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 the Claims
This first non-final action is in response to applicant's original filing on Dec. 13, 2024. 1-20 are pending and have been considered as follows.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Kim (US 20230226922 A1) in view of Dong (CN 117429257 A machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches an electric vehicle control system (abstract) comprising: a vehicle controller configured to
collect and process one or more vehicle conditions from one or more sensors(Kim, [0042] the detection unit 10 may include an accelerator pedal sensor, a brake pedal sensor, a steering angle sensor, a yaw error sensor (or, yaw rate sensor), a vehicle speed sensor, and a wheel speed sensor. The driver's requested driving torque may be determined from an operation amount of the accelerator pedal),
determine torque distribution and braking application based on the vehicle conditions(Kim, Fig. 1 and corresponding paragraphs. [0056]-[0059] the controller 40 may be configured to determine the left wheel driving torque and the right wheel driving torque applied to the left wheel and the right wheel based on a predetermined reference yaw moment; [0058] A left-side braking torque (or, the left-side driving torque) TL applied to the left wheel and a right-side braking torque (or, the right-side driving torque) TR applied to the right wheel may be determined through Equation 1 ), and
generate torque distribution instructions and braking application instructions (Kim, S20 in Fig. 2; [0016] A computer-readable medium may store a program for executing, by a computer including a processor configured to execute a program or instruction stored in a memory or a storage device, a method for controlling an electric vehicle according to the above );
a power controller configured to control torque generation of one or more electric motors based on the torque distribution instructions received from the vehicle controller (Fig. 1 and corresponding paragraphs; [0056]-[0059]); and
a braking controller configured to control a braking system of the vehicle based on the braking application instructions received from the vehicle controller ([0083]-[0090], S70-S83 in Fig. 2) ;
wherein the braking application instructions instruct the braking system to apply a braking force to one or more wheels in response to the vehicle conditions ([0083]-[0090], [0089] Referring to FIG. 6 , when the minimum tire slip curve is smaller than or equal to the ideal braking force distribution curve, since slip of the rear tire is caused, the controller 40 applies, in the early stage of braking, the braking torque according to the optimal total power loss curve, only to the front wheel without applying the braking torque to the rear wheel. Thereafter, the braking torque is distributed to the front wheel and the rear wheel according to the ideal braking force distribution curve, from the time point at which the optimal total power loss curve coincides with the ideal braking force distribution curve) and
wherein the torque distribution instructions instruct the one or more motors to increase or decrease torque in response to the vehicle conditions (Kim, [0061]the controller 40 compensates (increase/decrease) the braking torque (or, driving torque) of the left wheel and the right wheel determined according to the reference yaw moment, through a feedback-control).
While Kim teaches controller 40 and the vehicle dynamics control module 50, Kim does not explicitly teach but Dong teaches vehicle controller, the power controller, and the braking controller (Page 4, the whole vehicle controller is connected with the motor controller, the battery management unit, the steering controller, the brake controller, the whole vehicle controller is connected with the industrial personal computer through the network wire, the whole vehicle controller is connected with the instrument display system and the remote control receiving module through the serial port, the remote control receiving module is electrically connected with the safety loop, the remote control receiving module is wirelessly connected with the remote controller).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have three separate controllers: vehicle controller, the power controller, and the braking controller, since applicant has not disclosed that separately using the vehicle controller, the power controller, and the braking controller, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with a single controller or integrating multiple controllers into a single processor.
Regarding claims 10 and 14, please look the rejection to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches wherein the one or more vehicle conditions include one or more of vehicle speed, vehicle acceleration, vehicle yaw rate, vehicle steering angle, and wheel slip and wherein each vehicle condition is received from one or more sensors or determined from signals received from one or more sensors (a detection unit 10 in Fig, 1; [0042]).
Regarding claims 11 and 15, please look the rejection to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches wherein the vehicle controller determines a vehicle dynamic state based on the one or more vehicle conditions ([0050] The vehicle dynamics control module 50 stably maintains the vehicle body posture by independently controlling driving force and braking force of each wheel in an emergency situation (a vehicle dynamic state which is based on wheel slip, see Fig. 2, S30-S50).
Regarding claim 16, please look the rejection to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches wherein the vehicle dynamic state may be one or more of oversteering, understeering, traveling uphill, travelling downhill, and a loss of traction in one or more wheels ([0068]-[0070] When the slip amount of the drive wheel exceeds the reference slip amount (loss of traction), because it is more important to secure the posture stability of the vehicle body, the torque distribution control that minimizes the electricity mileage is terminated and the braking torques (or driving torques) of the left and the right wheels are determined through the vehicle dynamics control module 50 at S 50; [0050] The vehicle dynamics control module 50 stably maintains the vehicle body posture by independently controlling driving force and braking force of each wheel in an emergency situation).
Regarding claims 12 and 17, please look the rejection to claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches wherein the vehicle controller, based on the vehicle dynamic state, determines that torque vectoring, braking application, or both should be implemented (based on whether a slip amount of the drive wheel exceeds a reference slip amount; the controller 40 distribute driving torque or braking torque to a left wheel and a right wheel of the vehicle based on the driving information ).
Regarding claim 18, please look the rejection to claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches wherein the torque distribution instructions received by the power controller include instructions to increase torque or decrease torque for each of the one or more electric motors ([0061] At step S 40 , when the yaw error is between the first error amount and the second error amount, the controller 40 compensates the braking torque (or, driving torque) of the left wheel and the right wheel determined according to the reference yaw moment, through a feedback-control).
Regarding claims 13 and 19 please look the rejection to claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches wherein the vehicle controller, the power controller, and the braking controller are each included in a module configured to be attached to a platform for an electric vehicle (Fig. 1 and corresponding paragraphs).
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Kim (US 20230226922 A1) in view of Dong (CN 117429257 A machine translation ) in view of Follen (US20230347779 A)
Regarding claim 7, while Kim teaches the drive motor 20 generates a driving torque required for driving the vehicle by use of electrical energy charged in the battery, and the driving torque generated by the drive motor 20 is supplied to a drive wheel, or all wheels, of the vehicle, to drive the vehicle. The driving motor 20 may be configured to generate electrical energy by operating as a generator as needed (e.g., regenerative braking) ([0045]), Kim as modified by Dong does not explicitly teach but Follen teaches a battery controller operably coupled to the vehicle controller and a battery; wherein the vehicle controller determines a charge reception capability of the battery based on a predictive algorithm; and wherein the vehicle controller determines the braking application based on the charge reception capability of the battery ([0019] the controller may discharge the battery in advance (predictive) of a downhill grade in order to capture a maximum or a substantially maximum amount of energy from vehicle braking (e.g., a regenerative braking system) during traversal of the downhill grade; Referring to the Figures generally, the various embodiments disclosed herein relate to systems and methods of managing and controlling a battery state of charge to meet a determined and/or predicted power output based on internal vehicle information, static external vehicle information (e.g., information that may change with distance but not with time), and dynamic external vehicle information; [0066] As an example of this braking mechanism modulation to manage SOC of the battery 107, the battery SOC module 210 may compare the current battery SOC level to one or more threshold levels (e.g., a maximum SOC level, a minimum SOC level, a level for a predefined condition such as an uphill or downhill grade, etc.) ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, controlling an electric vehicle, as taught by Kim as modified by Dong, determining the braking application based on the charge reception capability of the battery, as taught by Modak, as Kim, Dong and Modak are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility determining the braking application based on the charge reception capability of the battery to reduce fuel consumption and improve emissions of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 20, please look the rejection to claim 7 above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Kim (US 20230226922 A1) in view of Dong (CN 117429257 A machine translation ) in view of Modak (US20230226927 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches (the controller) the computer readable recording medium can also be distributed throughout a computer network so that the program instructions are stored and executed in a distributed fashion, e.g., by a telematics server or a Controller Area Network (CAN)([0030]), Kim as modified by Dong does not explicitly teach but Modak teaches wherein the vehicle controller, the power controller, and the braking controller are communicatively coupled wirelessly ([0039] The vehicle control system 102 may include any type and any number of wired or wireless connections).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, controlling an electric vehicle, as taught by Kim as modified by Dong, using wireless connections between vehicle controllers, as taught by Modak, as Kim, Dong and Modak are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using wireless connections between vehicle controllers to reduce costs.
Prior Art
Please refer to form 892 for cited references.
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JINGLI WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8040. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 am-5 pm 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 Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313)446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 86-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-100.
/J.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666