DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communications: Application filed on December 02, 2024.
Claims 8-14 are presented for Examination. Claims 8 and 14 are independent.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.Claim 8 recites "the correction torque upper limit is determined by correcting the basic torque upper limit with reference to the first torque and the second torque" without specifying how this correction is performed. While the specification describes taking "minimum selection between the maximum torque Tmax and the sum of the gradient torque Ts and an acceleration torque Tacc" in paragraph [0078], the claim encompasses a broader range of correction methods not adequately described in the specification.Similarly, claim 14 recites functional units without adequate structural description in the specification that would demonstrate possession of the full scope of these functional limitations. The specification describes a computer-implemented system, but fails to provide sufficient algorithmic detail for how the claimed functions are performed across the full scope of the claim.
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 8-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8:
The limitation "a first torque required to maintain a vehicle speed on an uphill road" is indefinite. It is unclear what specific vehicle speed is required to be maintained. The specification discusses maintaining speed "at a certain value or less (particularly, 0)" in paragraph [0035], but the claim fails to specify whether this refers to preventing rollback (zero speed) or maintaining a non-zero speed. Without this clarification, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The limitation "a second torque is determined in advance to provide a predetermined acceleration" renders the claim indefinite. The phrase "in advance" is ambiguous as it fails to clarify whether this means:a) The second torque value is predetermined/calibrated before vehicle operation, or
b) The second torque is calculated before other steps in the method sequenceThe specification describes embodiments where the acceleration torque is both a "fixed value experimentally determined in advance" (paragraph [0078]) and a variable value determined based on operating conditions (paragraphs [0113]-[0115]), creating further ambiguity about the temporal meaning of "in advance."
3. The limitation "the correction torque upper limit is determined by correcting the basic torque upper limit with reference to the first torque and the second torque" is indefinite. The claim fails to specify how this correction is mathematically performed. While paragraph [0078] of the specification indicates this is accomplished by "minimum selection between the maximum torque Tmax and the sum of the gradient torque Ts and an acceleration torque Tacc," the claim language contains no such specificity, leaving one of ordinary skill in the art unable to determine the boundaries of the claim.
Regarding claim 9:
The limitation "the first torque is calculated based on an estimated value of an output torque of the electric motor and an estimated value of disturbance determined according to a rotation speed of the electric motor" creates indefiniteness when read in view of the parent claim 8. Claim 8 requires the first torque to be calculated "based on the gradient parameter," but claim 9 introduces different basis elements without clarifying how these relate to the gradient parameter. The specification describes the disturbance torque Td as a gradient parameter in paragraph [0037], but this relationship is not reflected in the claim language, creating ambiguity about whether the gradient parameter of claim 8 is synonymous with the estimated disturbance of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10:
This claim is indefinite for similar reasons as claim 9. Claim 10 requires the first torque to be "determined based on a front-rear-direction acceleration of the electric vehicle and a rate of change of a vehicle body speed parameter," but claim 8 requires the first torque to be calculated "based on the gradient parameter." The claim fails to establish how the front-rear-direction acceleration and vehicle body speed parameter relate to the gradient parameter recited in the parent claim. The specification describes this as an alternative embodiment in the second embodiment section, but the dependency structure does not clarify whether this claim is intended to replace or supplement the gradient parameter limitation of claim 8.
Regarding claim 11:
This claim is indefinite because it creates a conflict with claim 8. Claim 8 requires that "a second torque is determined in advance," suggesting a predetermined value. However, claim 11 recites that "the second torque is determined based on at least one of the temperature parameter, a vehicle speed parameter... and the gradient parameter," implying dynamic determination based on real-time parameters. The specification supports both fixed and variable implementations of the acceleration torque (paragraphs [0078] and [0113]-[0115]), but the claim language fails to resolve this fundamental inconsistency in how the second torque is determined.
Regarding claim 12:
This claim is indefinite for multiple reasons:
The claim recites "when a vehicle speed parameter indicating the vehicle speed of the electric vehicle is out of a predetermined vehicle speed range" but fails to specify how this range is determined or what its boundaries are. While paragraph [0069]-[0072] of the specification discusses low vehicle speed threshold value V_lo and high vehicle speed threshold value V_hi, the claim does not incorporate these specific parameters or indicate what criteria determine the boundaries of the "predetermined vehicle speed range.".
The claim recites alternative limitations joined by "or" without proper clarity:a)"the upper limit of the request torque is set to the basic torque upper limit regardless of a magnitude relation between the gradient parameter or the temperature parameter and the corresponding one of the predetermined threshold values, or"
b) "the second torque is adjusted to further increase the correction torque upper limit."This creates uncertainty about which alternative is required to infringe the claim. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention because it is unclear whether implementing only one alternative would fall within the claim scope.
Regarding claim 13:
This claim suffers from similar indefiniteness issues as claim 12:1. The claim refers to "a basic request torque determined according to a request drive force for the electric vehicle," but this term "basic request torque" lacks antecedent basis in claim 8 or any intervening claim. While paragraph [0033] of the specification describes a "basic request torque T1," the claim language fails to establish this term in the claim hierarchy, creating confusion about what parameter is being referenced.
2. Similar to claim 12, this claim recites alternative limitations joined by "or" without proper formatting, creating uncertainty about which alternative is required for infringement.
Regarding claim 14:
This claim is indefinite for at least the following reasons:
The claim recites multiple functional units ("gradient parameter acquisition unit," "temperature parameter acquisition unit," and "torque restriction unit") without clearly linking these functions to physical structure. While paragraphs [0026] and [0031] of the specification indicate these functions are implemented by a computer including CPU, ROM, RAM, and I/O interface executing programmed instructions, the claim fails to specify what physical structure performs these claimed functions.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Since the independent claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) hence the dependent claims of 14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b).
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 of this title, 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 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al., US 2020/0070836 A1 (“Suzuki”), in view of Kujubu et al., US 2020/0164885 A1 (“Kujubu”).
Regarding Independent Claim 8, Suzuki teaches that a motor control method for controlling an operation of an electric motor serving as a drive source based on a predetermined request torque in an electric vehicle including the electric motor (Suzuki, ¶¶ [0021], [0024]-[0030]), the motor control method comprising:
acquiring a gradient parameter indicating a road surface gradient of the electric vehicle(Suzuki, ¶¶ [0067]-[0068]);
acquiring a temperature parameter indicating a temperature in a motor control system including the electric motor(Suzuki’s thermal protection portions limit motor torque based on heat generation calculated from motor current and measured values from motor-mounted temperature sensors, to maintain motor temperature at or below a predetermined temperature. Suzuki, ¶ [0036]); and
executing a torque restriction process of setting an upper limit of the request torque to a correction torque upper limit smaller than a predetermined basic torque upper limit when at least one of the gradient parameter and the temperature parameter is equal to or larger than a corresponding one of predetermined threshold values respectively defined for the gradient parameter and the temperature parameter(Suzuki, ¶¶ [0032]-[0035].A torque limiting portion corrects motor torque command values to fall within the selected torque limit values. Suzuki, ¶¶ [0029], [0036]), wherein
in the torque restriction process (Suzuki, ¶ [0039]. Suzuki further teaches reducing torque achievement rate when the vehicle is at a low speed and the longitudinal gradient reaches a predetermined or greater value. Suzuki, ¶¶ [0090]-[0091]),
Suzuki fails to teach but Kujubu teaches that a first torque required to maintain a vehicle speed on an uphill road is calculated based on the gradient parameter (Kujubu teaches calculating a first torque required to maintain vehicle speed or prevent rollback on an uphill road. Kujubu discloses adding gradient-assist torque to a target basic torque value so that gradient resistance is canceled, thereby permitting a uniform vehicle speed despite a road gradient. Kujubu, ¶¶ [0039], [0058], [0064]. Kujubu also teaches a stop-control torque that converges toward the disturbance torque estimated value and is positive on an uphill road to maintain a stopped state. Kujubu, ¶¶ [0043]-[0044], [0098]-[0100]),
a second torque is determined in advance to provide a predetermined acceleration to the electric vehicle(Kujubu further teaches a predetermined torque selected in advance for a desired vehicle operating condition. Specifically, a motor-rotation-speed feedback torque is set based on experimentally obtained data, and may alternatively be obtained from a regenerative torque table or attenuation-rate table stored in advance. Kujubu, ¶¶ [0089]-[0091]. Such a pre-established torque is a second torque for achieving a predetermined acceleration/deceleration or vehicle-speed behavior), and
the correction torque upper limit is determined by correcting the basic torque upper limit with reference to the first torque and the second torque (Kujubu teaches that a maximum gradient-assist amount is set as an upper limit based on a torque value that enables the vehicle to stop when accelerator position is zero at a given gradient. Kujubu, ¶¶ [0042], [0114]-[0117], [0140]-[0141]).
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki fails to teach but Kujubu teaches that wherein
the first torque is calculated based on an estimated value of an output torque of the electric motor and an estimated value of disturbance determined according to a rotation speed of the electric motor( Kujubu teaches calculating disturbance torque from an estimated motor output torque and motor rotation speed. Specifically, Kujubu’s disturbance torque estimator obtains a disturbance torque estimated value based on a motor torque command value, motor rotation speed, braking amount, and transfer characteristic. Kujubu, ¶¶ [0050]-[0058], [0096]-[0097].
Kujubu further teaches filtering motor rotation speed to calculate a first motor torque estimated value and filtering a motor torque command to calculate a second motor torque estimated value. Kujubu, ¶¶ [0052]-[0057]. The resulting disturbance torque estimated value is used as a gradient-resistance-related torque. Kujubu, ¶¶ [0057]-[0058], [0096]-[0097].).
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki teaches that wherein
the first torque is determined based on a front-rear-direction acceleration of the electric vehicle and a rate of change of a vehicle body speed parameter indicating a front-rear-direction speed of a vehicle body of the electric vehicle(Suzuki teaches determining a longitudinal road gradient based on front-rear acceleration and the rate of change of vehicle speed. Suzuki specifically teaches that the longitudinal gradient SP may be estimated from the difference between: (i) a value of a longitudinal acceleration sensor detecting longitudinal vehicle acceleration; and (ii) a differential value of vehicle speed VSP. Suzuki, ¶ [0067].
Kujubu teaches using the gradient-related disturbance torque to calculate gradient-assist torque for vehicle torque control. Kujubu, ¶¶ [0039], [0050]-[0058], [0124]-[0127].Therefore, it would have been obvious to calculate the first, gradient-related torque of claim 8 from the front-rear acceleration and rate of change in vehicle body speed, as recited in claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki teaches that wherein
the second torque is determined based on at least one of the temperature parameters, a vehicle speed parameter indicating the vehicle speed of the electric vehicle, and the gradient parameter(Suzuki teaches using vehicle speed and a gradient parameter to adjust torque-control parameters. Suzuki adjusts cutoff frequency and torque response based on vehicle speed and estimated longitudinal gradient. Suzuki, ¶¶ [0064]-[0068]. Suzuki further teaches thermal protection that limits motor torque using motor temperature sensor measurements. Suzuki, ¶ [0036].Kujubu teaches determining torque correction using a stored torque table, gradient information, accelerator operation, and vehicle speed information. Kujubu, ¶¶ [0039], [0049]-[0050], [0061], [0091], [0124]-[0127]).
In view of Suzuki’s teaching that motor temperature is a relevant input to torque protection and Kujubu’s teaching of determining gradient-assist torque through stored maps/tables and vehicle operating conditions, it would have been obvious to determine the second torque based on one or more of motor temperature, vehicle speed, and gradient. Doing so would have predictably tailored the available acceleration torque to thermal capacity, vehicle operating state, and grade resistance.
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki teaches that wherein
when a vehicle speed parameter indicating the vehicle speed of the electric vehicle is out of a predetermined vehicle speed range,
the upper limit of the request torque is set to the basic torque upper limit regardless of a magnitude relation between the gradient parameter or the temperature parameter and the corresponding one of the predetermined threshold values, or
the second torque is adjusted to further increase the correction torque upper limit (Suzuki teaches setting torque response/filter values differently depending on whether vehicle speed is below or above a predetermined value(Suzuki, ¶¶ [0064]-[0066]) Suzuki also teaches modifying torque control based on whether the longitudinal gradient is at or above a predetermined value. Suzuki, ¶¶ [0067]-[0068], [0090]-[0091].
Kujubu teaches adjusting an upper limit and reduction rate of gradient-assist torque based on road gradient and operating conditions. Kujubu, ¶¶ [0042], [0061]-[0064], [0114]-[0122]. Kujubu further teaches using a stored table to set a gradient-correction reduction rate. Kujubu, ¶ [0122].
It would have been obvious to apply Suzuki’s vehicle-speed-based condition to Kujubu’s gradient-assist torque correction, such that outside a selected speed range the system either: (i) restores the applicable basic torque upper limit; or (ii) adjusts the second torque to raise the correction torque upper limit. This would have been a predictable calibration choice to balance vehicle performance, motor temperature, and torque-response stability at low and high speeds).
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki teaches that wherein
when a basic request torque determined according to a request drive force for the electric vehicle is less than a predetermined torque threshold value,
the upper limit of the request torque is set to the basic torque upper limit regardless of a magnitude relation between the gradient parameter or the temperature parameter and the corresponding one of the predetermined threshold values, or
the second torque is adjusted to further increase the correction torque upper limit(Suzuki teaches calculating driver demand torque from accelerator position and vehicle speed in ¶ [0024]. Suzuki also discloses torque limiting based on selected torque limit values. Suzuki, ¶¶ [0029], [0032]-[0036].Kujubu teaches determining whether a driver has requested acceleration or deceleration based on an accelerator position relative to a given threshold. Kujubu, ¶¶ [0105]-[0108].
Kujubu also teaches calculating a target basic torque value as driver-request torque based on accelerator position and motor rotation speed. Kujubu, ¶¶ [0039], [0049],
[0108]. Further, Kujubu discloses setting or adjusting gradient-assist torque according to the driver-request condition and road gradient. Kujubu, ¶¶ [0061]-[0064], [0124]-[0127].It would have been obvious to apply a request-torque threshold to Suzuki’s torque-limiting control, as taught by Kujubu’s accelerator-position threshold, and to restore a basic torque upper limit or increase the correction torque upper limit when the torque request is below that threshold. This would avoid unnecessary torque restriction when little acceleration is requested and would be an expected optimization of Suzuki’s torque-limiting system.)
Regarding claim 14, Suzuki teaches that a motor control device for controlling an operation of an electric motor serving as a drive source based on a predetermined request torque in an electric vehicle including the electric motor, the motor control device(Suzuki, ¶¶ [0019]-[0021], [0029]-[0036]) comprising:
a gradient parameter acquisition unit configured to acquire a gradient parameter indicating a road surface gradient of the electric vehicle (Suzuki’s longitudinal acceleration sensor and longitudinal-gradient estimation arrangement correspond to the claimed gradient parameter acquisition unit. Suzuki, ¶¶ [0021], [0067]);
a temperature parameter acquisition unit configured to acquire a temperature parameter indicating a temperature in a motor control system including the electric motor (Suzuki’s thermal protection portions use measured values from temperature sensors mounted on the motors and thus correspond to the claimed temperature parameter acquisition unit. Suzuki, ¶ [0036]); and
a torque restriction unit configured to execute a torque restriction process of setting an upper limit of the request torque to a correction torque upper limit smaller than a predetermined basic torque upper limit when at least one of the gradient parameter and the temperature parameter is equal to or larger than a corresponding one of predetermined threshold values respectively defined for the gradient parameter and the temperature parameter (Suzuki’s torque limit portions and torque-limit-value selecting portion correspond to a torque restriction unit. Suzuki’s torque limiting portions correct torque command values to fall within torque limit values selected from maximum-torque and power-related limits. Suzuki, ¶¶ [0029], [0032]-[0036]), wherein
the torque restriction unit
calculates a first torque required to maintain a vehicle speed on an uphill road based on the gradient parameter,
determines a second torque in advance to provide a predetermined acceleration to the electric vehicle, and
determines the correction torque upper limit by correcting the basic torque upper limit with reference to the first torque and the second torque (Kujubu teaches that a controller calculates disturbance torque as a gradient-resistance component, calculates a gradient-assist torque, adds the gradient-assist torque to a target basic torque, and limits the gradient-assist correction based on a torque that enables stopping or holding the vehicle at a given gradient. Kujubu, ¶¶ [0039], [0042]-[0044], [0049]-[0058], [0114]-[0117].).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kujubu’s gradient disturbance torque and gradient-assist upper-limit methodology into Suzuki’s torque limitation and thermal protection control. Suzuki already provides gradient estimation, torque command limiting, and motor thermal protection. Kujubu supplies the known technique of calculating a gradient-resistance torque and limiting a correction to produce a desired vehicle acceleration or speed-maintenance performance. The resulting control would set a correction torque upper limit below a basic torque upper limit when gradient and/or motor thermal operating conditions call for limitation, while preserving sufficient torque for uphill travel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8439. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 6:00pm.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached on 571-272-2060. 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.
/MUHAMMAD S ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights