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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 11/25/2024. Claims 1-4 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "vibration determiner that is configured to", in claim 1, "torque ratio changer that is configured to", in claims 1, 3, and 4, and "guard value calculator is configured to" in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al., US-20080004780-A1, in view of Hasegawa, US-20130297133-A1, hereinafter referred to as Watanabe, and Hasegawa.
As per claim 1
Watanabe discloses [a] drive force control system for an electric vehicle, comprising (wheels are driven by power from an electric motor, a four-wheel-drive type hybrid vehicle - Watanabe ¶10 & ¶14):
a motor that drives a first wheel as one of a front wheel and a rear wheel (wheels are driven by power from an electric motor, a four-wheel-drive type hybrid vehicle - Watanabe ¶10 & ¶14);
another prime mover that drives a second wheel as other one of the front wheel and the rear wheel (a main drive system 12 that drives front wheels 38R and 38L, and an auxiliary drive system 14 that drives rear wheels 48R and 48L. - Watanabe ¶26),
wherein a four-wheel drive mode in which the electric vehicle is propelled by the motor and the another prime mover is available (four-wheel-drive hybrid vehicle 10…a main drive system 12 that drives front wheels 38R and 38L, and an auxiliary drive system 14 that drives rear wheels 48R and 48L. - Watanabe ¶26),
the drive force control system comprises a controller that controls the motor (drive torque control means calculates drive torques of the front and rear wheels based on the calculated required drive torque and the changed torque distribution, and controls the drive torques of the engine and the electric motor - Watanabe ¶12),
the controller comprises: a vibration determiner that is configured to determine whether an operating point of the motor governed by an output torque and a speed of the motor will enter a noise region in which noise and vibrations of the motor are amplified during operation of the motor (calculates a required drive torque TD…the vehicle speed V…torque distribution controlling means 84 determines a load distribution ratio between the front wheels 38R and 38L and the rear wheels 48R and 48L…the torque distribution controlling means 84 also determines a front torque distribution ratio Ktf and a rear torque distribution ratio Ktr (Ktr is a value less than 1; Ktf+Ktr=1) based on the load distribution ratio. The rear torque distribution ratio Ktr is calculated by adding a correction value (sin θL×K) to a static rear wheel load distribution ratio Ktrw, it is determined whether the gear noise will be produced depending on whether the torque of the first electric motor is within the predetermined gear noise producing torque region when the engine is operating in the predetermined operating state - Watanabe ¶37 & ¶80);
a reference torque ratio [and controlling the motors to remain outside of the vibration generating operating region] (calculates a required drive torque TD…the vehicle speed V…torque distribution controlling means 84 determines a load distribution ratio between the front wheels 38R and 38L and the rear wheels 48R and 48L…the torque distribution controlling means 84 also determines a front torque distribution ratio Ktf and a rear torque distribution ratio Ktr (Ktr is a value less than 1; Ktf+Ktr=1) based on the load distribution ratio. The rear torque distribution ratio Ktr is calculated by adding a correction value (sin θL×K) to a static rear wheel load distribution ratio Ktrw, step S4 the torque distribution between the front and rear wheels is changed, with the torque of the second motor-generator MG2 of the front wheel side being increased which increases the front drive torque TF, so that the front drive torque TF moves out of the gear noise producing torque region X - Watanabe ¶37 & ¶51).
Watanabe does not specifically disclose a torque ratio changer that is configured to change a torque ratio as a ratio between a torque driving the first wheel and a torque driving the second wheel, so as to deviate the operating point of the motor from the noise region, when the vibration determiner determines that the operating point of the motor will enter the noise region.
However, Hasegawa teaches a torque ratio changer that is configured to change a torque ratio as a ratio between a torque driving the first wheel and a torque driving the second wheel, so as to deviate the operating point of the motor from the noise region, when the vibration determiner determines that the operating point of the motor will enter the noise region (changing a distribution ratio of torque to a main drive wheel (for example, a front wheel) and a driven wheel (for example, a rear wheel)., changing a distribution ratio of torque to the main drive wheel and the driven wheels by the torque distributor, and that inhibits occurrence of vibration at the start time of the engine, target value of the transmission amount of torque to the drive system on the side of the rear wheels 8L and 8R at the start time of the engine 1 is set at a largest value (the target transmitted-torque Tcpfb) in a range in which vibration is inhibited at the drive system on the side of the rear wheels 8L and 8R, hybrid vehicle…inhibits noise (muffled sound) in the vehicle interior caused by the vibration. - Hasegawa ¶1 & ¶12 & ¶103 & ¶117).
Watanabe discloses a control apparatus and a control method for a hybrid vehicle. Hasegawa teaches a control device of a vehicle that includes a torque distributor capable of changing a distribution ratio of torque to a main drive wheel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Watanabe, a control apparatus and a control method for a hybrid vehicle, with a control device of a vehicle that includes a torque distributor capable of changing a distribution ratio of torque to a main drive wheel, as taught by Hasegawa, with a reasonable expectation of success to improve the travel performance and improve the fuel efficiency (fuel consumption ratio) as compared with continuous travel in the four-wheel drive state, see Hasegawa ¶3 for details.
As per claim 4
Watanabe further discloses change a torque of the another prime mover with a change in a required driving torque to propel the electric vehicle while maintaining an output torque of the motor to the torque before the operating point of the motor enters the noise region, when the vibration determiner determines that the operating point of the motor will enter the noise region due to a change in the output torque of the motor (changing the set torque distribution between the front and rear wheels when a predetermined gear noise producing condition is satisfied; and e) calculating drive torques of the front and rear wheels based on the calculated required drive torque and the changed torque distribution between the front and rear wheels and controlling the drive torques of the engine and the electric motor, gear noise preventing means prevents gear noise in a gear mechanism due to torque fluctuation in the engine, when the engine 16 is running or there is a demand to start the engine 16, it is determined in step R2 whether the MG2 torque is within the gear noise producing torque region Y If the MG2 torque is within the gear noise producing torque region Y, steps R3 and thereafter are executed. In step R4, the front drive torque T.sub.F is increased so that the MG2 torque will move out of the gear noise producing torque region Y – Watanabe ¶11 & ¶12 & ¶66).
Watanabe does not specifically disclose wherein the torque ratio changer is further configured to.
However, Hasegawa teaches wherein the torque ratio changer is further configured to (changing a distribution ratio of torque to a main drive wheel (for example, a front wheel) and a driven wheel (for example, a rear wheel). - Hasegawa ¶1).
Watanabe discloses a control apparatus and a control method for a hybrid vehicle. Hasegawa teaches a control device of a vehicle that includes a torque distributor capable of changing a distribution ratio of torque to a main drive wheel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Watanabe, a control apparatus and a control method for a hybrid vehicle, with a control device of a vehicle that includes a torque distributor capable of changing a distribution ratio of torque to a main drive wheel, as taught by Hasegawa, with a reasonable expectation of success to improve the travel performance and improve the fuel efficiency (fuel consumption ratio) as compared with continuous travel in the four-wheel drive state, see Hasegawa ¶3 for details.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, and Hasegawa, as per claim 1, and further in view of Kaneko, JP-2018088788-A, hereinafter referred to as Kaneko (Translation by Espacenet).
As per claim 2
Watanabe does not specifically disclose wherein the controller further comprises a guard value calculator that calculates an upper limit value and a lower limit value of an amount of change in the torque ratio, and the guard value calculator is configured to set the upper limit value and the lower limit value in a case that the reference torque ratio is employed to maintain a performance of the electric vehicle.
However, Kaneko teaches wherein the controller further comprises a guard value calculator that calculates an upper limit value and a lower limit value of an amount of change in the torque ratio, and the guard value calculator is configured to set the upper limit value and the lower limit value in a case that the reference torque ratio is employed to maintain a performance of the electric vehicle (When the minimum total output loss drive torque distribution ratio is selected as the drive torque distribution ratio command, the upper limit of the change amount of the drive torque distribution ratio is limited by the rate limiter 24 b…the shock of the vehicle can be suppressed - Kaneko ¶14 - Examiner reasons that the reference torque ratio must be utilized based on the claim construction of independent claim 1 and that because there is a upper limit discussed that a lower limit is also present).
Watanabe discloses a control apparatus and a control method for a hybrid vehicle. Kaneko teaches a control device for an electric vehicle that suppresses deterioration of the power cost performance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Watanabe, a control apparatus and a control method for a hybrid vehicle, with a control device for an electric vehicle that suppresses deterioration of the power cost performance, as taught by Kaneko, with a reasonable expectation of success to run at the maximum efficiency and to improve the electricity cost performance, see Kaneko ¶15 for details.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, and Hasegawa, as per claim 1, and further in view of Johri et al., US-20150251657-A1, hereinafter referred to as Johri.
As per claim 3
Watanabe does not specifically disclose wherein the torque ratio changer is further configured to.
However, Hasegawa teaches wherein the torque ratio changer is further configured to (changing a distribution ratio of torque to a main drive wheel (for example, a front wheel) and a driven wheel (for example, a rear wheel). - Hasegawa ¶1).
Watanabe discloses a control apparatus and a control method for a hybrid vehicle. Hasegawa teaches a control device of a vehicle that includes a torque distributor capable of changing a distribution ratio of torque to a main drive wheel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Watanabe, a control apparatus and a control method for a hybrid vehicle, with a control device of a vehicle that includes a torque distributor capable of changing a distribution ratio of torque to a main drive wheel, as taught by Hasegawa, with a reasonable expectation of success to improve the travel performance and improve the fuel efficiency (fuel consumption ratio) as compared with continuous travel in the four-wheel drive state, see Hasegawa ¶3 for details.
Watanabe does not specifically disclose start changing the torque ratio at an earlier timing when changing the torque ratio significantly.
However, Johri teaches start changing the torque ratio at an earlier timing when changing the torque ratio significantly (seen from FIG. 3B that the change in torque ratio of the transmission occurs during the earlier torque phase of the transmission gear shift between T1 and T2 - Johri ¶39 – Examiner reasons that the word, “significantly” is broad rather than indefinite).
Watanabe discloses a control apparatus and a control method for a hybrid vehicle. Johri teaches hybrid powertrain control systems with regenerative braking controls.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Watanabe, a control apparatus and a control method for a hybrid vehicle, with hybrid powertrain control systems with regenerative braking controls, as taught by Johri, with a reasonable expectation of success to apply regenerative braking torque and to reduce or eliminate the response lag in M/G speed, see Johri ¶6 & ¶32 for details.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARIS ASIM SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-6426. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:30 M-F 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, Fadey S. Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/F.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3668 /Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668