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 final rejection is in response to Applicant’s amended filing of 05/05/2026.
Claims 1-4 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant has amended claims 1-4 and cancelled claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3 being interpreted over 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim interpretation of claims 1 and 3 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1-5 rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) and 103 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. The Applicant argues that the Examiner’s official notice fails to address the limitation because it does not address the “torque rate” and only responds to the “torque.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Examiner acknowledges that the official notice failed to address the “torque rate” in its arguments explicitly, the same rationale described in the notice would apply to torque rate. 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. Consequently, during regenerative braking, the motor would apply a negative torque rate to generate a negative torque and apply a braking force, which is a lower torque rate than one provided during driving the 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 braking state because it would be supplying negative torque, as opposed to the power running state where it provides torque to drive the vehicle. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the torque rate that the motor control unit provides would be less in the regenerative braking state because it would be supplying negative torque, as opposed to the power running state where it provides torque to drive the vehicle.
This functionality is present in now cited reference Books et al. (US 20210213950 A1; reference provided in IDS filed 02/11/2026) in the rejection below. However, this functionality is still 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.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 20140288758 A1; reference provided in IDS filed 01/03/2025) in view of Books et al. (US 20210213950 A1; reference provided in IDS filed 02/11/2026) and in view of obviousness rationale.
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 sensor 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 sensor configured to detect a motor rotation speed (see at least ¶ [0021] and [0068] disclosing a revolution sensor that calculates the motor revolution speed);
a current torque sensor configured to detect a current torque generated by the motor (see at least ¶ [0072] disclosing a sensor for measuring the applied torque)
and motor control circuitry (see at least ¶ [0021-0026] disclosing a motor controller that outputs drive signals to control motor torque) configured to
obtain 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),
obtain 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 control 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).
Suzuki does not explicitly disclose making the torque rate in a regenerative state, in which the target torque is smaller than the current torque, smaller than the torque rate in a power running state, in which the target torque is larger than the current torque.
However, Books suggests making the torque rate in a regenerative state, in which the target torque is smaller than the current torque, smaller than the torque rate in a power running state, in which the target torque is larger than the current torque (see at least ¶ [0028], [0031], and [0036-0037] disclosing regenerative braking applies a torque limit and torque rate limiting according to an accelerator pedal’s position).
The combination of Suzuki and Books does not explicitly disclose making the torque rate in a regenerative state smaller than the torque rate in a power running state under a condition where the accelerator opening degrees are the same.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that the situation for the regenerative braking state disclosed in Books necessarily requires the motor to produce less torque and a lower torque rate than the situation for 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 rate that the motor control unit provides would be less in the regenerative braking state because it would be supplying negative torque, as opposed to the power running state where it provides torque to drive the vehicle, and would be to combined with 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 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 braking and power running states or their corresponding torque rates and their inequal relationship. This would help mitigate aggressive acceleration/deceleration (Books ¶ [0027]) and subsequently reduce gear backlash.
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki discloses the motor control circuitry 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Books et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Hommi et al. (US 20050284679 A1; reference provided in IDS filed 01/03/2025).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Suzuki and Books does not explicitly disclose wherein in the power running state, the motor control circuitry 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 the power running state, the motor control circuitry 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 combination of Suzuki and Books 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 vehicle operator to have more control over the vehicle’s acceleration and the motor torque used to drive the vehicle.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Books et al. and in further 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, Books, and Hommi does not explicitly disclose, in the regenerative state, the motor control circuitry 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 the regenerative state, the motor control circuitry 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, Books, 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights