module 24 is configured to re-profile the front and rear torque demand signals DS1, DS2 and to generate front and rear final torque demand signals DSF1, DSF2 which are output to the respective first and second inverters 8, 11” (para 0097));
control the primary axle using the primary axle torque command; and control the secondary axle using the secondary axle torque command (Fig. 2, #DSF1 and #DSF2, and “The first and second inverters 8, 11 control operation of the first and second electric machines 7, 10 in dependence on said front and rear final torque demand signals DSF1, DSF2” (para 0097)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Roques with the teachings of Plianos in order to control operation of the first and second electric machines based on front and rear final torque demand signals; see Plianos at least at [0097].
Regarding claim 11, Roques discloses the system of claim 10. Additionally, Roques discloses wherein the processor is further configured to …determine the shaped total axle torque request at a subsequent time using the total axle torque command (“The drivability torque shaping determining means 506 comprises a function configured to shape (e.g. smooth) the received total torque request to produce a drivability-shaped total torque request” (para 0088)).
However, Roques does not explicitly teach
determine a total axle torque command from the primary axle torque command and the secondary axle torque command and…
Plianos, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
determine a total axle torque command from the primary axle torque command and the secondary axle torque command and… (Fig. 2, #DSF1 and #DSF2, and “The aggregate of the front and rear torques TQ1, TQ2 is at least substantially equal to a total requested torque TQ” (para 0097)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Roques with the teachings of Plianos such that the aggregate of the front and rear torques TQ1, TQ2 is at least substantially equal to a total requested torque TQ; see Plianos at least at [0097].
Regarding claim 12, Roques discloses the system of claim 10. Additionally, Roques discloses wherein the processor is further configured to fill the raw total axle torque request using the secondary axle reserved power when the primary axle torque command does not fill the desired primary axle torque (“If the primary torque source is off-target, block 420 enables the secondary torque source to provide compensation torque. If the secondary torque source is off-target, block 424 enables the primary torque source to provide compensation torque” (para 0145) and “Compensation torque refers to requesting additional positive or negative torque from the on-target torque source” (para 0146)).
Regarding claim 13, Roques discloses the system of claim 8. Additionally, Roques discloses wherein the processor is further configured to adjust an axle torque split between the primary axle and the secondary axle to control a sum of the primary axle torque target and the secondary axle torque target (“determine the torque requests so that a sum of the first torque request and the second torque request adds up to the drivability-shaped total torque request” (para 0091) and “The ratio between the first torque request and the second torque request may be fixed or variable…In some examples, the required torque split may vary dynamically. The required torque split may depend on variables such as: a driving dynamics mode; a terrain mode and/or a terrain or surface type; vehicle speed; vehicle steering; lateral acceleration; and/or longitudinal acceleration; and/or other factors” (para 0092)).
Regarding claim 14, Roques discloses the system of claim 8. Additionally, Roques discloses wherein the processor is further configured to maintain a charge-neutral flow of current at a high voltage battery that provides current to the one or more electric motors and the additional electric motor (“The traction battery 200 may be a high voltage battery. High voltage traction batteries provide nominal voltages in the hundreds of volts…The traction battery 200 may have a capacity of several kilowatt-hours, to maximise range” (para 0071) and “The first electric machine 216 and second electric machine 212 may be configured to receive electrical energy from the same traction battery 200” (para 0073)).
Regarding claim 15, Roques discloses a vehicle, comprising:
a primary axle (Fig. 2, #222a);
one or more electric motors on the primary axle (Fig. 2, #216);
a secondary axle (Fig. 2, #224a);
an additional electric motor on the secondary axle (Fig. 2, #212);
an engine (Fig. 2, #202);
a processor (“The one or more controllers may collectively comprise: at least one electronic processor having an electrical input for receiving information” (para 0031)) configured to:
receive a raw total axle torque request for the vehicle (“receiving a total torque request for total driven wheel torque” (para 0029)),
control the one or motors of the primary axle using the primary axle torque target (“controlling torque output of a first torque source of the vehicle and of a second torque source of the vehicle, wherein the first torque source is configured to provide drive torque to a first axle of the vehicle for generating first axle wheel torque” (para 0029)); and
control the additional electric motor of the secondary axle using the secondary axle torque target (“controlling torque output of a first torque source of the vehicle and of a second torque source of the vehicle,..., wherein the second torque source is configured to provide drive torque to a second axle of the vehicle for generating second axle wheel torque” (para 0029)).
However, Roques does not explicitly teach
perform an optimization to determine a primary axle torque target and a secondary axle torque target that meets the raw total axle torque request while locating a value representative of a minimum of an objective cost function for the vehicle, wherein the optimization includes a first iteration loop through propulsion range states of the vehicle within which is a second iteration loop through a range of possible axle torque splits.
Plianos, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
perform an optimization to determine a primary axle torque target and a secondary axle torque target that meets the raw total axle torque request (“A loop procedure is initiated (block 102) to determine the optimum torque split between the first and second propulsion units 5, 6 to meet the total requested torque TQ” (para 0099)) while locating a value representative of a minimum of an objective cost function for the vehicle (“The total power cost TPC provides an indication of the overall efficiency of the first and second propulsion units 5, 6. The torque split module 23 identifies when the total power cost TPC is at a minimum and determines the corresponding torque split between the first and second propulsion units 5, 6” (para 0098)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Roques with the teachings of Plianos in order to identify a minimum total power cost (TPC) and determine the optimum torque split between the first and second propulsion units to meet the total requested torque; see Plianos at least at [0099],
Nuber, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the optimization includes a first iteration loop through propulsion range states of the vehicle (Fig. 2, #S2, “with steps S2 to S5, a mode of operation, ideal in respect of the optimization criteria, with an ideal power distribution is selected within the scope of a multi-stage process from the set of all modes of operation possible using the system” (para 0068), and “Optionally, the number of possible modes of operation 1 b can thus be restricted further in step S22 due to predetermined restriction rules such that ultimately a first selection of possible modes of operation 1 c is fed to the subsequent two-stage selection method of steps S3 to S5” (para 0075), wherein “propulsion range states” is throughout the reference is the “the number of possible modes of operation” which are restricted or selected based on the optimization criteria) within which is a second iteration loop through a range of possible axle torque splits (Fig. 2, #S4-S5, “possible power distributions in the drivetrain are established initially for each one of the modes of operation 1 c remaining after the reduction of the modes of operation” (para 0076), “Then, the ideal E-machine torque for each mode of operation is calculated in step S4” (para 0077), and “Then, the ideal mode of operation is determined in step S5 on the basis of the results from step S4” (para 0100)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Roques with the teachings of Nuber in order to select a mode of operation, ideal for the current instant of operation in respect of predetermined target criteria, with a corresponding ideal power distribution in the drivetrain from a predetermined set of possible modes of operation of the hybridized drivetrain.; see Nuber at least at [0015].
Regarding claim 16, Roques discloses the vehicle of claim 15. Additionally, Roques discloses wherein the processor is further configured to perform the optimization by generating a secondary axle reserved power (“If the primary torque source is off-target, block 420 enables the secondary torque source to provide compensation torque” (para 0145) and “Compensation torque refers to requesting additional positive or negative torque from the on-target torque source” (para 0146)) and the processor is further configured to use the secondary axle reserved power to determine an operating point of the engine and the one or more electric motors coupled to the primary axle and to generate the primary axle torque target (“the control system may be configured to: control the modification of at least one of the torque requests to enable an increased rate of torque change from the one of the first and second torque sources that satisfies its corresponding torque request. This enables the torque source which is on-target (typically the more responsive of the two) to momentarily compensate for the shortcomings of the off-target torque source that cannot respond quickly enough” (para 0012)).
Regarding claim 17, Roques discloses the vehicle of claim 16. However, Roques does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine a shaped total axle torque request from the primary axle torque target and the secondary axle torque target;
determine a desired primary axle torque from the primary axle torque target, the secondary axle torque target and the shaped total axle torque request;
determine a desired secondary axle torque from the primary axle torque target, the secondary axle torque target and the shaped total axle torque request;
determine a primary axle torque command and a primary axle power used from the desired primary axle torque and the secondary axle reserved power;
determine a secondary axle torque command from the primary axle torque command, the primary axle power used and the desired secondary axle torque;
control the primary axle using the primary axle torque command; and
control the secondary axle using the secondary axle torque command.
Plianos, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine a shaped total axle torque request from the primary axle torque target and the secondary axle torque target (“The front and rear torque demand signals DS1, DS2 are output to the torque shaping module 24. The torque shaping module 24 is configured to re-profile the front and rear torque demand signals DS1, DS2 and to generate front and rear final torque demand signals DSF1, DSF2 which are output to the respective first and second inverters 8, 11” (para 0097));
determine a desired primary axle torque from the primary axle torque target, the secondary axle torque target and the shaped total axle torque request (Fig. 2, #DS1 and “The front and rear torque demand signals DS1, DS2 are output to the torque shaping module 24. The torque shaping module 24 is configured to re-profile the front and rear torque demand signals DS1, DS2 and to generate front and rear final torque demand signals DSF1, DSF2 which are output to the respective first and second inverters 8, 11” (para 0097));
determine a desired secondary axle torque from the primary axle torque target, the secondary axle torque target and the shaped total axle torque request (Fig. 2, #DS2 and “The front and rear torque demand signals DS1, DS2 are output to the torque shaping module 24. The torque shaping module 24 is configured to re-profile the front and rear torque demand signals DS1, DS2 and to generate front and rear final torque demand signals DSF1, DSF2 which are output to the respective first and second inverters 8, 11” (para 0097));
determine a primary axle torque command and a primary axle power used from the desired primary axle torque and the secondary axle reserved power (Fig. 2, #DSF1 and “The front and rear torque demand signals DS1, DS2 are output to the torque shaping module 24. The torque shaping module 24 is configured to re-profile the front and rear torque demand signals DS1, DS2 and to generate front and rear final torque demand signals DSF1, DSF2 which are output to the respective first and second inverters 8, 11” (para 0097));
determine a secondary axle torque command from the primary axle torque command, the primary axle power used and the desired secondary axle torque (Fig. 2, #DSF2 and “The front and rear torque demand signals DS1, DS2 are output to the torque shaping module 24. The torque shaping module 24 is configured to re-profile the front and rear torque demand signals DS1, DS2 and to generate front and rear final torque demand signals DSF1, DSF2 which are output to the respective first and second inverters 8, 11” (para 0097));
control the primary axle using the primary axle torque command; and control the secondary axle using the secondary axle torque command (Fig. 2, #DSF1 and #DSF2, and “The first and second inverters 8, 11 control operation of the first and second electric machines 7, 10 in dependence on said front and rear final torque demand signals DSF1, DSF2” (para 0097)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Roques with the teachings of Plianos in order to control operation of the first and second electric machines based on front and rear final torque demand signals; see Plianos at least at [0097].
Regarding claim 18, Roques discloses the vehicle of claim 17. Additionally, Roques discloses wherein the processor is further configured to …determine the shaped total axle torque request at a subsequent time using the total axle torque command (“The drivability torque shaping determining means 506 comprises a function configured to shape (e.g. smooth) the received total torque request to produce a drivability-shaped total torque request” (para 0088)).
However, Roques does not explicitly teach
determine a total axle torque command from the primary axle torque command and the secondary axle torque command and…
Plianos, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
determine a total axle torque command from the primary axle torque command and the secondary axle torque command and… (Fig. 2, #DSF1 and #DSF2, and “The aggregate of the front and rear torques TQ1, TQ2 is at least substantially equal to a total requested torque TQ” (para 0097)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Roques with the teachings of Plianos such that the aggregate of the front and rear torques TQ1, TQ2 is at least substantially equal to a total requested torque TQ; see Plianos at least at [0097].
Regarding claim 19, Roques discloses the vehicle of claim 17. Additionally, Roques discloses wherein the processor is further configured to fill the raw total axle torque request using the secondary axle reserved power when the primary axle torque command does not fill the desired primary axle torque (“If the primary torque source is off-target, block 420 enables the secondary torque source to provide compensation torque. If the secondary torque source is off-target, block 424 enables the primary torque source to provide compensation torque” (para 0145) and “Compensation torque refers to requesting additional positive or negative torque from the on-target torque source” (para 0146)).
Regarding claim 20, Roques discloses the vehicle of claim 15. Additionally, Roques discloses wherein the processor is further configured to adjust an axle torque split between the primary axle and the secondary axle to control a sum of the primary axle torque target and the secondary axle torque target (“determine the torque requests so that a sum of the first torque request and the second torque request adds up to the drivability-shaped total torque request” (para 0091) and “The ratio between the first torque request and the second torque request may be fixed or variable…In some examples, the required torque split may vary dynamically. The required torque split may depend on variables such as: a driving dynamics mode; a terrain mode and/or a terrain or surface type; vehicle speed; vehicle steering; lateral acceleration; and/or longitudinal acceleration; and/or other factors” (para 0092)).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ALHARBI whose telephone number is (313)446-6621. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6:30pm.
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 on (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.
/ADAM M ALHARBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights