DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Applicant’s submissions filed on 2/24/2026. Claims 1 and 9-24 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, see page 8, filed 2/24/2026, with respect to the information disclosure statement filed on 8/21/2024 including the reference listed in paragraphs 151 and 153 has been fully considered and is persuasive. The comment regarding the information disclosure statement has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument with respect to changing the excitation frequency of vibration by changing the frequency of the motor’s oscillation cycle (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 9) has been fully considered and is persuasive. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Minoru’s use of an external hydraulic actuator to apply vibration to the vehicle’s wheel teaches away from utilizing a vehicle’s own motor to vibrate the vehicle’s body (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 11), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Minoru’s disclosure of an external vibration actuator does not constitute a teaching away from using a vehicle’s own motor as a vibration actuator because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.
Drawings
The amended drawings received on 2/24/2026 are acceptable.
Specification
The new title of the invention was received on 2/24/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 13-14, “while varying a vibration frequency” should read “while varying the vibration frequency” to make it clear that it is the same vibration frequency recited in lines 12-13. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 9-24 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 1, lines 14-15, the term “gradually” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradually” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, it is unclear how the vibration frequency changes with respect to time. Paragraphs 73-75 appear to disclose sweeping the frequency by gradually changing the frequency by a predetermined value, for example, 1Hz. It is unclear whether the first and second frequencies are points in a sweep separated by a predetermined value, or other values that define a sweep such as the lowest and highest frequencies of the sweep range, therefore, the term “gradually” is further unclear. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claim is directed to changing the vibration frequency over a non-zero period of time.
Claims 9-24 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 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(s) 1 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lambert et al. (US 6,384,549), hereinafter Lambert.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Lambert discloses a controller for a vehicle equipped with a motor for driving the vehicle (Lambert; col. 5, ll. 48-53: when dealing with an electric vehicle which is already provided with electric motor-wheels such as the electric motors 7, a person skilled in the art will easily understand that the automobile is already provided with the necessary means for achieving a test according to the present invention), the controller comprising: one or more processors; and one or more recording media storing a program to be executed by the one or more processors, wherein the program comprises one or more instructions configured to cause the one or more processors to control the motor (Lambert; col. 6, ll. 52-53: converting system 12 comprises a microprocessor unit 44), during an inspection of the vehicle (Lambert; col. 5, ll. 34-39: Normally, for determining the origin of a noise caused by an undesired vibration problem, the mechanic must perform vibration tests on different parts of the electric motor or vehicle. An object of the second embodiment is to provide a system and method for easily and precisely locating a noise caused by an undesired vibration.), such that a rotation speed of the motor repeatedly increases and decreases, at a predetermined amplitude and a vibration frequency, around a reference rotation speed (Lambert; col. 4, ll. 9-21: A signal generator 11 is provided for generating the control signal … The control signal has a continuous component for rotating the rotor with respect to the stator, and an alternating component for inducing mechanical vibrations in the unit capable of vibrating within an audible frequency range … A command signal generator 32 is also provided for generating a continuous component for inducing a rotation of the rotor with respect to the stator.), while varying a vibration frequency such that the vibration frequency gradually changes from a first frequency toward a second frequency different from the first frequency (Lambert; col. 5, l. 57 - col. 6, l. 3: scanning of the frequency signals is done within an audible frequency range with predetermined amplitudes for achieving the mechanical vibration test on the vehicle. The scanning generator 23 generates a scan of frequency signals that are combined with the command signals generated by the command signal generator 32 via the adder 34 … The output signal of the adder 34 powers the current regulator 3 which produces, in turn, variable pulse width modulated signals PWMa, PWMb, and PWMc also commonly called PWM signals that are then sent to the inverter 5 which converts the PWM signals into three-phase signals powering the electric motor).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Lambert discloses the motor is controlled while the vehicle is stopped (Lambert; col. 2; ll. 60-62: the electric motor can vibrate within an audible frequency range independent from whether it is rotating or not; col. 4; ll. 18-20: command signal generator 32 is also provided for generating a continuous component for inducing a rotation; col. 5, ll. 63-64: for performing a vibration test, one can see to it that the command signal transmitted by the generator 32 be null).
Regarding claims 10-11, as best understood, Lambert discloses the program further comprises an instruction to cause the one or more processors to change the vibration frequency by a predetermined value each time a predetermined time elapses from the first frequency toward the second frequency (Lambert; col. 5, l. 57 - col. 6, l. 3: scanning of the frequency signals is done within an audible frequency range with predetermined amplitudes for achieving the mechanical vibration test on the vehicle. The scanning generator 23 generates a scan of frequency signals that are combined with the command signals generated by the command signal generator 32 via the adder 34 … The output signal of the adder 34 powers the current regulator 3 which produces, in turn, variable pulse width modulated signals PWMa, PWMb, and PWMc also commonly called PWM signals that are then sent to the inverter 5 which converts the PWM signals into three-phase signals powering the electric motor).
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.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambert in view of Inagawa et al. (US 2021/0239573), hereinafter Inagawa.
Regarding claims 12-14, as best understood, Lambert discloses the program further comprises an instruction to cause the one or more processors to: determine whether a predetermined signal is received from an input device (Lambert; col. 6, ll. 19-23: picking up noises caused by vibrations generated by the vehicle by means of a microphone 29 during the scan of frequency signals for locating parts in the vehicle producing undesired vibrations).
Lambert does not explicitly disclose in response to determining that the predetermined signal is received, store, as a third frequency, the vibration frequency at a timing at which the predetermined signal is received; and after the vibration frequency reaches the second frequency, set the vibration frequency to the stored third frequency while continuing to control the motor such that the rotation speed of the motor repeatedly increases and decreases around the reference rotation speed.
Inagawa, in the same field of endeavor (automotive vibration testing), discloses in response to determining that a predetermined signal is received, store a vibration frequency at a timing at which the predetermined signal is received (Inagawa; para. 17: in STEP 2, a sound picked up by the microphone 9 is analyzed by the control device 5 to determine whether abnormal noise is present. Alternatively, a person may determine whether abnormal noise is present … If a value analyzed is different from an analysis value defined in advance by a predetermined value or greater, it is determined that abnormal noise is present (Yes in STEP 2), and a forward/backward velocity (excitation frequency [Hz]) and a forward/backward stroke length (excitation amplitude [m/s.sup.2]) of each of the exciter actuators 4 at the point in time when the abnormal noise is detected are stored); and after the vibration frequency reaches a second frequency, set the vibration frequency to the stored frequency while continuing to control a motor such that the rotation speed of the motor repeatedly increases and decreases around a reference rotation speed (Inagawa; para. 18: The process then proceeds to STEP 3, where the frequency is varied in small increments at a given speed in a predetermined frequency region (plus/minus 3 Hz) with the stored excitation frequency [Hz] at the center to thereby determine whether abnormal noise is generated.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have recorded a frequency at which an abnormal noise was present and returned to the frequency after performing a scan, in the microprocessor of Lambert, with the motivation of facilitating identification of the cause of the abnormal noise by providing for re-input a range of vibrations including the vibration that is input to the vehicle when the abnormal noise is generated (Inagawa; para. 6).
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambert in view of Gamble (US 6,267,450) and Gomyo et al. (US 4,989,455), hereinafter Gomyo.
Regarding claims 15-17, as best understood, Lambert discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Lambert does not explicitly disclose the program further comprises an instruction to cause the one or more processors to determine the reference rotation speed such that, as a vibration excitation force indicated by a user operation increases, the reference rotation speed increases.
Gomyo, in the same field of endeavor (automotive vibration testing), discloses a user operation increases a vibration excitation force (Gomyo; col. 10, ll. 60-64: The vibration applying operation is performed by increasing or reducing (up or down) the frequency of the remote controller 78 and the amplitude switches 91a and 91b and 92a and 92b, and establishing a desired frequency and amplitude).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the microprocessor of Lambert to increase the vibration frequency and amplitude in response to user inputs, as disclosed by Gomyo, to yield the predictable result of allowing the test operator to control the vibration applied to the vehicle.
Lambert, as modified, does not explicitly disclose increasing the rotation speed as the vibration excitation force increases.
Gamble, in a reasonably pertinent field of endeavor ((fly)wheel balancing systems), discloses increasing a rotation speed as a vibration excitation force increases (Gamble; col. 3, ll. 2-5: the centrifugal force generated by a rotating mass increases exponentially in relation to its speed, a slight imbalance can cause tremendous vibration at higher RPM's).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have increased the rotation speed to increase the vibration force, as disclosed by Gamble, in the microprocessor of Lambert, as modified, to yield the predictable result of allowing the test operator to control the vibration applied to the vehicle.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambert in view of Inagawa as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Gamble and Gomyo.
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Lambert, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Lambert, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the program further comprises an instruction to cause the one or more processors to determine the reference rotation speed such that, as a vibration excitation force indicated by a user operation increases, the reference rotation speed increases.
Gomyo, in the same field of endeavor (automotive vibration testing), discloses a user operation increases a vibration excitation force (Gomyo; col. 10, ll. 60-64: The vibration applying operation is performed by increasing or reducing (up or down) the frequency of the remote controller 78 and the amplitude switches 91a and 91b and 92a and 92b, and establishing a desired frequency and amplitude).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the microprocessor of Lambert, as modified, to increase the vibration frequency and amplitude in response to user inputs, as disclosed by Gomyo, to yield the predictable result of allowing the test operator to control the vibration applied to the vehicle.
Lambert, as modified, does not explicitly disclose increasing the rotation speed as the vibration excitation force increases.
Gamble, in a reasonably pertinent field of endeavor (wheel balancing systems), discloses increasing a rotation speed as a vibration excitation force increases (Gamble; col. 3, ll. 2-5: the centrifugal force generated by a rotating mass increases exponentially in relation to its speed, a slight imbalance can cause tremendous vibration at higher RPM's).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have increased the rotation speed to increase the vibration force, as disclosed by Gamble, in the microprocessor of Lambert, as modified, to yield the predictable result of allowing the test operator to control the vibration applied to the vehicle.
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambert in view of Gomyo.
Regarding claims 19-21, as best understood, Lambert discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Lambert does not explicitly disclose the program further comprises an instruction to cause the one or more processors to determine the predetermined amplitude such that, as a vibration excitation force indicated by a user operation increases, the predetermined amplitude increases.
Gomyo discloses a user operation increases a predetermined amplitude (Gomyo; col. 10, ll. 60-64: The vibration applying operation is performed by increasing or reducing (up or down) the frequency of the remote controller 78 and the amplitude switches 91a and 91b and 92a and 92b, and establishing a desired frequency and amplitude).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the microprocessor of Lambert to increase the vibration frequency and amplitude in response to user inputs, as disclosed by Gomyo, to yield the predictable result of allowing the test operator to control the vibration applied to the vehicle.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambert in view of Inagawa as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Gomyo.
Regarding claim 22, as best understood, Lambert, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Lambert, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the program further comprises an instruction to cause the one or more processors to determine the predetermined amplitude such that, as a vibration excitation force indicated by a user operation increases, the predetermined amplitude increases.
Gomyo discloses a user operation increases a predetermined amplitude (Gomyo; col. 10, ll. 60-64: The vibration applying operation is performed by increasing or reducing (up or down) the frequency of the remote controller 78 and the amplitude switches 91a and 91b and 92a and 92b, and establishing a desired frequency and amplitude).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the microprocessor of Lambert, as modified, to increase the vibration frequency and amplitude in response to user inputs, as disclosed by Gomyo, to yield the predictable result of allowing the test operator to control the vibration applied to the vehicle.
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambert in view of Usui (US 2013/0025356) and Nagashima et al. (US 2010/0134058), hereinafter Nagashima.
Regarding claims 23-24, as best understood, Lambert discloses vibrating the vehicle using an electric motor-wheel.
Lambert does not appear to disclose vibrating the vehicle using a conventional traction motor.
Nagashima, in the same field of endeavor (automotive vibration generation), discloses vibrating a vehicle using a conventional traction motor (Nagashima; para. 20: in FIG. 1, the automobile 10 is an HEV, and further includes an actuator assembly 20 … The actuator assembly 20 includes a combustion engine 28 and an electric motor/generator (or motor) 30; para. 40: if the vibration currents are modulated at a particular frequency, the extraneous forces on the rotor and stator will also be modulated, thus resulting in a vibration. Vibrations above approximately 20 Hz cause sound waves to be generated by the electric motor 30 and/or the other components within the automobile; para. 43: vibration frequencies lower than approximately 20 Hz may be used to create a vibration that is sensible to the user(s) of the automobile, such as a low frequency vibration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have generated the vibrations using a conventional electric vehicle motor, as disclosed by Nagashima, using the signal generator and power amplifier of Lambert, to yield the predictable result of testing conventional electric vehicles.
Lambert, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the motor is controlled while a power unit comprising the motor is joined to a body frame by using a jig differing from a mounting member configured to join the power unit to the body frame.
Usui, in the same field of endeavor (automotive vibration testing), discloses a motor is controlled while a power unit comprising the motor is joined to a body frame by using a jig differing from a mounting member configured to join the power unit to the body frame (Usui; para. 37: jig 10 serves to cancel (inhibit) the damping function of an engine mount. It is possible with the jig 10 to confirm the reproduction of an abnormal noise that is produced in the passenger compartment of a vehicle in association with vibrations of the vehicle body while the vehicle is traveling; para. 46: the worker places the jig 10 so as to extend between the engine 34 and the vehicle body).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have installed a jig between the motor and body frame, as disclosed by Usui, in the vehicle of Lambert, as modified, with the motivation of transmitting part of the vibrations that are transmitted from the engine to the engine mount to the vehicle body through the support member thereby making it is easy to reproduce an abnormal sound associated with the vibrations that were generated in the passenger compartment while the vehicle was traveling (Usui; para. 9).
Supplemental References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sumi et al. (JP H08-137555), disclose a vibration control device for testing a drive system of an automobile in which the rotation speed of a motor and vibration amplitude are independently controlled by controlling the amount of ripple (i.e., vibration) superimposed onto the motor’s average rotational speed.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights