DETAILED ACTION
Applicant submitted remarks in response to the latest Office action on 20 May 2026. Therein, Applicant amended claims 1, 10 and 15; Applicant did not cancel or add new claims. The submitted claims have been entered and are considered below.
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 .
Response to Arguments
The previously noted claim interpretation regarding conditional limitations is withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments and related arguments with respect to claims 1-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. For claims 1-9, the apparatus claim still contains functional language. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Thus, the prior art of record still discloses the claimed limitations.
Applicant's amendments and related arguments with respect to claims 10-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the prior art of record does not disclose “(a) applying only friction braking upon brake pedal input during creep mode while (b) holding e-motor torque constant until vehicle speed reaches zero, and then (c) ramping the e-motor torque based on the zero-speed determination”. Examiner does not agree.
Applicant above assertion places emphasis on the last limitation of claim 10. Examiner notes that the first phrase of the limitation is interpreted to be applicable to the entire limitation (“upon determining that the electrified vehicle speed is zero,”). This is important in interpreting where the claimed ramping and modifying begin in the prior art. Referencing Fig. 6 of Kaneko, the vehicle reaches a zero speed at t6. Thus, this is interpreted as the starting point for drawing equivalencies to the limitation, as nothing is defined as occurring before “determining that the electrified vehicle speed is zero”. Accordingly, the electric motor ramps in beginning at t7, which is also at zero vehicle speed. Further, electric motor input is not modified between t6 and t7 and reads on “wherein the controller does not modify the electric motor input upon the brake input being received” because the brake input at t6 is being operated. Kaneko further shows that the electric motor input is modified at t7 when the vehicle speed remains zero and reads on the last element of “modifies the electric motor input only upon determining that the electrified vehicle speed is zero”. The rejection is maintained.
For claim 16, activating creep mode based on the input of a park brake is interpreted to include an input indicating the park brake in an inactive position. This could also be a lack of input when inactive. Accordingly, a lack of input is interpreted to be a separate input from an active input from the park brake. The rejection is still applicable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kaneko, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0113700).
For claim 1, Kaneko discloses a vehicle system for an electrified vehicle that implements electronic creep torque control, the vehicle system comprising: the claimed electric motor (see para. 0017), the claimed friction brake (see para. 0020) and the claimed controller (see paras. 0017, 0024). Kaneko discloses the identical structure of the claimed apparatus and the structure is capable of performing any claimed function (see Fig. 6). Therefore, Kaneko anticipates the claimed apparatus.
Claims 2-9 define further functional language of the claimed apparatus. Kaneko anticipates the claimed apparatus because the structure of Kaneko is capable of performing of any of the claimed functions of claims 2-9.
It is further noted that the citations and reasoning applied to the claims 11-18 are applicable to the subject matter that mirrors those claims in 2-9, respectively. Claims 2-9 would have been rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined in claims 11-18 (ignoring conditional language issues).
For claim 10, Kaneko teaches a method for implementing electronic creep torque control for an electrified vehicle that includes an electric motor that provides drive torque to a driveline that drives vehicle wheels for propelling the vehicle (see para. 0017); and a friction brake that applies a friction brake input to at least one of the vehicle wheels based on an input from a brake pedal (see para. 0020), the method comprising: upon receiving a brake pedal input at the brake pedal, commanding the friction brake to apply a friction brake input (see para. 0020); upon activation of a creep mode including an electric motor input to the driveline, determining whether a speed of the electrified vehicle is zero (see para. 0023-0026); and upon determining that the electrified vehicle speed is zero (see Fig. 6, vehicle speed at t6), commanding the electric motor to one of ramp in and ramp out of the electric motor input (see Fig. 6, creep torque at t7), wherein the controller does not modify the electric motor input upon the brake pedal input being received (see Fig. 6, brake operation input received at t6 because determination of zero speed must precede all events and electric motor input not changed until t7), and modifies the electric motor input only upon determining that the electrified vehicle speed is zero (see Fig. 6, creep torque at t7, motor input modified at t7 while vehicle speed is zero).
Referring to claim 11, Kaneko further discloses wherein the controller determines whether the creep mode is activated based on a drive mode input (see para. 0025).
With regards to claim 12, Kaneko further discloses wherein the controller determines whether the creep mode is activated based on an accelerator pedal input. (see para. 0019).
Pertaining to claim 13, Kaneko further teaches wherein the controller determines whether the creep mode is activated based on a brake pedal input (see para. 0023).
With reference to claim 14, Kaneko further discloses wherein the controller determines whether the creep mode is activated based on a vehicle speed (see para. 0059).
Regarding claim 17, Kaneko further teaches wherein the controller determines whether a speed of the electrified vehicle is zero based on an input from a wheel speed sensor (see para. 0021).
For claim 18, Kaneko further discloses determining whether a friction brake input is less than a threshold value (see Fig. 7, t2-t3 and related text); and based on a determination that the friction brake input is less than the threshold value, commanding the electric motor to ramp in the electric motor input (see Fig. 7, t2-t3, sudden pressing threshold and related text).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0113700) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Ruybal, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0398844).
For claim 15, Kaneko does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. However, a teaching from Ruybal discloses wherein the controller determines whether the creep mode is activated based on a transmission shifter position (see paras. 0044-0045). While Ruybal teaches a button, this button may change the position of a shifter in the transmission; alternatively, it is well known in the art for vehicles with 4x4 drive modes to have a second separate shifter to select two wheel drive or four wheel drive in high and low selectable modes. It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Kaneko to include the teaching of Ruybal based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve methods and systems for controlling a creep torque in an electric vehicle to enable brake pedal only driving at low speeds where traction control is required (see para. 0001).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0113700) as applied to claim 10 above.
For claim 16, Kaneko does not explicitly disclose the claimed subject matter. However, it is well known to one of ordinary skill that a park brake is intended to override all propulsion efforts of a vehicle when engaged. Additionally, when the park brake is in an inactive state, the lack of an active input or an inactive state input is considered to read on the claimed limitation. Accordingly, engagement of the park brake would prevent movement in creep mode; monitoring the input of the park brake to verify the lack thereof or an inactive state would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing based on the motivation to improve movement in a creep mode and to reduce a creep force as a brake operation amount is increased.
Conclusion
As previously stated, Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. This includes any teachings within the reference that were not explicitly cited in the previous Office action. Therefore, any previously cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered the only relevant teachings. Any new citation of additional teachings of the previously cited art is not a new ground of rejection. Taking the references as a whole, the art supports the rejection of the claims and the rejection is maintained.
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 ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights