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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
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:
The “electricity control device” in claims 1 and 2 (At least disclosed in Par. [0005, 0007, 0041]).
The “first control device” in claims 1-4 (At least disclosed in Par. [0005-0009, 0041]).
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.
As a note, the second control device does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) since it fails the 3-prong test by reciting a processor and logic circuit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant recites,
“a second control device that is configured to be able to communicate with the first control device and that outputs a drive signal to the electricity control device based on the first command value output from the first control device, wherein the second control device includes a processor that is configured to be able to communicate with the first control device and that processes, through a program, the first command value output from the first control device and outputs an operation command value for the motor, and a logic circuit that monitors whether or not the processor has failed and that has a circuit structure that transforms the operation command value output from the processor into the drive signal, the logic circuit is further configured to be able to communicate with the first control device not via the processor, the first control device, when a failure in the processor is detected, determines whether or not it is possible to perform a limp home mode in which the electrified vehicle is caused to limp home and, when it is determined that it is possible to perform the limp home mode, outputs, to the logic circuit, a mode shift request for causing the logic circuit to shift to the limp home mode, and the logic circuit is configured to be able to determine, based on the monitoring, whether or not a situation requires that the limp home mode be performed when the mode shift request is acquired from the first control device, and shifts to the limp home mode when the mode shift request is acquired from the first control device and also it is determined that a situation requires that the limp home mode be performed.”
Applicant alters between the first control device and second control device without clear demarcations as to which elements are being ascribed to which control devices. The above bolded and underlined section intertwines between both control devices, starting with the section devoted to the second control device where the claim is only underlined.
Where the claim language is both bolded and underlined, this section of the claim appears to switch focus to further limit the first control device without a clear transition. This is confusing since it is unclear if Applicant is claiming conditionality of the previously claimed second control device or attempting to positively further limit the first control device in a new recitation of devoted to the first control device within the claim body.
The last underlined portion of the claim appears to shift again without a clear transition to a positive recitation regarding the either conditions or positive recitations of the logic circuit. Clarification of the transitions within the claims and what is being positively recited for each component is requested.
Claims 2-4 are rejected as being indefinite for inheriting the deficiencies of previously rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2020062930 to Yasuda in view of U.S. PG Pub. 2022/0055612 to Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Yasuda discloses a control system for an electrified vehicle, comprising: an electricity control device that adjusts electricity to be supplied to a motor of the electrified vehicle (At least where Yasuda discusses an inverter; Fig. 1); a first control device that outputs a first command value indicating a target output of the motor (At least where Yasuda discusses a torque command being provided by integrated control ECU, 40); and a second control device that is configured to be able to communicate with the first control device and that outputs a drive signal to the electricity control device based on the first command value output from the first control device (At least where Yasuda discloses motor control ECU, 10 generating a drive signal, “PWM signal with predetermined duty ratio”, by converting the torque command received from integrated control ECU, 40 and providing the drive signal to the inverter) wherein the second control device includes a processor that is configured to be able to communicate with the first control device and that processes, through a program, the first command value output from the first control device and outputs an operation command value for the motor (At least where Yasuda discloses second motor controller, 12 is part of motor control ECU, 10 and is provided with “target output” from integrated ECU, 40 via motor control ECU, 10), and a logic circuit that monitors whether or not the processor has failed (At least where Yasuda discusses a first motor controller, 11 having a “second controller monitoring function, 119”/ “abnormal portion identification function, 1102”) and that has a circuit structure that transforms the operation command value output from the processor into the drive signal (At least where Yasuda discusses the first motor controller, 11 leveraging a motor “controller abnormal portion identification function 1102” to conduct a control mode transition to change driving parameters when an abnormal condition exists within the second motor controller, thus altering the operation command) the logic circuit is further configured to be able to communicate with the first control device not via the processor, the first control device, when a failure in the processor is detected, determines whether or not it is possible to perform a limp home mode in which the electrified vehicle is caused to limp home (At least where Yasuda discusses an answerback procedure executed by the integrated control ECU to check the second motor controller’s “calculation results”, abnormalities are found in the second motor controller via integrated control ECU’s self-checking procedure, and subsequently integrated control ECU and first motor controller both communicate in tandem, without the second motor controller, with the “arbitration circuit” to shut down the second motor controller and also where the monitoring process for the functioning of the second motor is executed by a plurality of controllers, namely, by communication between the first motor controller, 11 and integrated control ECU, 40, as shown in the flowcharts of Fig. 3-6 when there is an abnormality determination of the second motor controller, 12 by the first motor controller, 11 via second controller monitoring function, 119, determines that there is an abnormality, and subsequently notifies the integrated control ECU, 40 of the abnormality occurrence.) and, when it is determined that it is possible to perform the limp home mode, outputs, to the logic circuit, a mode shift request for causing the logic circuit to shift to the limp home mode, and the logic circuit is configured to be able to determine, based on the monitoring, whether or not a situation requires that the limp home mode be performed when the mode shift request is acquired from the first control device, and shifts to the limp home mode when the mode shift request is acquired from the first control device and also it is determined that a situation requires that the limp home mode be performed (At least where Yasuda discusses that the answerback process from the second motor controller triggers a mode change decision to be made where integrated control ECU 40 integrated control ECU determines whether a mode change is to be/not to be executed based on the incorrect/correct answerback from second motor controller, 12 and subsequently executes a mode change where first motor controller monitors rotation speed of the second motor and the second motor’s rotation speed is “appropriately lowered” so that “the vehicle speed gradually decreases” and, as a result, “the evacuation traveling” can be performed; Fig. 3-6).
However, Yasuda does not expressly disclose the mode as a “limp home” mode.
Nevertheless, Kim teaches a “limp home mode” which limits motor torque based on an associated motor failure (At least discussed in the Abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have recognized that Yasuda necessarily has a “limp home” mode by virtue of the limitations placed on its motor. It also would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified Yasuda to have a “limp home” mode, as taught by Kim, in order to prevent damage to vehicle components in the case where system failures occur while ensuring the vehicle’s ability to travel.
Regarding claim 2, the primary reference, Yasuda, discloses that the logic circuit is further configured to output, to the first control device, a state indicator indicating a state of the electricity control device while monitoring the state indicator and when a failure in the processor is detected, the first control device determines, based on the state indicator output from the logic circuit, whether or not it is possible to perform the limp home mode (At least where Yasuda discusses that the answerback results of the second motor controller result in a mode change and where since the second inverter “cannot be used due to an abnormality in the arithmetic function,” the evacuation travelling mode is used – in this case, the state indicator is the result of the inverter being unusable/ in a state of complete signal shutdown).
Regarding claim 3, the primary reference, Yasuda, discloses that when the logic circuit shifts to the limp home mode, the logic circuit outputs, to the first control device, a signal indicating that the logic circuit has shifted to the limp home mode and when the signal is acquired, the first control device outputs, to the logic circuit, a second command value based on the limp home mode instead of the first command value (At least where Yasuda discusses the decision to switch modes and a different power configuration is provided to the second motor by the first motor controller from the first motor controller’s communication with integrated control ECU where the integrated control ECU generates a lower torque command).
Regarding claim 4, the primary reference, Yasuda, discloses that when the mode shift request is acquired from the first control device and also it is determined that a situation does not require that the limp home mode be performed, the logic circuit does not shift to the limp home mode (At least where Yasuda discusses that the answerback request yields a match between the integrated control ECU and second motor controller and the abnormality monitoring process is concluded resulting in no shift between modes by the first motor controller).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brodie Follman whose telephone number is (571)270-1169. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm EST M-F.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571)270-7429. 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.
/BRODIE J FOLLMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669