DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office action is in response to the application received on 25 July 2024. Claims 1-4 are pending.
Priority
The claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) is acknowledged. A certified copy of the priority application has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDSes received on 25 July 2024 and 07 July 2025 have been considered.
Specification
An objection is made to the title because it is not sufficiently descriptive of the claimed invention. The title "Vehicle Traction Control System" is offered for consideration, but is not strictly required.
Interpretation of Claims Under 35 USC 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder (specifically, "unit") that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 1:
"traction control unit configured to control traction" (corresponding structure is considered to be a combination of computer hardware and software as described on pg 6 ln 22 - pg 7 ln 3); and
"rotating electric machine control unit configured to control an operation of a rotating electric machine" (corresponding structure is considered to be a combination of computer hardware and software as described on pg 6 ln 22 - pg 7 ln 3).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 11,161,418 B2 (Yamane et al.).
As to claim 1, Yamane discloses a vehicle control system comprising:
a traction control unit configured to control traction of a driving wheel (col 3 ln 35-40 - "the slip control unit 23 detects a slip in a case where the wheel speed exceeds the target rotation speed. Then, the slip control unit 23 [...] controls motor torque of the motor 11 in such a manner that the wheel speed becomes an appropriate rotation speed"); and
a rotating electric machine control unit configured to control an operation of a rotating electric machine configured to transmit and receive torque to and from the driving wheel on a basis of information received from the traction control unit (col 2 ln 35-36 - "Motor torque (MG torque) output from the motor 11 is transmitted the drive wheel 16", col 2 ln 57-59 - "the slip control unit 23 includes a motor ECU provided on a side of the motor 11"),
wherein the traction control unit is configured to
set a threshold axle speed for determining an end of execution of predetermined torque control, which is performed by the rotating electric machine control unit to eliminate a slip of the driving wheel, between a target axle speed and a vehicle speed (Fig 1, col 3 ln 25-28 - "the target rotation speed calculation unit 22 calculates a target rotation speed corresponding to a traveling state by adding a certain ratio (slip ratio) to the vehicle body speed") and
output information regarding the threshold axle speed to the rotating electric machine control unit (col 3 ln 37-42 - "the slip control unit 23 outputs command torque (T*) to the power control unit 13 in detection of a slip, and controls motor torque of the motor 11 in such a manner that the wheel speed becomes an appropriate rotation speed (in such manner that wheel speed match target rotation speed)").
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane in view of US 10,391,884 B2 (Iwahana).
As to claim 2, Yamane discloses the vehicle control system according to claim 1.
Iwahana teaches the limitations not expressly further disclosed by Yamane, namely:
wherein the traction control unit is configured to
set the threshold axle speed for during acceleration to a larger of a value obtained by subtracting a first predetermined value from the target axle speed and a predetermined lower threshold value (Fig 5 - (S14), (S15); col 3 ln 63-col 4 ln 2 - "an actual acceleration calculation unit 305 configured to calculate an actual acceleration by differentiating the motor rotation speed; a correction amount calculation unit 320 configured to calculate a correction amount for the motor torque command value so that a deviation between the target acceleration and the actual acceleration is reduced", col 9 ln 4-11 - "the slip reduction control unit 202 may perform control to start the slip reduction control when such three conditions that the motor rotation speed is not lower than the first predetermined value ω0, an acceleration deviation is smaller than a first predetermined value ae1, and the absolute value of the correction torque is smaller than a second predetermined value T2 are satisfied during traveling of the vehicle V") and
set the threshold axle speed for during deceleration to a smaller of a value obtained by adding a second predetermined value to the target axle speed and a predetermined upper threshold value (Fig 5 - (S10), (S11); col 3 ln 63-col 4 ln 2, col 8 ln 64-67 - "The slip reduction control unit 202 can perform control to start the slip reduction control when the motor rotation speed is lower than a first predetermined value ω0 at start of traveling of the vehicle V").
As of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Yamane and Iwahana because both relate to traction control systems for an electric vehicle. The combination would yield predictable results according to the teachings of Iwahana by providing an appropriate level of slip reduction depending on the movement of the vehicle.
As to claim 3, the combination of Yamane and Iwahana teaches the vehicle control system according to claim 2.
Iwahana further teaches wherein the rotating electric machine control unit is configured to
set the threshold axle speed for during acceleration to be equal to the target axle speed for during acceleration when the target axle speed for during acceleration is smaller than the predetermined lower threshold value (col 3 ln 63-col 4 ln 2) and
set the threshold axle speed for during deceleration to be equal to the target axle speed for during deceleration when the target axle speed for during deceleration is greater than the predetermined upper threshold value (col 3 ln 63-col 4 ln 2).
As to claim 4, the combination of Yamane and Iwahana teaches the vehicle control system according to claim 2.
Yamane further discloses wherein the traction control unit is configured to
set the predetermined lower threshold value and the predetermined upper threshold value on a basis of a vehicle body condition (col 3 ln 25-28).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Todd Melton whose telephone number is (571)270-3871. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays, 9:30am - 6:00pm (Eastern time). 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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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.
/TODD MELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669