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 first non-final rejection is in response to Applicant’s original filing of 10/23/2024.
Claims 1-5 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder 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 limitations are:
“an accelerator opening degree detection unit,” “a motor rotation speed detection unit,” and “a motor control unit” in claim 1.
“a current torque detection unit” in claim 3.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The “accelerator opening degree detection unit,” “motor rotation speed detection unit,” and “current torque detection unit” is interpreted to be described in ¶ [0025-0027] with corresponding sensors. The “motor control unit” is interpreted to be described in ¶ [0028] with an electronic control unit (ECU) including a central processing unit (CPU), a read only memory (ROM), and a random access memory (RAM).
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (US 20140288758 A1; reference provided in IDS filed 01/03/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses an electric vehicle control device that controls acceleration/deceleration of an electric vehicle using a motor as a drive source (see at least abstract), the electric vehicle control device comprising:
an accelerator opening degree detection unit configured to detect an accelerator opening degree of the electric vehicle (see at least ¶ [0024] and [0065] disclosing an accelerator stroke sensor used to detect the manipulation state of the accelerator pedal);
a motor rotation speed detection unit configured to detect a motor rotation speed (see at least ¶ [0021] and [0068] disclosing a revolution sensor that calculates the motor revolution speed);
and a motor control unit configured to control the motor (see at least ¶ [0021-0026] disclosing a motor controller that outputs drive signals to control motor torque),
wherein the motor control unit
obtains a target torque based on the accelerator opening degree and the motor rotation speed (see at least ¶ [0024], [0034], [0037], [0041-0042], [0065], and [0068] disclosing the motor controller receiving torque commands based on the detected accelerator manipulation),
obtains a torque rate that is an amount of change in torque per unit time based on the accelerator opening degree (see at least ¶ [0024], [0034], [0037], [0041-0042], [0065], and [0068] disclosing the motor controller receiving torque commands based on the detected accelerator manipulation to change the quantity of torque per unit time),
and controls the motor such that a torque of the motor becomes the target torque at the torque rate (see at least ¶ [0024], [0034], [0037], [0041-0042], [0065], and [0068] disclosing the motor controller receiving torque commands based on the detected accelerator manipulation to change the quantity of torque per unit time and thereby change torque of the motor).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki discloses the motor control unit obtains the torque rate also based on the motor rotation speed (see at least ¶ [0065-0069] disclosing the control apparatus accounting for motor revolution speed in executing torque commands).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Hommi et al. (US 20050284679 A1; reference provided in IDS filed 01/03/2025).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki discloses a current torque detection unit configured to detect a current torque generated by the motor (see at least ¶ [0072] disclosing a sensor for measuring the applied torque).
Suzuki does not explicitly disclose wherein in a power running state in which the target torque is larger than the current torque, the motor control unit makes the torque rate in a case where the accelerator opening degree falls below a threshold opening degree smaller than the torque rate in a case where the accelerator opening degree exceeds the threshold opening degree.
However, Hommi suggests wherein in a power running state in which the target torque is larger than the current torque, the motor control unit makes the torque rate in a case where the accelerator opening degree falls below a threshold opening degree smaller than the torque rate in a case where the accelerator opening degree exceeds the threshold opening degree (the Examiner broadly interprets the limitation according to the following paraphrasing: “…the motor control unit makes the torque rate[,when the accelerator opening degree is below a threshold,] … smaller than the torque rate [when the accelerator opening degree exceeds the threshold.]” – in other words, the motor control unit lowers the torque rate when the accelerator opening degree is below a threshold when the desired torque is larger than the current torque while in a power running state – in light of this interpretation, see at least ¶ [0040-0044] and Fig. 3 disclosing supplying lower torques at lower accelerator opening thresholds to apply corresponding torques to drive the motor).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the accelerator-dependent torque application of Hommi into to the acceleration/deceleration control of the electric vehicle of Suzuki with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward controlling the torque supplied by the motor according to accelerator pedals. This would allow the vehicle operator to have more control over the vehicle’s acceleration and the motor torque used to drive the vehicle.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Hommi, as applied to claim 3 above, and in view of Shishido et al. (US 20150375747 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Suzuki and Hommi does not explicitly disclose, in a regenerative state in which the target torque is smaller than the current torque, the motor control unit makes the torque rate in a case where the current torque falls below a threshold torque smaller than the torque rate in a case where the current torque exceeds the threshold torque.
However, Shishido suggests, in a regenerative state in which the target torque is smaller than the current torque, the motor control unit makes the torque rate in a case where the current torque falls below a threshold torque smaller than the torque rate in a case where the current torque exceeds the threshold torque (the Examiner broadly interprets the limitation according to the following paraphrasing: “…the motor control unit makes the torque rate[,when the current torque is below a threshold,] … smaller than the torque rate [when the current torque exceeds the threshold.]” – in other words, the motor control unit lowers the torque rate when the current torque is below a threshold when the desired torque is smaller than the current torque while in a regenerative state – in light of this interpretation, see at least ¶ [0087-0092] disclosing a motor generator control unit supplies different values of regenerative torque according to rate of change per time in braking torque).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the braking torque-dependent regenerative torque application of Shishido into the combination of Suzuki and Hommi with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward controlling the torque supplied by the motor according to accelerator pedals. This would allow the electric vehicle to regenerate power incrementally and in a controlled manner when the operator brakes.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Suzuki, Hommi, and Shishido does not explicitly disclose the motor control unit makes the torque rate in the regenerative state smaller than the torque rate in the power running state under a condition where the accelerator opening degrees are the same.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the situation of the regenerative state necessarily requires the motor to produce less torque than the situation of the power running state insofar that regenerative braking does not occur while the electric motor supplies torque to be driven to the electric vehicle. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the torque that the motor control unit provides would be less in the regenerative state because it would be supplying no torque, as opposed to the power running state where it provides torque to drive the vehicle. This functionality is present regardless of the conditions of the accelerator opening degree, and therefore the condition where the accelerator opening degrees are the same between states is a matter of design choice that is irrespective to the function of the regenerative and power running states or their corresponding torque rates and their inequal relationship.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED C BEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5255. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30AM - 5:00PM.
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 Z 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.
/J.C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669