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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/13/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites "The EV of claim 6, the driver torque input is configured to..." which appears to be grammatically incorrect, missing a transition word such as "wherein" or the like. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities: The word "determine" in line 3 appears to be misspelled as "determe". Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 - 8, 10 - 13, & 16 - 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hose (US 2018/0156329 A1) in view of Kaneko (US 2008/0190680 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Hose discloses: An [vehicle] comprising: (Hose discloses in at least Paragraph 0032 & 0041 a vehicle provided with a system for controlling the vehicle in the event of a hill ascent failure [i.e. a vehicle])
a vehicle wheel; a drive subsystem comprising a drive motor coupled with the vehicle wheel; and (Hose discloses in at least Paragraphs 0032 & 0035 wherein the vehicle may comprise at least one wheel connected to a vehicle transmission [i.e. a vehicle wheel]. At least Paragraphs 0021 – 0022 & 0032 – 0035 of Hose further disclose wherein the vehicle may comprise an engine coupled to the wheel(s) via the transmission to provide torque to the wheels [i.e. a drive subsystem comprising a drive motor coupled with the vehicle wheel])
a control subsystem coupled to the drive subsystem and comprising (Hose discloses in at least Paragraphs 0043 & 0092 wherein the vehicle may include a controller configured to moderate a drive torque request [i.e. a control subsystem coupled to the drive subsystem])
a driver torque input configured to set a target propulsion torque; wherein the control subsystem is configured to: control the drive motor to apply the target propulsion torque to the vehicle wheel; (Hose discloses in at least Paragraphs 0045, 0089, & 0092 wherein a vehicle may be equipped with an accelerator pedal configured to receive a driver input which is a demand for engine speed/torque [i.e. a driver torque input configured to set a target propulsion torque], said demanded torque being commanded to be supplied by the engine to produce a torque output at the vehicle wheels [i.e. control the drive motor to apply the target propulsion torque to the vehicle wheel])
determine a stalled condition of the drive subsystem during the application of the target propulsion torque; and in response to determining the stalled condition, (Hose discloses in at least Paragraphs 0053 & 0054 wherein a condition may be specified for determining that a hill ascent failure has occurred, including the demand of 95% of available engine torque being reached which may be indicative of a stall condition of the vehicle [i.e. determine a stalled condition of the drive subsystem during the application of the target propulsion torque]. A plurality of other possible conditions are specified in at least Paragraphs 0054 – 0065, including the detection of a lack of vehicle movement consistent with wheel speed, and/or the maximum torque of the vehicle being reached with no more traction capable of being gained. At least Paragraphs 0093 & 0096 of Hose further disclose wherein responsive to determining that a hill ascent failure has occurred, the vehicle is configured to engage a hill descent mode to control reversal down the slope in a controlled manner, the specific method of which is not described as set forth in at least Paragraph 0002 of Hose [i.e. a rollback control is performed in response to the determination of a stalled condition])
control the drive motor to cancel the application of the target propulsion torque and (Hose discloses in at least Paragraphs 0043, 0045, & 0091 – 0094 wherein upon the determination of a hill ascent failure, the vehicle controller is configured to take a plurality of actions, including moderating a drive torque request to the engine, disengaging the forward gear of the vehicle, and applying wheel brakes [i.e. control the drive motor to cancel the application of the target propulsion torque responsive to the determination of the stall condition])
Hose however appears to be silent regarding:
Wherein the vehicle is an electric vehicle (EV)
calculate a rollback torque, the rollback torque comprising a lower torque value than a torque value of the target propulsion torque; and
to apply the rollback torque to the vehicle wheel, the rollback torque configured to allow the EV to travel down an incline at a rollback speed.
However Kaneko teaches wherein an electric vehicle may be configured to provide rollback torque to control the rollback speed of the vehicle in response to a rollback condition being detected.
Wherein the vehicle is an electric vehicle (EV) (However Kaneko teaches in at least Paragraphs 0038, 0041, & 0091 – 0093 wherein a hybrid electric vehicle including a motor drive battery may perform rollback control by administering drive torque to limit the speed of a vehicle when rollback is present on a slope [i.e. the vehicle comprises an electric vehicle])
calculate a rollback torque, the rollback torque comprising a lower torque value than a torque value of the target propulsion torque; and (However Kaneko teaches in at least Paragraphs 0168 & 0172 wherein a torque determination unit is configured to calculate a rollback torque target value that will hold a vehicle rollback speed in the vicinity of a rollback speed target value when the vehicle is in the rollback condition [i.e. a rollback torque is calculated]. As the stall condition of Hose, as set forth above, may include the vehicle not moving when a maximum commanded torque value is reached as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0045, 0054, & 0057 of Hose, the torque required to allow the vehicle to move backwards rolling back down the hill upon which stall has occurred would necessarily be less than the target propulsion torque that caused the stall)
to apply the rollback torque to the vehicle wheel, the rollback torque configured to allow the EV to travel down an incline at a rollback speed. (However Kaneko teaches in at least Paragraph 0168 wherein the rollback torque target value determined may be output to a torque selector, with at least Paragraph 0241 of Kaneko further teaching wherein the rollback torque target value computed may be output to the inverter motor controller [i.e. apply the rollback torque to the vehicle wheel] to cause the motor to provide driving force to limit the rollback speed to the rollback limit speed [i.e. the rollback torque configured to allow the EV to travel down an incline at a rollback speed])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Hose by incorporating the control of an electric vehicle to apply a rollback torque to travel down a hill at a specified rollback speed as taught by Kaneko.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Kaneko in at least Paragraphs 0009 & 0101, the vehicle rollback may be controlled to a specified speed limit to ensure the safety of the rollback control operation, by ensuring that the vehicle may be extricated from the rollback condition, improving the safety of the vehicle during control on hills with steep grades. Further, application to electric vehicles would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention based on reduced emissions of said vehicles, as acknowledged by Kaneko in at least Paragraph 0007, improving the environmental impact of said vehicles during operation.
Examiner further notes that at least Paragraph 0002 of Hose recites, inter alia, “Such vehicles may be provided with a ‘hill descent’ mode, which nominally means that a driver is not required to manually activate brakes or manually change gears in order to maintain a controlled descent of a steep slope. Hill descent methods are well known in the art and need not further be discussed here" indicating that while hill descent systems, such as that taught by Kaneko, were contemplated for use in the system disclosed by Hose, the specific details of implementing such a system as specifically described by the present claimed invention were merely omitted by Hose for being well known in the art.
Regarding Claim 2:
The EV of claim 1, wherein the driver torque input comprises an accelerator pedal configured to be engaged by a driver.
Hose discloses in at least Paragraphs 0045, 0089, & 0092 wherein a vehicle may be equipped with an accelerator pedal configured to receive a driver input which is a demand for engine speed/torque [i.e. the driver torque input comprises an accelerator pedal configured to be engaged by a driver], said demanded torque being commanded to be supplied by the engine to produce a torque output at the vehicle wheels.
Regarding Claim 3:
The EV of claim 1, wherein the control subsystem further comprises a drive mode selector configured to set a drive direction; wherein the control subsystem is further configured to: control the drive motor to apply the target propulsion torque in a first rotational direction; control the drive motor to apply the rollback torque in the first rotational direction; and wherein a rotational direction of the vehicle wheel during the vehicle travel down the incline is in a second rotational direction opposite the first rotational direction.
Hose discloses in at least Paragraphs 0099 & 0109 wherein a vehicle may be equipped with an automatic transmission configured to select a forward or reverse gear [i.e. a drive mode selector configured to set a drive direction]. At least Paragraphs 0029, 0030, & 0032 – 0035 of Hose further disclose wherein the wheel torque is delivered in the direction of the selected gear [i.e. control the drive motor to apply the target propulsion torque in a first rotational direction]. Hose however does not appear to specifically disclose the specific steps for rollback control as set forth above.
However Kaneko teaches in at least Paragraphs 0091 & 0092 wherein during the rollback control process, the motor may be configured to output creep torque to resist the reverse rotation of the vehicle motor, the creep torque being output in the positive torque travelling direction [i.e. control the drive motor to apply the rollback torque in the first rotational direction] while the vehicle rolls back the hill in the opposing direction [i.e. wherein a rotational direction of the vehicle wheel during the vehicle travel down the incline is in a second rotational direction opposite the first rotational direction].
Regarding Claim 4:
The EV of claim 1, wherein the control subsystem is further configured to: measure the rollback speed; and modify the rollback torque based on the measured rollback speed to control the travel down the incline at a constant rollback speed.
Hose does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a rollback speed is measured and used to modify the rollback torque to maintain a constant rollback speed.
However Kaneko teaches in at least Paragraphs 0168 – 0172 wherein the rollback speed is detected based on the rotational speed of the motor through the use of a speed detector [i.e. a rollback speed is measured] and the detected rollback speed is compared to a target rollback speed, the difference between the two being provided to a torque calculator. Based on the difference, the torque target value provided to the motor is calculated [i.e. the rollback torque is modified] to hold the rollback speed in the vicinity of the rollback speed target value [i.e. control the travel down the incline at a constant rollback speed].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Hose by incorporating the holding of rollback speed at a specific value as taught by Kaneko.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Kaneko in at least Paragraphs 0102, 0103, & 0168, the rollback speed of the vehicle may be limited to below a specified speed at which rollback may be maintained, improving the control of vehicle rollback operations.
Regarding Claim 5:
The EV of claim 1, wherein the control subsystem is further configured to ignore the target propulsion torque set by the driver torque input in calculating the rollback torque.
Hose discloses in at least Paragraphs 0045 & 0094 wherein the driver accelerator pedal input [i.e. the target propulsion torque set by the driver torque input] is disregarded when performing hill ascent failure control for the vehicle by performing a decrease of the commanded torque and the stopping of the vehicle despite driver input [i.e. the control subsystem is further configured to ignore the target propulsion torque set by the driver torque input].
Kaneko further teaches in at least Paragraphs 0101 & 0172 wherein the rollback torque target value is computed via maps related a rollback speed target value and rollback torque target value, which are independent from a driver torque input [i.e. the control subsystem is further configured to ignore the target propulsion torque set by the driver torque input in calculating the rollback torque].
Regarding Claim 6:
The EV of claim 1, wherein the control subsystem is further configured to: detect a rollback disengagement condition; and cancel the application of the rollback torque in response to detecting the rollback disengagement condition.
Hose does not appear to specifically disclose a detection of a rollback disengagement condition which causes the cancellation of the rollback torque.
However Kaneko teaches in at least Paragraphs 0217 – 0219 & 0227 wherein the brake pedal being depressed or not as determined by a brake sensor as taught in at least Paragraph 0161 [i.e. a rollback disengagement condition detected] is used as a condition to determine if the rollback condition is present, and thus if rollback torque control should be performed as depicted in Step S11 of Figure 13 of Kaneko, below. As the motor control processing is repeated, and the rollback control processing only occurs if the brake is not depressed [S11 = NO], the brake pedal being depressed [S11 = YES] causes the processing to proceed to normal operational processing, cancelling the rollback control [i.e. cancel the application of the rollback torque in response to detecting the rollback disengagement condition].
PNG
media_image1.png
620
386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Hose by incorporating the cancelling of rollback torque control based on the engagement of a vehicle brake as taught by Kaneko.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Kaneko in at least Paragraphs 0090 & 0091 and as would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, when the brake is applied, the vehicle is not intended to be driven, and thus the application of a brake at the vehicle serves as an indication that the vehicle rollback should be inhibited, improving the control of the rollback control system.
Regarding Claim 7:
The EV of claim 6, wherein the rollback disengagement condition comprises one of an engagement of a brake subsystem, a change in a drive direction via a drive mode selector, and a detection of an obstacle in a path of the EV.
Hose does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the vehicle rollback is configured to be disengaged by one of the listed conditions.
However Kaneko teaches in at least Paragraphs 0217 – 0219 & 0227 wherein the brake pedal being depressed or not is used as a condition to determine if the rollback condition is present, and thus if rollback torque control should be performed as depicted in Step S11 of Figure 13 of Kaneko, above. As the motor control processing is repeated, and the rollback control processing only occurs if the brake is not depressed [S11 = NO], the brake pedal being depressed [S11 = YES] causes the processing to proceed to normal operational processing, cancelling the rollback control [i.e. the rollback disengagement condition comprises an engagement of a brake subsystem].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Hose by incorporating the cancelling of rollback torque control based on the engagement of a vehicle brake as taught by Kaneko.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Kaneko in at least Paragraphs 0090 & 0091 and as would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, when the brake is applied, the vehicle is not intended to be driven, and thus the application of a brake at the vehicle serves as an indication that the vehicle rollback should be inhibited, improving the control of the rollback control system.
Regarding Claim 8:
The EV of claim 6, the driver torque input is configured to set the target propulsion torque to a zero value; and wherein the control subsystem is further configured to maintain application of the rollback torque without consideration of the driver torque input setting the target propulsion torque to the zero value.
Hose discloses in at least Paragraphs 0045 & 0094 wherein the driver accelerator pedal input [i.e. the target propulsion torque set by the driver torque input] is disregarded when performing hill ascent failure control for the vehicle by performing a decrease of the commanded torque and the stopping of the vehicle despite driver input [i.e. the driver torque input is configured to set the target propulsion torque to a zero value, and wherein the control subsystem is further configured to maintain application of the rollback torque without consideration of the driver torque input setting the target propulsion torque to the zero value].
Kaneko further teaches in at least Paragraphs 0101 & 0172 wherein the rollback torque target value is computed via maps related a rollback speed target value and rollback torque target value, which are independent from a driver torque input [i.e. the control subsystem is further configured to ignore the target propulsion torque set by the driver torque input in calculating the rollback torque].
Regarding Claim 10:
Hose discloses: A method of propelling an [vehicle] comprising (Hose discloses in at least Paragraphs 0024 & 0032 a method of hill ascent failure control for a vehicle)
a driving wheel, a drive subsystem comprising a drive motor, and (Hose discloses in at least Paragraphs 0032 & 0035 wherein the vehicle may comprise at least one wheel connected to a vehicle transmission [i.e. a vehicle wheel]. At least Paragraphs 0021 – 0022 & 0032 – 0035 of Hose further disclose wherein the vehicle may comprise an engine coupled to the wheel(s) via the transmission to provide torque to the wheels [i.e. a drive subsystem comprising a drive motor coupled with the vehicle wheel])
a control subsystem, the method comprising: (Hose discloses in at least Paragraphs 0043 & 0092 wherein the vehicle may include a controller configured to moderate a drive torque request [i.e. a control subsystem])
applying a driving torque in a first rotational direction to the driving wheel via the drive motor sufficient to cause the EV to travel in a drive direction in response to a propulsion input; (Hose discloses in at least Paragraphs 0045, 0089, & 0092 wherein a vehicle may be equipped with an accelerator pedal configured to receive a driver input which is a demand for engine speed/torque, said demanded torque being commanded to be supplied by the engine to produce a torque output at the vehicle wheels [i.e. applying a driving torque in a first rotational direction to the driving wheel via the drive motor sufficient to cause the EV to travel in a drive direction in response to a propulsion input])
sensing a stalled condition in the drive motor; …subsequent to sensing the stalled condition: ceasing application of the driving torque; and (Hose discloses in at least Paragraphs 0053 & 0054 wherein a condition may be specified for determining that a hill ascent failure has occurred, including the demand of 95% of available engine torque being reached which may be indicative of a stall condition of the vehicle [i.e. sensing a stalled condition in the drive motor]. A plurality of other possible conditions are specified in at least Paragraphs 0054 – 0065, including the detection of a lack of vehicle movement consistent with wheel speed, and/or the maximum torque of the vehicle being reached with no more traction capable of being gained. At least Paragraphs 0093 & 0096 of Hose further discloses wherein responsive to determining that a hill ascent failure has occurred, the vehicle is configured to engage a hill descent mode to control reversal down the slope in a controlled manner, which may include as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0043, 0045, & 0091 – 0094 of Hose moderating a drive torque request to the engine, disengaging the forward gear of the vehicle, and applying wheel brakes [i.e. ceasing application of the driving torque])
Hose however appears to be silent regarding:
Wherein the vehicle is an electric vehicle (EV)
calculating a rollback torque having a torque value lower than a torque value of the driving torque; and
applying the rollback torque in the first rotational direction to the driving wheel via the drive motor sufficient to cause the EV to travel in a rollback direction opposite to the drive direction.
However Kaneko teaches wherein an electric vehicle may be configured to provide rollback torque to control the rollback speed of the vehicle in response to a rollback condition being detected.
Wherein the vehicle is an electric vehicle (EV) (However Kaneko teaches in at least Paragraphs 0038, 0041, & 0091 – 0093 wherein a hybrid electric vehicle including a motor drive battery may perform rollback control by administering drive torque to limit the speed of a vehicle when rollback is present on a slope [i.e. the vehicle comprises an electric vehicle])
calculating a rollback torque having a torque value lower than a torque value of the driving torque; and (However Kaneko teaches in at least Paragraphs 0168 & 0172 wherein a torque determination unit is configured to calculate a rollback torque target value that will hold a vehicle rollback speed in the vicinity of a rollback speed target value when the vehicle is in the rollback condition [i.e. a rollback torque is calculated]. As the stall condition of Hose, as set forth above, may include the vehicle not moving when a maximum commanded torque value is reached as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0045, 0054, & 0057 of Hose, the torque required to allow the vehicle to move backwards rolling back down the hill upon which stall has occurred would necessarily be less than the target propulsion torque that caused the stall)
applying the rollback torque in the first rotational direction to the driving wheel via the drive motor sufficient to cause the EV to travel in a rollback direction opposite to the drive direction. (However Kaneko teaches in at least Paragraph 0168 wherein the rollback torque target value determined may be output to a torque selector, with at least Paragraph 0241 of Kaneko further teaching wherein the rollback torque target value computed may be output to the inverter motor controller [i.e. apply the rollback torque to the vehicle wheel] to cause the motor to provide driving force to limit the rollback speed to the rollback limit speed [i.e. the rollback torque configured to allow the EV to travel down an incline at a rollback speed])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Hose by incorporating the control of an electric vehicle to apply a rollback torque to travel down a hill at a specified rollback speed as taught by Kaneko.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Kaneko in at least Paragraphs 0009 & 0101, the vehicle rollback may be controlled to a specified speed limit to ensure the safety of the rollback control operation, by ensuring that the vehicle may be extricated from the rollback condition, improving the safety of the vehicle during control on hills with steep grades.
Regarding Claim 11:
The method of claim 10, wherein sensing the stalled condition comprises sensing no speed in the EV in response to applying the driving torque.
Hose discloses in at least Paragraphs 0053 & 0054 wherein a condition may be specified for determining that a hill ascent failure has occurred, including as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0054 – 0065 [and particularly Paragraphs 0057 & 0065], the detection of a lack of vehicle movement consistent with wheel speed, and/or the maximum torque of the vehicle being reached with no more traction capable of being gained [i.e. sensing the stalled condition comprises sensing no speed in the EV in response to applying the driving torque].
Regarding Claim 12:
The method of claim 10 further comprising: measuring a rollback speed of the EV in response to travelling in the rollback direction; and controlling the rollback torque to cause the EV to travel in the rollback direction at a constant rollback speed.
Hose does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a rollback speed is measured and used to modify the rollback torque to maintain a constant rollback speed.
However Kaneko teaches in at least Paragraphs 0168 – 0172 wherein the rollback speed is detected based on the rotational speed of the motor through the use of a speed detector [i.e. a rollback speed is measured] and the detected rollback speed is compared to a target rollback speed, the difference between the two being provided to a torque calculator. Based on the difference, the torque target value provided to the motor is calculated [i.e. the rollback torque is modified] to hold the rollback speed in the vicinity of the rollback speed target value [i.e. control the travel down the incline at a constant rollback speed].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Hose by incorporating the holding of rollback speed at a specific value as taught by Kaneko.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Kaneko in at least Paragraphs 0102, 0103, & 0168, the rollback speed of the vehicle may be limited to below a specified speed at which rollback may be maintained, improving the control of vehicle rollback operations.
Regarding Claim 13:
The method of claim 10 further comprising: detecting a rollback disengagement condition; and ceasing application of the rollback torque in response to detecting the rollback disengagement condition.
Hose does not appear to specifically disclose a detection of a rollback disengagement condition which causes the cancellation of the rollback torque.
However Kaneko teaches in at least Paragraphs 0217 – 0219 & 0227 wherein the brake pedal being depressed or not as determined by a brake sensor as taught in at least Paragraph 0161 [i.e. a rollback disengagement condition detected] is used as a condition to determine if the rollback condition is present, and thus if rollback torque control should be performed as depicted in Step S11 of Figure 13 of Kaneko, above. As the motor control processing is repeated, and the rollback control processing only occurs if the brake is not depressed [S11 = NO], the brake pedal being depressed [S11 = YES] causes the processing to proceed to normal operational processing, cancelling the rollback control [i.e. cancel the application of the rollback torque in response to detecting the rollback disengagement condition].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Hose by incorporating the cancelling of rollback torque control based on the engagement of a vehicle brake as taught by Kaneko.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Kaneko in at least Paragraphs 0090 & 0091 and as would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the resent claimed invention, when the brake is applied, the vehicle is not intended to be driven, and thus the application of a brake at the vehicle serves as an indication that the vehicle rollback should be inhibited, improving the control of the rollback control system.
Regarding Claim 16:
Hose discloses: A computing apparatus comprising: (Hose discloses in at least Paragraph 0043 a vehicle control system [i.e. an apparatus] configured to control the vehicle in the event of a hill ascent failure)
one or more computer-readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media executable by a processing device to direct the processing device to: (Hose discloses in at least Paragraphs 0043 & 0092 wherein the vehicle may include a controller configured to moderate a drive torque request, the controller comprising software and hardware, such as a known ECU, which may contain computer memory as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0084 [i.e. one or more computer-readable storage media and program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media executable by a processing device])
detect a stalled state in a drive motor coupled to a drive wheel of an [vehicle], the drive motor applying a driving torque to the drive wheel; remove application of the driving torque to the drive wheel in response to detecting the stalled state; (Hose discloses in at least Paragraphs 0053 & 0054 wherein a condition may be specified for determining that a hill ascent failure has occurred, including the demand of 95% of available engine torque being reached which may be indicative of a stall condition of the vehicle [i.e. detect a stalled state in a drive motor coupled to a drive wheel of an [vehicle], the drive motor applying a driving torque to the drive wheel]. A plurality of other possible conditions are specified in at least Paragraphs 0054 – 0065, including the detection of a lack of vehicle movement consistent with wheel speed, and/or the maximum torque of the vehicle being reached with no more traction capable of being gained. At least Paragraphs 0093 & 0096 of Hose further discloses wherein responsive to determining that a hill ascent failure has occurred, the vehicle is configured to engage a hill descent mode to control reversal down the slope in a controlled manner, which may include as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0043, 0045, & 0091 – 0094 of Hose, moderating a drive torque request to the engine, disengaging the forward gear of the vehicle, and applying wheel brakes [i.e. application of the driving torque to the drive wheel is removed in response to detecting the stalled state])
Hose however appears to be silent regarding:
Wherein the vehicle comprises an electric vehicle (EV)
calculate a rollback torque having a torque value lower than a torque value of the driving torque; and
apply the rollback torque to the drive wheel in a first rotational direction while the drive wheel rotates in a second rotational direction opposite the first rotational direction.
However Kaneko teaches wherein an electric vehicle may be configured to provide rollback torque to control the rollback speed of the vehicle in response to a rollback condition being detected.
Wherein the vehicle comprises an electric vehicle (EV) (However Kaneko teaches in at least Paragraphs 0038, 0041, & 0091 – 0093 wherein a hybrid electric vehicle including a motor drive battery may perform rollback control by administering drive torque to limit the speed of a vehicle when rollback is present on a slope [i.e. the vehicle comprises an electric vehicle])
calculate a rollback torque having a torque value lower than a torque value of the driving torque; and (However Kaneko teaches in at least Paragraphs 0168 & 0172 wherein a torque determination unit is configured to calculate a rollback torque target value that will hold a vehicle rollback speed in the vicinity of a rollback speed target value when the vehicle is in the rollback condition [i.e. a rollback torque is calculated]. As the stall condition of Hose, as set forth above, may include the vehicle not moving when a maximum commanded torque value is reached as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0045, 0054, & 0057 of Hose, the torque required to allow the vehicle to move backwards rolling back down the hill upon which stall has occurred would necessarily be less than the target propulsion torque that caused the stall)
apply the rollback torque to the drive wheel in a first rotational direction while the drive wheel rotates in a second rotational direction opposite the first rotational direction. (However Kaneko teaches in at least Paragraph 0168 wherein the rollback torque target value determined may be output to a torque selector, with at least Paragraph 0241 of Kaneko further teaching wherein the rollback torque target value computed may be output to the inverter motor controller [i.e. apply the rollback torque to the vehicle wheel] to cause the motor to provide driving force to limit the rollback speed to the rollback limit speed [i.e. the rollback torque configured to allow the EV to travel down an incline at a rollback speed])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Hose by incorporating the control of an electric vehicle to apply a rollback torque to travel down a hill at a specified rollback speed as taught by Kaneko.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Kaneko in at least Paragraphs 0009 & 0101, the vehicle rollback may be controlled to a specified speed limit to ensure the safety of the rollback control operation, by ensuring that the vehicle may be extricated from the rollback condition, improving the safety of the vehicle during control on hills with steep grades.
Regarding Claim 17:
The computing apparatus of claim 16, wherein the program instructions further direct the processing device to: cause the drive motor to apply the driving torque to the drive wheel in the first rotational direction; detect no vehicle propulsion in response to application of the driving torque to the drive wheel; and detect the stalled state based on the detection of no vehicle propulsion.
Hose discloses in at least Paragraphs 0053 & 0054 wherein a condition may be specified for determining that a hill ascent failure has occurred, including as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0054 – 0065 [and particularly Paragraphs 0057 & 0065], the detection of a lack of vehicle movement consistent with wheel speed [i.e. cause the drive motor to apply the driving torque to the drive wheel in the first rotational direction and detect no vehicle propulsion in response to application of the driving torque to the drive wheel], and/or the maximum torque of the vehicle being reached with no more traction capable of being gained [i.e. detect the stalled state based on the detection of no vehicle propulsion].
Regarding Claim 18:
The computing apparatus of claim 16, wherein the program instructions further direct the processing device to: detect a rollback speed of the drive wheel in response to the rollback torque, and modify the rollback torque to cause the rollback speed to be constant.
Hose does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a rollback speed is measured and used to modify the rollback torque to maintain a constant rollback speed.
However Kaneko teaches in at least Paragraphs 0168 – 0172 wherein the rollback speed is detected based on the rotational speed of the motor through the use of a speed detector [i.e. a rollback speed is measured] and the detected rollback speed is compared to a target rollback speed, the difference between the two being provided to a torque calculator. Based on the difference, the torque target value provided to the motor is calculated [i.e. the rollback torque is modified] to hold the rollback speed in the vicinity of the rollback speed target value [i.e. control the travel down the incline at a constant rollback speed].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Hose by incorporating the holding of rollback speed at a specific value as taught by Kaneko.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Kaneko in at least Paragraphs 0102, 0103, & 0168, the rollback speed of the vehicle may be limited to below a specified speed at which rollback may be maintained, improving the control of vehicle rollback operations.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hose (US 2018/0156329 A1) in view of Kaneko (US 2008/0190680 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Sawada (US 2018/0154797 A1).
Regarding Claim 14:
The method of claim 13 further comprising: measuring a rollback speed of the EV in response to application of the rollback torque; and starting a rollback timer in response to measuring a rollback speed of zero; and wherein detecting the rollback disengagement condition comprises sensing an expiration of the rollback timer after a rollback timer threshold.
Hose does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a rollback timer is used to determine when rollback should be disengaged.
However Sawada teaches in at least Paragraphs 0107 & 0108 wherein a vehicle controller is configured to begin a timer when a vehicle rollback is determined to have just started [i.e. starting a rollback timer in response to measuring a rollback speed of zero], the rollback speed being measured by a motor rotational speed as taught in at least Paragraph 0106 [i.e. measuring a rollback speed of the EV in response to application of the rollback torque]. At least Paragraph 0110 of Sawada further teaches wherein the rollback timer is incremented for each operation period, and at least Paragraphs 0165, 0169, & 0170 of Sawada teach that upon expiration of the timer, the vehicle is configured to return to the normal running control parameter [i.e. the rollback timer expiring causes the rollback control to be disengaged]. The above steps are further depicted in at least Figure 10 of Sawada, below.
PNG
media_image2.png
546
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Hose by incorporating the disengagement of rollback control based on the expiration of a timer as taught by Sawada.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Sawada in at least Paragraph 0145, the rollback of the vehicle may be reduced for an initial time period before performing normal control operation, improving the responsiveness of the vehicle to control during an initial start period.
Claim(s) 9, 15, 19, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hose (US 2018/0156329 A1) in view of Kaneko (US 2008/0190680 A1) as applied to claims 1, 10, & 18 above, and further in view of Li (US 2015/0081182 A1).
Regarding Claim 9:
The EV of claim 1, wherein the control subsystem further comprises an inclinometer; and wherein the control subsystem is further configured to: detect an amount of the incline; and calculate the rollback torque based on the detected amount of the incline.
Hose does not appear to specifically disclose computing a rollback torque based on an inclination of a roadway detected by an inclinometer.
However Li teaches in at least Paragraph 0021 wherein the vehicle may include a plurality of sensors, including a terrain grade angle sensor [i.e. an inclinometer] configured to determine the grade angle of the terrain that the vehicle is travelling on [i.e. the control subsystem detects an amount of the incline]. At least Paragraph 0025 of Li further teaches wherein based on a comparison of the grade angle to a threshold, a target rollback speed is set, such that the vehicle is controlled to not exceed the target rollback speed as taught in at least Paragraph 0027 of Li [i.e. calculate the rollback torque based on the detected amount of the incline]. Examiner notes that, as set forth above, Kaneko teaches in at least Paragraphs 0168 – 0172 wherein the rollback torque is computed in dependence on a target rollback speed, and therefore as the target rollback speed is set based on the incline, the rollback torque would also be computed based on such.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Hose by incorporating the determination of target rollback speed based on the detected incline of the terrain as taught by Li.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Li in at least Paragraphs 0025 & 0026, the maximum rollback speed may be configured for different road grades, improving the safety of the vehicle in performing rollback at higher terrain grade angles.
Regarding Claim 15:
The method of claim 10 further comprising: sensing an inclination angle via an inclinometer; and adjusting a maximum rollback torque value base on the inclination angle; wherein calculating the rollback torque comprises calculating a torque value of the rollback torque no greater than the maximum rollback torque value.
Hose does not appear to specifically disclose computing a rollback torque based on an inclination of a roadway detected by an inclinometer.
However Li teaches in at least Paragraph 0021 wherein the vehicle may include a plurality of sensors, including a terrain grade angle sensor [i.e. an inclinometer] configured to determine the grade angle of the terrain that the vehicle is travelling on [i.e. the control subsystem detects an amount of the incline]. At least Paragraph 0025 of Li further teaches wherein based on a comparison of the grade angle to a threshold, a target maximum rollback speed is set, such that the vehicle is controlled to not exceed the target maximum rollback speed as taught in at least Paragraph 0027 of Li [i.e. adjusting a maximum rollback torque value base on the inclination angle to a value no greater than the maximum rollback torque value]. Examiner notes that, as set forth above, Kaneko teaches in at least Paragraphs 0168 – 0172 wherein the rollback torque is computed in dependence on a target rollback speed, and therefore as the target rollback speed is set based on the incline, the rollback torque would also be computed based on such.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Hose by incorporating the determination of target maximum rollback speed, and therefore a maximum rollback torque based on the detected incline of the terrain as taught by Li.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Li in at least Paragraphs 0025 & 0026, the maximum rollback speed may be configured for different road grades, improving the safety of the vehicle in performing rollback at higher terrain grade angles.
Regarding Claim 19:
The computing apparatus of claim 18, wherein the program instructions further direct the processing device to: measure an incline of the EV; and set a maximum value of the rollback torque based on the measured incline.
Hose does not appear to specifically disclose computing a rollback torque based on an inclination of a roadway detected by an inclinometer.
However Li teaches in at least Paragraph 0021 wherein the vehicle may include a plurality of sensors, including a terrain grade angle sensor configured to determine the grade angle of the terrain that the vehicle is travelling on [i.e. the control subsystem measures an amount of the incline]. At least Paragraph 0025 of Li further teaches wherein based on a comparison of the grade angle to a threshold, a target maximum rollback speed is set, such that the vehicle is controlled to not exceed the target maximum rollback speed as taught in at least Paragraph 0027 of Li [i.e. adjusting a maximum rollback torque value base on the inclination angle to a value no greater than the maximum rollback torque value]. Examiner notes that, as set forth above, Kaneko teaches in at least Paragraphs 0168 – 0172 wherein the rollback torque is computed in dependence on a target maximum rollback speed, and therefore as the target rollback speed is set based on the incline, the maximum rollback torque would also be computed based on such.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Hose by incorporating the determination of target maximum rollback speed, and therefore a maximum rollback torque based on the detected incline of the terrain as taught by Li.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Li in at least Paragraphs 0025 & 0026, the maximum rollback speed may be configured for different road grades, improving the safety of the vehicle in performing rollback at higher terrain grade angles.
Regarding Claim 20:
The computing apparatus of claim 19, wherein the program instructions further direct the processing device to: determe a maximum rollback speed based on the measured incline; and modify the rollback torque to cause the rollback speed to be no greater than the maximum rollback speed.
Hose does not appear to specifically disclose computing a rollback torque based on an inclination of a roadway detected by an inclinometer.
However Li teaches in at least Paragraph 0025 wherein based on a comparison of the grade angle to a threshold, a target rollback speed is set, such that the vehicle is controlled to not exceed the target rollback speed as taught in at least Paragraph 0027 of Li [i.e. determine a maximum rollback speed based on the measured incline]. Examiner notes that, as set forth above, Kaneko teaches in at least Paragraphs 0168 – 0172 wherein the rollback torque is computed in dependence on a target rollback speed [i.e. the rollback torque is modified to cause the rollback speed to be no greater than the maximum rollback speed].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Hose by incorporating the determination of target rollback speed based on the detected incline of the terrain as taught by Li.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Li in at least Paragraphs 0025 & 0026, the maximum rollback speed may be configured for different road grades, improving the safety of the vehicle in performing rollback at higher terrain grade angles.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure:
Jia (CN 115107529 B): Jia recites a method for controlling the driving of an electric vehicle on a slope, including the use of a motor vehicle hill-holding mode to control the stall of the vehicle. A limit speed may be set for the vehicle, and the vehicle may provide reverse torque to the wheels to mitigate a slipping condition, causing the vehicle to roll down the hill in a slow manner.
Isobe (US 2020/0130657 A1): Isobe recites a braking device for a vehicle, including a control of the vehicle when situated on a hill or slope. A slide-down timer may be set which counts a duration for which the vehicle slides down the hill due to the gradient, and the vehicle motor may be locked or otherwise controlled to inhibit this sliding.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN CARDIMINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2759. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:00.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R CARDIMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RAMYA P BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661