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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawley, US 2023/0125618 A1, in view of Sato, et al., US 2012/0123624 A1.
As per Claim 1, Hawley teaches a torque monitoring system for hybrid electric vehicles (¶ 53), the torque monitoring system comprising:
a requested torque determination module configured to determine a driver’s acceleration requested torque (¶¶ 53, 64) and a driver’s deceleration requested torque (¶ 101); and
a requested torque monitoring module configured to determine a final upper limit requested torque to monitor the driver’s acceleration requested torque and a final lower limit requested torque to monitor the driver’s deceleration requested torque (¶ 82).
Hawley does not expressly teach: limiting an upper limit value of the driver’s acceleration requested torque through the final upper limit requested torque, and limiting a lower limit value of the driver’s deceleration requested torque through the final lower limit requested torque. Sato teaches: limiting an upper limit value of the driver’s acceleration requested torque through the final upper limit requested torque, and limiting a lower limit value of the driver’s deceleration requested torque through the final lower limit requested torque (¶ 58). At the time of the invention, a person of skill in the art would have thought it obvious to run the torque monitoring system of Hawley in line with requested limit torques, as Sato teaches, in order to reduce power consumption requirements of an electric vehicle.
As per Claim 2, Hawley teaches that the requested torque monitoring module is configured to determine the driver’s acceleration requested torque to be the same value as the final upper limit requested torque when the driver’s acceleration requested torque is greater than the final upper limit requested torque (¶¶ 95-96).
As per Claim 3, Hawley teaches that the requested torque monitoring module is configured to determine the driver’s deceleration requested torque to be the same value as the final lower limit requested torque when the driver’s deceleration requested torque is smaller than the final lower limit requested torque (¶¶ 105-106; as the driver uses “just the brakes”).
As per Claim 4, Hawley teaches that the driver’s acceleration requested torque and the driver’s deceleration requested torque determined by the requested torque determination module are stored in a first memory (¶ 70; memory 208 of Figure 2), and that the final upper limit requested torque and the final lower limit requested torque determined by the requested torque monitoring module are stored in a second memory (¶¶ 139-140; e.g., information storage mechanism 910 of Figure 9).
As per Claim 5, Hawley teaches that the requested torque monitoring module configured to determine the final upper limit requested torque and the final lower limit requested torque in the same task cycle as a task cycle in which the requested torque determination module determines the driver’s acceleration requested torque and the driver’s deceleration requested torque (¶¶ 85; as acceleration compares with “the maximum acceleration creep”).
As per Claim 6, Hawley teaches:
that the requested torque determination module configured to determine the driver’s acceleration requested torque based on a first acceleration requested torque (¶ 88) and a first creep torque (¶¶ 86, 88); and
that the requested torque monitoring module determines the final upper limit requested torque based on a second acceleration requested torque, a second creep torque, and an upper limit margin torque (¶¶ 93, 99).
As per Claim 7, Hawley does not expressly teach: that the requested torque determination module determines the driver’s deceleration requested torque based on a first regenerative braking torque and a first creep torque; and the requested torque monitoring module determines the final lower limit requested torque based on a second regenerative braking torque, a second creep torque, and a lower limit margin torque. Sato teaches:
that the requested torque determination module determines the driver’s deceleration requested torque based on a first regenerative braking torque (¶ 53) and a first creep torque (¶ 58); and
that the requested torque monitoring module determines the final lower limit requested torque based on a second regenerative braking torque (¶ 57), a second creep torque, and a lower limit margin torque (¶ 58).
See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 8, Hawley teaches:
that the requested torque determination module configured to determine a first acceleration requested torque based on an accelerator pedal position value (¶ 50), a driving mode of a vehicle (¶ 55), and a vehicle speed (¶¶ 50-51);
that the requested torque monitoring module configured to determine a second acceleration requested torque based on the accelerator pedal position value, a driving mode for monitoring, and the vehicle speed (¶ 64); and
that the driving mode for monitoring is a driving mode in which a largest acceleration requested torque occurs among driving modes of the vehicle based on the same variable data (¶ 68; through assist mode detection/activation circuit 210 of Figure 2).
As per Claim 9, Hawley teaches:
that the requested torque determination module configured to determine a first creep torque based on a shift gear position (¶ 84), a vehicle speed (¶ 86), and a braking amount (¶ 85); and
that the requested torque monitoring module configured to determine a second creep torque based on the same variable data as a variable data used when the first creep torque is determined by the requested torque determination module (¶ 88).
As per Claim 10, Hawley teaches:
that the requested torque determination module configured to determine a first regenerative braking torque based on a basic regenerative braking torque (¶ 60), shift efficiency (¶ 64; “the state of the shift”), and a regenerative braking torque decrement (¶¶ 63-64); and
that the requested torque monitoring module configured to determine a second regenerative braking torque based on the same variable data as a variable data used when the first regenerative braking torque is determined by the requested torque determination module (¶¶ 101-104).
As per Claim 11, Hawley teaches a torque monitoring method for hybrid electric vehicles (¶¶ 53-54), the torque monitoring method comprising:
determining, by a requested torque determination module, a driver’s acceleration requested torque based (¶¶ 53, 64) on an accelerator pedal position value (¶¶ 125-126);
determining, by the requested torque determination module, a driver’s deceleration requested torque (¶ 101) based on a brake pedal position value (¶¶ 125-126); and
determining, by a requested torque monitoring module, a final upper limit requested torque to monitor the driver’s acceleration requested torque (¶ 82).
Hawley does not expressly teach: determining, by the requested torque monitoring module, a final lower limit requested torque to monitor the driver’s deceleration requested torque; determining, by the requested torque monitoring module, an upper limit value of the driver’s acceleration requested torque as the final upper limit requested torque; and determining, by the requested torque monitoring module, a lower limit value of the driver’s deceleration requested torque as the final lower limit requested torque. Sato teaches:
determining, by the requested torque monitoring module, a final lower limit requested torque to monitor the driver’s deceleration requested torque (¶ 58);
determining, by the requested torque monitoring module, an upper limit value of the driver’s acceleration requested torque as the final upper limit requested torque (¶ 58); and
determining, by the requested torque monitoring module, a lower limit value of the driver’s deceleration requested torque as the final lower limit requested torque (¶ 58; as “creep torque, on the power running side is calculated as the driver requested basic torque value”).
See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 12, Hawley teaches that the requested torque monitoring module determines the driver’s acceleration requested torque to be the same value as the final upper limit requested torque when the driver’s acceleration requested torque is greater than the final upper limit requested torque (¶¶ 95-96).
As per Claim 13, Hawley teaches that the requested torque monitoring module determines the driver’s deceleration requested torque to be the same value as the final lower limit requested torque when the driver’s deceleration requested torque is smaller than the final lower limit requested torque (¶¶ 105-106; as the driver uses “just the brakes”).
As per Claim 14, Hawley teaches that the driver’s acceleration requested torque and the driver’s deceleration requested torque determined by the requested torque determination module are stored in a first memory (¶ 70; memory 208 of Figure 2), and that the final upper limit requested torque and the final lower limit requested torque determined by the requested torque monitoring module are stored in a second memory (¶¶ 139-140; e.g., information storage mechanism 910 of Figure 9).
As per Claim 15, Hawley teaches that the requested torque monitoring module determines the final upper limit requested torque and the final lower limit requested torque in the same task cycle as a task cycle in which the requested torque determination module determines the driver’s acceleration requested torque and the driver’s deceleration requested torque (¶¶ 85; as acceleration compares with “the maximum acceleration creep”).
As per Claim 16, Hawley teaches:
that the requested torque determination module determines the driver’s acceleration requested torque (¶ 88) based on a first acceleration requested torque and a first creep torque (¶¶ 86, 88); and
that the requested torque monitoring module determines the final upper limit requested torque based on a second acceleration requested torque, a second creep torque, and an upper limit margin torque (¶¶ 93, 99).
As per Claim 17, Hawley does not expressly teach: that the requested torque determination module determines the driver’s deceleration requested torque based on a first regenerative braking torque and a first creep torque; and the requested torque monitoring module determines the final lower limit requested torque based on a second regenerative braking torque, a second creep torque, and a lower limit margin torque. Sato teaches: that the requested torque determination module determines the driver’s deceleration requested torque based on a first regenerative braking torque and a first creep torque; and the requested torque monitoring module determines the final lower limit requested torque based on a second regenerative braking torque, a second creep torque, and a lower limit margin torque. Sato teaches:
that the requested torque determination module determines the driver’s deceleration requested torque based on a first regenerative braking torque and a first creep torque; and the requested torque monitoring module determines the final lower limit requested torque based on a second regenerative braking torque, a second creep torque, and a lower limit margin torque. Sato teaches:
that the requested torque determination module determines the driver’s deceleration requested torque based on a first regenerative braking torque (¶ 53) and a first creep torque (¶ 58); and
that the requested torque monitoring module determines the final lower limit requested torque based on a second regenerative braking torque (¶ 57), a second creep torque, and a lower limit margin torque (¶ 58).
See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 18, Hawley teaches:
that the requested torque determination module determines a first acceleration requested torque based on the accelerator pedal position value (¶ 50), a driving mode of a vehicle (¶ 55), and a vehicle speed (¶¶ 50-51);
that the requested torque monitoring module determines a second acceleration requested torque based on the accelerator pedal position value, a driving mode for monitoring, and the vehicle speed (¶ 64); and
that the driving mode for monitoring is a driving mode in which a largest acceleration requested torque occurs among driving modes of the vehicle based on the same variable data (¶ 68; through assist mode detection/activation circuit 210 of Figure 2).
As per Claim 19, Hawley teaches:
that the requested torque determination module determines a first creep torque based on a shift gear position (¶ 84), a vehicle speed (¶ 86), and a braking amount (¶ 85); and
that the requested torque monitoring module determines a second creep torque based on the same variable data as the variable data used when the first creep torque is determined by the requested torque determination module (¶ 88).
As per Claim 20, Hawley teaches:
that the requested torque determination module determines a first regenerative braking torque based on a basic regenerative braking torque (¶ 60), shift efficiency (¶ 64; “the state of the shift”), and a regenerative braking torque decrement (¶¶ 63-64); and
that the requested torque monitoring module determines a second regenerative braking torque based on the same variable data as the variable data used when the first regenerative braking torque is determined by the requested torque determination module (¶¶ 101-104).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATUL TRIVEDI whose telephone number is (313)446-4908. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9:00 AM-5:00 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, Peter Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
ATUL TRIVEDI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/ATUL TRIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights