DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 1, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This first non-final action is in response to applicant's original filing on Dec. 17, 2024. Claims 1-3 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Claim Objection
“Iref ” in claim 3 should be “Iqref ” . Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Trowell (US 2011232977 A1) in view of Masaki (JP 7207044 B2 machine translation)
Regarding claim 1, Trowell teaches a system for providing torque to two wheels across an axle (abstract), comprising
a Digital Differential Co-Processor (DDCP) (fig.1 ref.30, 70 & §44, correction control unit 70 is as part of an embedded processor in the control unit. DDCP is interpreted as a chip provided in the specification), and
two electrically powered wheels across the axle (fig.1 ref.12, 14),
wherein the dual inverter provides torque to the two electrically powered wheels (fig.1 ref.50, 60, 20, 22, 12, 14& §42 "Left motor control unit 50 and right motor control unit 60 generate the direct control signals for the left motor 20 and right motor 22 respectively" ; Motors 20 & 22 provide a torque), and
the DDCP monitors and controls the amount of torque delivered by the inverter to each of the two wheels (fig.2 §42 "Left motor control unit 50 and right motor control unit 60 each form part of a feedback loop, wherein left motor control unit 50 receives feedback signals from left motor 20 and right motor control unit 60 receives feedback signals from right motor 22).
Trowell does not explicitly teach but Masaki teaches a dual inverter (abstract, A first inverter for driving a first motor for rotating the left wheel of a vehicle, a first capacitor charged and discharged by the first inverter, and a second for rotating the right wheel of the vehicle. The voltage of the second inverter that drives the motor, the second capacitor that is charged and discharged by the second inverter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, motorized vehicle control, as taught by Trowell, using a dual inverter, as taught by Masaki, as Masaki and Trowell are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using a dual inverter predictably applied it to Trowell’s teaching allow for more precise, independent control of two electric motors, optimizing power consumption to improve overall vehicle range.
Regarding claim 2, Trowell teaches wherein the DDCP determines if any pre-conditions for wheel torque imbalance is present by checking instantaneous phase current values being transmitted over a high-speed serial interface from a micro-controller connected to the dual inverter (claim 1 "detect in dependence on said output signals a loading imbalance between said left motor and said right motor" & §29, 33, 35 by checking instantaneous phase current values ( claims 7-8 "said output signals from said left motor and said right motor respectively comprise a left motor current consumption and a right motor current consumption respectively" & §18 "the current consumption of each motor is indicative of the load experienced by that motor, and hence monitoring the current consumption of the left and right motor respectively enables the loading imbalance to be detected") being transmitted over a high speed serial interface from a micro controller connected to the dual inverter ( fig.2 ref.26, 28 & §52-53 "left and right motor monitoring circuitry 26, 28"; Typically the feedback signals from the motors 20, 22 comprise an instantaneous current and voltage measurement of each respective motor", §43 "The value of Rm is programmed to a chosen value and the current drawn by the motor is monitored" and §4 that explains the relationship between the measured current and the torque: "From these the motor control circuitry can determine the motor speed (primarily determined by the applied armature voltage) and the motor torque (primarily determined by the armature current).The motor control circuitry can then identify situations in which the load on a motor increases (resulting in greater motor torque) by virtue of an increase in the armature current").
Regarding claim 3, Trowell does not explicitly teach but Masaki teaches wherein the DDCP creates a signal based on measured Id and Iq values compared to incoming Idref and Iqref target values from the dual inverter (differs between the left and right motors, or the timing of winding short-circuit cancellation differs between the left and right motors, the difference between the torque generated in the left wheel and the torque generated in the right wheel imbalance occurs. As a result, an unintended yaw moment Ya may be generated in the vehicle, and the stability of the behavior of the vehicle may deteriorate. It is well known that torque is a vector quantity because it possesses both magnitude and a specific direction, defined as the cross product of the position vector (radius) and the force vector. difference between two torques( torques1 Id and Iq values compared to torques2 Idref and Iqref value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, motorized vehicle control, as taught by Trowell, using a dual inverter, as taught by Masaki, as Masaki and Trowell are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using a dual inverter predictably applied it to Trowell’s teaching allow for more precise, independent control of two electric motors, optimizing power consumption to improve overall vehicle range.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JINGLI WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8040. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 am-5 pm EST.
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 Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313)446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 86-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-100.
/J.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666