DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant Amendment and Argument filed on 04/14/2026. This Action is made FINAL.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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 Amendment
Amendments to claims 1-2 correct previous typographical errors, therefore the previous objections to claims 1-2 are withdrawn.
Amendments to claims no longer invoke interpretation under 112(f), therefore previous rejections to claims of claims 1-10 under 112(b) due to lack of description of limitations invoking interpretation under 112(f) are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 9-11, filed 04/14/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 10-13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and claim(s) 4, 9 and 14 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In the Remarks, Applicant argued the following:
Van Houten fails to disclose
“control the motor driver to adjust the current supplied to the motor according to a speed limit value of the motor or a speed change amount of the motor and supply the adjusted current to the motor”
Regarding points (a)(i) applicant argues that “the speed of the vehicle may be limited such that a user may use the power of the motor” does not teach the claimed limitation (a)(i), where, specifically, that limiting “the speed of the vehicle” in Van Houten is not an identical or completely detailed disclosure of “a speed limit value of the motor or a speed change amount of the motor” of claim 1. Applicant further argues that Van Houten’s teaching that “user may use the power of the motor” does not specifically disclose the claimed limitation (a)(i), where applicant argues there is no identical or completely detailed disclosure of the claimed limitation (a)(i). However, examiner maintains Van Houten discloses the limitations as claimed, first “a speed limit value of the motor” can be broadly interpreted to include any limited speed the motor is to operate according to, such as the limited speed of the vehicle disclosed in Van Houten. Further, examiner maintains Van Houten teaches an identical and completely detailed disclosure of adjusting the current supplied to the motor according to a speed limit value of the motor and supplying the adjust current to the motor, as Van Houten teaches a limited speed of the vehicle, this teaches a speed limit value of the motor, further as Van Houten teaches a motor controller (para [0005] : “a controller operatively coupled to receive inputs from the throttle and the sensor and to provide a motor control signal to a motor. The controller may be configured to generate the motor control signal based on inputs received from the throttle and the sensor. The controller may be configured to operate in a riding mode and a walk-assist mode selectively, based on an input received from the sensor. In the walk-assist mode, the controller may be configured to provide a motor control signal to provide a lower speed than in the riding mode for at least a portion of the range of throttle positions.”), where when operating in walk assist the controller must use a motor driver to drive the motor, this motor driver operates by controlling current and voltage supplied to the electric motor where when operating the vehicle from a stop (where the motor is not running) in, for example, the walk-assist mode, the current is adjusted from zero to a non-zero amount to accelerate the motor to the limited speed. The examiner maintains this is an identical and detailed disclosure to any person of ordinary skill in the art regarding the basic operation of electric motors.
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10-13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Van Houten et al (US 20210086859 A1) henceforth referred to as Van Houten.
Regarding Claim 1 Van Houten teaches An electric two-wheeled vehicle driving system comprising (para [0034] : “FIGS. 1A-E illustrate a side view, a front view, a rear view, a top view, and a bottom view, respectively, of an electric vehicle 100 in accordance with some embodiments. In the illustrated embodiment, electric vehicle 100 is a two-wheeled vehicle with a front wheel 122A and a rear wheel 122B mounted on axles supported by fork 128A or 128B, respectively.”):
a mode switch configured to detect a selected driving mode and a throttle for receiving an acceleration command from a user (para [0031] : “In some embodiments, the vehicle may selectively enter walk-assist mode automatically based on the output of a sensor.”, para [0032]: “Alternatively or additionally, a separate control mechanism may be provided to enable a user to place the vehicle in walk-assist mode. As a specific example, a tab may be mounted to a handlebar of the vehicle. The tab may be separate from a throttle used to regulate speed in riding mode and, when activated, may place the vehicle in walk-assist mode, with a speed, though limited to a walking speed, proportional to the amount of movement of the tab.”, para [0040] : “Handlebars 130 also include throttle 136A and 136B configured to provide acceleration to the electric vehicle when engaged, for example, by rotating the throttle around an axis along the length of the handlebars 130.”);
a motor provided on one of a front wheel and a rear wheel to provide rotational power to the one of the front wheel and the rear wheel (para [0034] : “Either or both of wheels 122A and 122B may be driven by an electric motor, which may have a stator mounted to one of the forks and a rotor coupled to the axle.”);
a motor driver configured to supply current from a battery to the motor to drive the motor (para [0035] : “Footboard 110 may have upper and lower surfaces that are separated to create a compartment in which a battery and motor controller may be installed.”); and
a controller configured to control the motor driver to supply current to the motor according to a rotation amount of the throttle if the throttle is rotated in a forward or reverse state (para [0040] : “Handlebars 130 also include throttle 136A and 136B configured to provide acceleration to the electric vehicle when engaged, for example, by rotating the throttle around an axis along the length of the handlebars 130.”), and control the motor driver to adjust the current supplied to the motor according to a speed limit value of the motor or a speed change amount of the motor and supply the adjusted current to the motor (para [0027] : “In the walk-assist mode, the speed of the vehicle may be limited such that a user may use the power of the motor, in whole or in part, to propel the vehicle without concern that the vehicle will move so quickly that the user loses control of the vehicle.”, para [0029] : “In a walk-assist mode, a controller on the vehicle may limit the speed of the vehicle to a walking speed, which may, for example, be less than 5 miles per hour, or less than 4 miles per hour in some embodiments, or between 2 and 5 miles per hour in other embodiments. The limit on speed of the vehicle may be based on measurements with a speed sensor. Alternatively or additionally, the speed may be limited indirectly to a speed at which a user can move while pushing the vehicle.”).
Regarding Claim 2 Van Houten teaches The electric two-wheeled vehicle driving system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to:
receive a current motor speed value of the motor from a motor speed detector, and determine and output a first torque command value according to the rotation amount of the throttle (para [0048] : “Such a vehicle may be propelled by an electric motor. In some embodiments, the motor may be a direct drive motor, coupled to one of the wheels. The torque generated by the motor may be set by a controller.”, para [0049] : “The controller may receive inputs from a throttle and one or more sensors. The sensors, for example, may include a speed sensor. An example of a suitable speed sensor is a sensor coupled to a wheel of the electric vehicle so as to measure a rate of rotation, which may then be related to a speed.”, para [0055] : “At act 308, the controller may compute a torque corresponding to the detected throttle position. The torque may be applied by the motor such as to propel the vehicle at a speed related to the throttle position. As an example, a PID control approach may be used, such that when the throttle output indicates that the throttle has been moved further towards the full throttle position, the computed torque increases. Conversely, when the throttle output indicates that the throttle has been moved closer to its no actuation position, the computed torque decreases. As another example, the controller may compute from the output of the throttle a position of the throttle as a percentage of full throttle. The controller may then compute a torque as the same percentage as the maximum torque that may be delivered by the motor.”); and
control the motor driver to drive the motor by supplying current according to the first torque command value to the motor when receiving the first torque command value (para [0051] : “Regardless of the number and type of sensors, the controller may use inputs derived from these sensors, in combination with an indication of motion of a throttle, to generate motor control signals. In some embodiments, the motor control signal will impact the torque applied by a motor on one or more wheels of the vehicle, so as to propel the vehicle.”, para [0056] : “It should be appreciated, however, that other approaches for computing torque alternatively or additionally may be used. Moreover, it should be appreciated that torque is used in FIG. 3 as an example of a controlled variable. Other parameters of motor operation may alternatively be controlled. For example, motor speed or the magnitude of the motor control signal may be the controlled variable instead of, or in addition to, torque.”).
Regarding Claim 3 Van Houten teaches The electric two-wheeled vehicle driving system of claim 2, wherein the controller adjusts and outputs the first torque command value if a detected output torque of the motor is higher than an output torque of the motor set for the rotation amount of the throttle when the throttle rotates (para [0055] : “At act 308, the controller may compute a torque corresponding to the detected throttle position. The torque may be applied by the motor such as to propel the vehicle at a speed related to the throttle position. As an example, a PID control approach may be used, such that when the throttle output indicates that the throttle has been moved further towards the full throttle position, the computed torque increases. Conversely, when the throttle output indicates that the throttle has been moved closer to its no actuation position, the computed torque decreases. As another example, the controller may compute from the output of the throttle a position of the throttle as a percentage of full throttle. The controller may then compute a torque as the same percentage as the maximum torque that may be delivered by the motor.”, fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 10 Van Houten teaches The electric two-wheeled vehicle driving system of claim 1, wherein the rotation amount of the throttle increases or decreases linearly, and the current increases or decreases linearly in proportion to the rotation amount of the throttle (para [0055] : “At act 308, the controller may compute a torque corresponding to the detected throttle position. The torque may be applied by the motor such as to propel the vehicle at a speed related to the throttle position. As an example, a PID control approach may be used, such that when the throttle output indicates that the throttle has been moved further towards the full throttle position, the computed torque increases. Conversely, when the throttle output indicates that the throttle has been moved closer to its no actuation position, the computed torque decreases. As another example, the controller may compute from the output of the throttle a position of the throttle as a percentage of full throttle. The controller may then compute a torque as the same percentage as the maximum torque that may be delivered by the motor.”, fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 11 Van Houten teaches An electric two-wheeled vehicle driving method comprising (para [0034] : “FIGS. 1A-E illustrate a side view, a front view, a rear view, a top view, and a bottom view, respectively, of an electric vehicle 100 in accordance with some embodiments. In the illustrated embodiment, electric vehicle 100 is a two-wheeled vehicle with a front wheel 122A and a rear wheel 122B mounted on axles supported by fork 128A or 128B, respectively.”):
a torque command generation step in which a torque command generator receives a current motor speed value of a motor from a motor speed detector, and determines and outputs a first torque command value according to a rotation amount of a throttle (para [0040] : “Handlebars 130 also include throttle 136A and 136B configured to provide acceleration to the electric vehicle when engaged, for example, by rotating the throttle around an axis along the length of the handlebars 130.”, para [0048] : “Such a vehicle may be propelled by an electric motor. In some embodiments, the motor may be a direct drive motor, coupled to one of the wheels. The torque generated by the motor may be set by a controller.”, para [0049] : “The controller may receive inputs from a throttle and one or more sensors. The sensors, for example, may include a speed sensor. An example of a suitable speed sensor is a sensor coupled to a wheel of the electric vehicle so as to measure a rate of rotation, which may then be related to a speed.”, para [0055] : “At act 308, the controller may compute a torque corresponding to the detected throttle position. The torque may be applied by the motor such as to propel the vehicle at a speed related to the throttle position. As an example, a PID control approach may be used, such that when the throttle output indicates that the throttle has been moved further towards the full throttle position, the computed torque increases. Conversely, when the throttle output indicates that the throttle has been moved closer to its no actuation position, the computed torque decreases. As another example, the controller may compute from the output of the throttle a position of the throttle as a percentage of full throttle. The controller may then compute a torque as the same percentage as the maximum torque that may be delivered by the motor.”); and
a current command generation step in which a current command generator controls a motor driver to drive the motor by supplying current according to the first torque command value to the motor when receiving the first torque command value from the torque command generator ( para [0070] : “The computed torque may then be used to generate motor control signals at act 424. Motor control signals may be generated using techniques as described above in connection with act 334. In the example of FIG. 4, the torque commanded by the generated motor control signal is not shown to be affirmatively limited by speed. However, it should be appreciated that operations as described above in connection with act 320 may be implemented as part of the riding mode portion of method 400.”).
Regarding Claim 12 Van Houten teaches The electric two-wheeled vehicle driving method of claim 11, further comprising, before torque command generation step, a driving mode selection step of detecting a selected driving mode of a mode switch and detecting the current motor speed value of the motor and the rotation amount of the throttle. para [0027] : “In the walk-assist mode, the speed of the vehicle may be limited such that a user may use the power of the motor, in whole or in part, to propel the vehicle without concern that the vehicle will move so quickly that the user loses control of the vehicle.”, para [0029] : “In a walk-assist mode, a controller on the vehicle may limit the speed of the vehicle to a walking speed, which may, for example, be less than 5 miles per hour, or less than 4 miles per hour in some embodiments, or between 2 and 5 miles per hour in other embodiments. The limit on speed of the vehicle may be based on measurements with a speed sensor. Alternatively or additionally, the speed may be limited indirectly to a speed at which a user can move while pushing the vehicle.”, para [0040] : “Handlebars 130 also include throttle 136A and 136B configured to provide acceleration to the electric vehicle when engaged, for example, by rotating the throttle around an axis along the length of the handlebars 130.”, para [0048] : “Such a vehicle may be propelled by an electric motor. In some embodiments, the motor may be a direct drive motor, coupled to one of the wheels. The torque generated by the motor may be set by a controller.”, para [0049] : “The controller may receive inputs from a throttle and one or more sensors. The sensors, for example, may include a speed sensor. An example of a suitable speed sensor is a sensor coupled to a wheel of the electric vehicle so as to measure a rate of rotation, which may then be related to a speed.”, para [0055] : “At act 308, the controller may compute a torque corresponding to the detected throttle position. The torque may be applied by the motor such as to propel the vehicle at a speed related to the throttle position. As an example, a PID control approach may be used, such that when the throttle output indicates that the throttle has been moved further towards the full throttle position, the computed torque increases. Conversely, when the throttle output indicates that the throttle has been moved closer to its no actuation position, the computed torque decreases. As another example, the controller may compute from the output of the throttle a position of the throttle as a percentage of full throttle. The controller may then compute a torque as the same percentage as the maximum torque that may be delivered by the motor.”, para [0070] : “The computed torque may then be used to generate motor control signals at act 424. Motor control signals may be generated using techniques as described above in connection with act 334. In the example of FIG. 4, the torque commanded by the generated motor control signal is not shown to be affirmatively limited by speed. However, it should be appreciated that operations as described above in connection with act 320 may be implemented as part of the riding mode portion of method 400.”).
Regarding Claim 13, it recites a method with limitations substantially the same as claim 3 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 20, it recites a method with limitations substantially the same as claim 10 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Houten and further in view of Jeon et al (US 20240405702 A1) henceforth referred to as Jeon.
Regarding Claim 4 Van Houten teaches The electric two-wheeled vehicle driving system of claim 2, wherein, if the current motor speed value is greater than or equal to a preset minimum speed limit value of the motor, the controller receives the current motor speed value from the motor speed detector, and outputs a second torque command value by applying a speed control torque reduction rate to the first torque command value (para [0055] : “At act 308, the controller may compute a torque corresponding to the detected throttle position. The torque may be applied by the motor such as to propel the vehicle at a speed related to the throttle position. As an example, a PID control approach may be used, such that when the throttle output indicates that the throttle has been moved further towards the full throttle position, the computed torque increases. Conversely, when the throttle output indicates that the throttle has been moved closer to its no actuation position, the computed torque decreases. As another example, the controller may compute from the output of the throttle a position of the throttle as a percentage of full throttle. The controller may then compute a torque as the same percentage as the maximum torque that may be delivered by the motor.”, fig. 3),
wherein, in response to receive the second torque command value, the controller controls the motor driver to drive the motor by supplying a current adjusted according to the second torque command value to the motor (para [0051] : “Regardless of the number and type of sensors, the controller may use inputs derived from these sensors, in combination with an indication of motion of a throttle, to generate motor control signals. In some embodiments, the motor control signal will impact the torque applied by a motor on one or more wheels of the vehicle, so as to propel the vehicle.”, para [0056] : “It should be appreciated, however, that other approaches for computing torque alternatively or additionally may be used. Moreover, it should be appreciated that torque is used in FIG. 3 as an example of a controlled variable. Other parameters of motor operation may alternatively be controlled. For example, motor speed or the magnitude of the motor control signal may be the controlled variable instead of, or in addition to, torque.”). However Van Houten does not explicitly teach determines a speed control torque reduction rate.
However, in a similar field of endeavor (control systems for motor torque), Jeon teaches determines a speed control torque reduction rate (para [0084] : “The positive gains c.sub.0 and c.sub.1 in [Equation 2] and [Equation 7] represent the convergence gains of the back-step controller. When this gain is large, the system has a faster response and better robustness, but causes a large overshoot in the step profile. Meanwhile, when the value of this gain is small, the system reacts slowly and overshoot decreases. Therefore, there is a trade-off between setup time and overshoot.”, para [0122] : “FIG. 2 illustrates the control structure of the permanent magnet synchronous motor system using the position-current single loop control structure. In this method, the input is the reference position θ.sub.ref and the d-axis current set to zero to provide constant flux conditions in a permanent magnet synchronous motor, and the control outputs are the voltage supplies V.sub.q and V.sub.d of the motor. The adaptive back-stepping sliding mode controller is a combination of the backstep and SMC control and the backstep includes an adaptive convergence gain to prevent a large overshoot.”, where variable gain is a control torque reduction rate).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the system of Van Houten with the adaptive control of Jeon to increase the robustness and better control the system of Van Houten.
Regarding claim 14, it recites a method with limitations substantially the same as claim 4 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Houten and further in view of Hughes (US 20120138375 A1) henceforth referred to as Hughes.
Regarding Claim 9 Van Houten teaches The electric two-wheeled vehicle driving system of claim 1, however, Van Houten does not explicitly teach wherein, if it is determined that a regenerative power is generated from a regenerative power controller, the controller stops supplying current to the motor and supplies the generated current by the regenerative power to a power supply.
However, in a similar field of endeavor (regenerative braking systems for vehicles), Hughes teaches wherein, if it is determined that a regenerative power is generated from a regenerative power controller, the controller stops supplying current to the motor and supplies the generated current by the regenerative power to a power supply (para [0037] : “In use, the regenerative braking control module 64 receives the regenerative braking system input signals, applies an algorithm to the signals, and produces an output signal to the motor controller 102 for regulating regenerative braking torque to the drive wheel. Charging of the battery pack 104 during regenerative braking is regulated by the scooter controller 118 and charging controller 160.”. fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the system of Van Houten with the regenerative braking of Hughes to increase energy efficiency.
Regarding claim 19, it recites a method with limitations substantially the same as claim 9 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 15-18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Crewse et al (US 20220222979 A1) teaches a system for a vehicle including a receiver configured to receive a vehicle performance alteration command from a computing device, a controller configured to receive the vehicle performance alteration command from the receiver and provide a performance altering command, a power source configured to receive the performance altering command from the controller, and an electrically driven hardware element configured to receive electrical power from the power source. The controller is configured to alter operation of the power source to effectuate vehicle performance in accordance with the vehicle performance alteration command.
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 DAVID HATCH whose telephone number is (571)272-4518. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, James J Lee can be reached on 571-270-5965. 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 866-217-9197 (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 571-272-1000.
/D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/IMRAN K MUSTAFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
6/25/2026
Prosecution Insights