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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). A certified copy of the priority document (Application No. JP2023-215959, filed on 12/21/2023) has been received in this National Stage application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/24/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 06/24/2026. The examiner notes the following adjustments to the claims by the applicant:
Claim 1 is amended;
No claims are cancelled or added.
Therefore, Claims 1-6 are pending examination, in which Claim 1 is an independent claim.
In light of the instant amendments and arguments:
The applicant’s remarks regarding the objection to the Claims under MPEP §608.01(n) have been considered and found unpersuasive. The objection under MPEP §608.01(n) is maintained.
Further examination resulted in a new rejection of Claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as detailed below.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Necessitated by amendment.
Claim Objections
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP §608.01(n).
With this in mind, the examiner notes that Claims 4-5 depend from Claim 2 with the intervening Claim 3 also depending from claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments regarding the previous office action:
[A.] To overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, the applicant has amended each independent claim to include the additional underlined limitations: "the hold assist includes outputting, by the electric motor, a hold assist torque that is a drive wheel torque in an opposite direction of the gravity, and ending the output of the hold assist torque and performing switching to output of the driver demand torque, in response to exceedance of the driver demand torque over the hold assist torque.";
[B.] “amended independent claim 1 requires that the hold assist torque is itself output by the electric motor, and that this motor-output hold assist torque is ended and switched to the driver demand torque in response to the driver demand torque exceeding the hold assist torque”;
[C.] “Applicant respectfully submits that Ikeda at most teaches ending the output of a braking force by a brake actuator in response to the start of hold assist by a motor. Ikeda does not disclose or suggest, with respect to a hold assist torque output by a motor, "ending [an] output of [a] hold assist torque and performing switching to output of [a] driver demand torque, in response to exceedance of the driver demand torque over the hold assist torque," as recited by amended independent claim 1.”;
[D.] “Ikeda's hold assist is performed by the brake actuator, and the motor torque merely serves as a trigger for releasing that brake-based hold. This is fundamentally different from the configuration of amended independent claim 1, in which the hold assist torque is itself output by the electric motor as a drive wheel torque in an opposite direction of the gravity, and the output of that motor-output hold assist torque is ended and switched to the driver demand torque in response to exceedance of the driver demand torque over the hold assist torque.”.
Applicant's arguments A., B., C. and D. appear to be directed to the instantly amended subject matter. Accordingly, they have been addressed in the rejections below.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kodera et al. (JP 2022/036823 A, henceforth Kodera) and Schum et al. (US 2013/0197731 A1, henceforth Schum).
Regarding Claim 1, Kodera discloses the limitations: a battery electric vehicle that includes an electric motor as a drive source {electric vehicle, Abstract}, the battery electric vehicle comprising: a driving operation member that is used for driving of the battery electric vehicle {accelerator pedal 22 and brake pedal 24, Fig. 1 and ¶13}; a simulated gear shifting operation member that imitates an operation member that is used for gear shifting operation of a manual gear shifting internal combustion engine vehicle {¶15, “The shift lever 26 functions…The plurality of shift modes here are shift modes simulating the gear stages (shift stages) of an MT vehicle”, wherein MT=manual transmission}; and a control device {Control device (ECU) 50, Fig. 1} configured to control the battery electric vehicle depending on operation of the driving operation member {electric vehicle 10, battery 14 and accelerator pedal 11, ¶12-13}, wherein: the driving operation member includes an accelerator pedal {accelerator pedal 22 and brake pedal 24, Fig. 1 and ¶13}; the simulated gear shifting operation member includes a simulated H-shifter that simulates an H-shifter of a manual transmission {“simulating the gear stages (shift stages) of an MT vehicle”, ¶15, wherein MT=manual transmission}, and a simulated clutch operation device that simulates a clutch operation device {¶14, simulated clutch in the absence of a physical mechanism: “it does not have a transmission and a clutch mechanism included in an MT vehicle. Therefore, the shift lever 26 and the clutch pedal 28 are provided with the following functions in place of the functions of mechanically operating the actual transmission and the clutch mechanism.”}; the control device is configured to execute, by selection by a driver, a control mode in which a driver demand torque for driving the electric motor is calculated based on an operation amount of the accelerator pedal and operation of the simulated gear shifting operation member {¶23-33, virtual engine calculator unit 500, calculates speed, torque, transmission gain, etc., using sensor data (¶11)}, and outputting a drive wheel torque in an opposite direction of the gravity {modifying torque/power to the wheels is described to deal with an uphill gradient is discussed ¶40,44, with the driving force to the wheels (due to the electric vehicle’s electric motor 2, Fig. 1) increased for a given gear level to a maintain the desired speed}.
Kodera does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: perform a hold assist for preventing rearward movement or forward movement of the battery electric vehicle due to gravity that acts on the battery electric vehicle, when the control device detects that the battery electric vehicle is stopped on a road surface having a gradient in the control mode; and the hold assist includes outputting, by the electric motor, a hold assist torque that is a drive wheel torque in an opposite direction of the gravity, and ending the output of the hold assist torque and performing switching to output of the driver demand torque, in response to exceedance of the driver demand torque over the hold assist torque.
However, Schum explicitly recites the limitation: perform a hold assist for preventing rearward movement or forward movement of the battery electric vehicle due to gravity that acts on the battery electric vehicle {¶6, “A holding force may be applied that holds the vehicle in the stopped position on the slope”}, when the control device {motor control module 4, Fig. 2} detects that the battery electric vehicle {electric vehicle, ¶3} is stopped on a road surface having a gradient in the control mode {¶6, stopped position on a slope}; and the hold assist includes outputting, by the electric motor {¶6, holding force provided by a “commanded torque”, ¶18}, a hold assist that is a drive wheel torque in an opposite direction of the gravity {¶6, holding force provided by a “commanded torque to prevent downhill movement on a slope”}, and ending the output of the hold assist torque and performing switching to output of the driver demand torque, in response to exceedance of the driver demand torque over the hold assist torque {¶31, depressing the accelerator pedal returns the vehicle to a default mode, the creeping torque applicable for hill conditions is removed, and just the driving torque remains.}.
Kodera and Schum are analogous art they both deal with controlling an electric vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Kodera and Schum before them, to modify the teachings of Kodera to include the teachings of Schum to prevent an electric vehicle from rolling backwards on a hill by providing a holding force {¶6}.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Kodera and Schum discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. Kodera does not appear to explicitly disclose limitations: wherein the hold assist includes outputting the hold assist torque, on condition that the road surface having the gradient is a road surface having an uphill gradient.
However, Schum explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the hold assist includes outputting the hold assist torque {¶6, holding force applied for a vehicle on a slope}, on condition that the road surface having the gradient is a road surface having an uphill gradient {¶36 and Fig. 1, vehicle is dealing with an uphill slope}.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Kodera and Schum discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. Kodera does not appear to explicitly disclose limitations:
However, Schum explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the hold assist includes outputting the hold assist torque {¶6, holding force applied for a vehicle on a slope}, on condition that the road surface having the gradient is a road surface having a downhill gradient {¶18, “a commanded torque to prevent downhill movement on a slope”} and a shift switch of the battery electric vehicle is set to reverse {one skilled in the art will appreciate the vehicle will inherently be put into reverse when backing up a hill, when the vehicle is facing downhill}.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Kodera and Schum discloses all the limitations of Claim 2, as discussed supra. Kodera does not appear to explicitly disclose limitations: wherein the hold assist includes starting the output of the hold assist torque, in response to turning-off of brake operation by the driver.
However, Schum explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the hold assist includes starting the output of the hold assist torque {¶6, holding force applied for a vehicle on a slope}, in response to turning-off of brake operation by the driver {¶2, “The applied creep torque 6 is balanced by the downhill force 8 due to the vehicles mass. In this case the vehicle will remain stopped on the slope even though it is not in a park mode or the brake is not applied.”}.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Kodera and Schum discloses all the limitations of Claim 4, as discussed supra. Kodera does not appear to explicitly disclose limitations: wherein the hold assist includes ending the output of the hold assist torque, when the brake operation by the driver is performed in a period after the start of the output of the hold assist torque and before the exceedance of the driver demand torque over the hold assist torque
However, Schum explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the hold assist includes ending the output of the hold assist torque {¶6, holding force applied for a vehicle on a slope}, when the brake operation by the driver is performed in a period after the start of the output of the hold assist torque and before the exceedance of the driver demand torque over the hold assist torque {21, driver is notified of a hill condition “the driver may apply the brakes, accelerate, or park the vehicle to return the vehicle to normal operation”; one skilled in the art will appreciate a driver can apply the brakes at any time}.
Regarding Claim6, the combination of Kodera and Schum discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Kodera explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the control device is configured to calculate the driver demand torque using a vehicle model, and the vehicle model includes an engine model in which a virtual engine is modeled, a clutch model in which a virtual clutch is modeled, and a transmission model in which a virtual transmission is modeled {¶24 and Fig. 2, the ECU has a virtual engine rotation speed calculation unit, including torque, transmission gain, clutch output, ratio calculation and determination units, to perform all necessary calculations; ¶9 and Figs. 3-5, maps generated by calculation unit virtual engine output, torque transmission gain and gear ratio}.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RICHARD EDWIN GEIST whose telephone number is (703)756-5854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/R.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
