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 final action is in response to applicant's amendment on June 26, 2026. 1-20 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to claim(s) under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Yang (US 20250083741 A1) in view of Nakatsu (US 20170106755 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches an electric vehicle control system (The vehicle 2000 may be an electric vehicle, a hybrid vehicle) comprising:
a vehicle controller (the central controller 10) configured to
collect and process one or more vehicle conditions (Fig. 8, throttle opening degree, steering wheel angle, current vehicle velocity) from one or more sensors ([0246] the central controller 10 may obtain vehicle state data, ground state data, and the like closer to actuality, thereby facilitating more accurate control of the vehicle [0200] the plurality of vehicle components include at least one or more of a drive assembly, a braking system, a steering system, an inertial measurement unit, an intelligent driving controller, a steering wheel rotation angle sensor, a wheel velocity sensor, a camera, and a radar),
determine torque distribution and braking application based on the vehicle conditions (Fig. 8 and corresponding paragraphs. [0094] The feedback braking torque is used to ensure that the vehicle remains stable while braking and decelerating. The advantage of four-motor independent control is fully utilized. In the feedback braking control manner, differential adjustment is performed on torques of wheels having no tire punctured, so that the braking control boundary of the tire puncturing is widened, and the response velocity and the control accuracy are both improved compared with those of the hydraulic braking system), and
generate torque distribution instructions and braking application instructions(Fig. 8 and corresponding paragraphs; [0118] based on the four-motor power architecture, when the vehicle is in a floating state, a pre-set torque and a torque correction amount of each wheel are determined by using a motion control algorithm according to a target yaw rate and a current yaw rate of the vehicle, and a pre-set target wheel velocity and a current wheel velocity of each wheel of the vehicle ),;
a power controller configured to control torque generation of one or more in-wheel electric motors, each in-wheel electric motor associated with a respective wheel of the vehicle, based on the torque distribution instructions received from the vehicle controller (four-motor independent driving, [0009]vehicle includes a plurality of vehicle components, and the plurality of vehicle components corresponds to a plurality of functional domains. A first functional domain of the plurality of different functional domains is a power domain, a vehicle component in the power domain includes a drive assembly, and the drive assembly includes a motor controller and a plurality of drive motors corresponding to wheels and respectively driving the wheels. The method includes: identifying a vehicle driving scenario; and sending torque allocation information of the drive motors to the motor controller according to the vehicle driving scenario; The addition of the four-motor power architecture additionally provides four pieces of resolving information and four pieces of torque information corresponding to the wheels, and the torques of the wheels may be independently controlled, to provide a possibility for perception and execution expansion); and
a braking controller configured to control a braking system of the vehicle based on the braking application instructions received from the vehicle controller(a braking controller in the chassis domain performs preliminary processing on an actual braking torque of each wheel; [0060] During control fusion, the motor controller in the power domain estimates the drive motor torque execution capability of each wheel, the steering system in the chassis domain estimates the steering wheel rotation angle execution capability, and the braking system in the chassis domain estimates the execution capability of the hydraulic braking torque and the master cylinder braking torque of each wheel. The central controller 10 performs re-evaluation and centralized analysis on the execution capabilities of the functional domains, performs compensation and fusion by using the fast response characteristic of the four-motor power architecture and the execution capability in the chassis domain, and forms motion execution capabilities of the system, including a longitudinal torque execution capability, a steering execution capability, a yaw torque execution capability, and the like, to provide a basis for decision-making of the central controller 10. After being issued, a decision-making instruction of the central controller 10 is decomposed to an executor of a domain, to achieve a balance between response velocity and stability, thereby achieving an improvement in safety performance of the whole vehicle. In addition, when the braking system or the steering system in the chassis domain fails to operate, necessary steering and braking capabilities of the vehicle may be implemented based on the four-motor power architecture in the power domain, thereby improving emergency safety performance. In addition, control fusion is scalable, and after the active suspension control system is configured, fusion of longitudinal execution capabilities can be implemented, further improving comfort performance and safety performance of the vehicle. The central controller 10 may further generate, according to the vehicle driving scenario, torque allocation information of each drive motor in the four-motor power architecture in the power domain, to satisfy, based on the torque allocation information, a demand for safer, more reliable, and more convenient driving control in a vehicle driving scenario in an operating condition through the four-motor power architecture in the power domain. In this way, collaborative control of the plurality of functional domains can be implemented based on the central controller, thereby helping realize user's expectation of safety of using the vehicle, significantly reducing a communication load of each functional domain, improving communication efficiency, and improving versatility of each functional domain.[0069],[0095],[0191]-[0193];[0204]-[0228];[0317]-[0328]);
wherein the torque distribution instructions instruct the one or more motors to increase or decrease torque in response to the vehicle conditions ([0222] send, when the target yaw torque is greater than or equal to the preset yaw torque and the target yaw torque change rate is less than or equal to the preset yaw torque change rate, braking control information to the braking system and/or the torque allocation information to the drive assembly based on the braking capability data of the braking system and the driving capability data of the drive assembly, to implement yaw control [0226]-[0228], the braking controller may transmit processed six-degrees-of-freedom inertia information, wheel velocity information, pressure information, and the like to the central controller 10, which can independently implement braking control and stability control of the vehicle, and can independently adjust each brake pressure in response to a demand of the external controller ), and
wherein the torque distribution instructions include individual torque instructions that vary torque independently for each of the one or more in-wheel electric motors ([0044] the drive motor may provide a forward torque or a reverse torque, and the drive motor corresponding to each wheel may be independently controlled. Therefore, independent driving of each wheel may be implemented based on the drive motor.[0048] When the front controllable differential lock is unlocked, the left front drive motor and the right front drive motor may operate independently; [0222] send, when the target yaw torque is greater than or equal to the preset yaw torque and the target yaw torque change rate is less than or equal to the preset yaw torque change rate, braking control information to the braking system and/or the torque allocation information to the drive assembly based on the braking capability data of the braking system and the driving capability data of the drive assembly, to implement yaw control.).
Yang teaches multiple drive motors corresponding to wheels and respectively driving the wheels. (Fig. 5a and 5b) the front drive assembly and the rear drive assembly each include two drive motors. Nakatsu specifically teaches ([0005]) in-wheel motor vehicles are known. In an in-wheel motor vehicle, a motor is disposed inside or near each of the wheels of the vehicle, and a driving force and a braking force to be applied to each wheel are controlled independently from driving forces and braking forces to be applied to the other wheels.
Yang teaches wherein the braking application instructions instruct the braking system (using the feedback braking control method) to apply a braking force to one or more wheels in response to the vehicle conditions ([0051][0064]-[0070] vehicle conditions- a tire puncturing scenario; obtained from a tire pressure sensor; when the vehicle has a tire punctured, the central controller 10 obtains a target correction reverse torque (that is, a target correction feedback torque) during vehicle tire puncturing, and allocates the target correction reverse torque according to vehicle state information in a vehicle tire puncturing scenario, such as a wheel having the tire punctured, a current vehicle velocity, a current yaw rate, a steering wheel rotation angle, and the like, to obtain target reverse torques of the drive motors, so that based on the target reverse torques, the vehicle remains stable while braking and decelerating through the feedback braking characteristics of the drive motors. [0070] after the vehicle has a tire punctured, the control advantage that the four-motor power architecture can perform independent drive can be fully utilized. By using the feedback braking control method, the vehicle remains stable while braking and decelerating, so that the braking control boundary of the tire puncturing is widened, and the response velocity and the control accuracy are both improved compared with those of the hydraulic braking system. [0252]-[0253], [0228] The central controller 10 sends the braking control information to the braking controller in the braking system and/or sends the torque allocation information to the motor controller in the drive assembly, to implement yaw control through the braking system and/or the drive assembly), Yang does not explicitly teach but Nakatsu (Fig. 4 and corresponding paragraphs) teaches how to apply a braking force to one or more wheels in response to the vehicle conditions ( the ECU 70 acquires, for example, a braking operation amount and a steering operation amount based on sensor values from the operation state detection apparatus 61 , and acquires a vehicle speed and a motion state amount indicating the degree of a motion state of the vehicle body 10 (e.g. a yaw motion, a roll motion, a pitch motion, and a heave motion) based on sensor values from the vehicle state detection apparatus [0062]-[0071] ).
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 Yang, controlling brakes force based on a vehicle condition, as taught by Modak, as Yang, Nakatsu are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility apply a braking force to one or more wheels in response to the vehicle conditions for optimal braking.
Regarding claims 10 and 14, please look at the rejection to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Yang 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 ([0065] The central controller 10 may determine a total demand torque of each drive motor according to the actual driving demand, and then allocate the total demand torque according to the vehicle state information in the actual driving scenario, to obtain a target torque of each drive motor, including a torque magnitude and a torque direction. The vehicle state information includes, but is not limited to, a current vehicle velocity of the vehicle, current six-degrees-of-freedom of inertia information, a steering wheel rotation angle, a steered wheel rotation angle, a longitudinal acceleration, a current wheel velocity of each wheel, a wheel acceleration, a tire pressure, a driving torque, a braking torque, and the like).
Regarding claims 11 and 15, please look at the rejection to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 3, Yang teaches wherein the vehicle controller determines a vehicle dynamic state based on the one or more vehicle conditions ([0078] the vehicle steering state includes an under-steering state, an over-steering state, and a neutral state, and may be determined based on a yaw rate difference between the current yaw rate and the target yaw rate. When an absolute value of the yaw rate difference is less than a preset threshold, it is considered that the vehicle is currently in the neutral state. When the current yaw rate and the target yaw rate have the same sign, the yaw rate difference is less than zero, and the absolute value of the yaw rate difference is greater than the preset threshold, it is considered that the vehicle is currently in the over-steering state; otherwise, it is considered that the vehicle is currently in the under-steering state).
Regarding claim 16, please look at the rejection to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 4, Yang 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 ([0078] In an embodiment, the vehicle steering state includes an under-steering state, an over-steering state, and a neutral state, and may be determined based on a yaw rate difference between the current yaw rate and the target yaw rate. When an absolute value of the yaw rate difference is less than a preset threshold, it is considered that the vehicle is currently in the neutral state. When the current yaw rate and the target yaw rate have the same sign, the yaw rate difference is less than zero, and the absolute value of the yaw rate difference is greater than the preset threshold, it is considered that the vehicle is currently in the over-steering state; otherwise, it is considered that the vehicle is currently in the under-steering state).
Regarding claims 12 and 17, please look at the rejection to claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 5, Yang teaches wherein the vehicle controller, based on the vehicle dynamic state, determines that torque vectoring, braking application, or both should be implemented ([0078]-[0079] The central controller 10 determines, based on the vehicle steering state and a wheel having the tire punctured, a reverse torque allocation coefficient of the drive motor corresponding to each wheel, and allocates, based on the reverse torque allocation coefficient, the target correction reverse torque to obtain the target reverse torque of the drive motor corresponding to each wheel).
Regarding claim 18, please look at the rejection to claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 6, Yang 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 in-wheel electric motors ([0043] the drive motor may provide a forward torque or a reverse torque, and the drive motor corresponding to each wheel may be independently controlled. Therefore, independent driving of each wheel may be implemented based on the drive motor. When the front controllable differential lock is unlocked, the left front drive motor and the right front drive motor may operate independently).
Regarding claims 13 and 19 please look at the rejection to claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 8, Yang 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. 2 and corresponding paragraphs).
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Yang (US 20250083741 A1) in view of Nakatsu (US 20170106755 A1) in view of Follen (US20230347779 A)
Regarding claim 7, while Yang teaches the battery supplies power to each drive motor or collects regenerative braking electric energy at the same moment independent of each other. The battery management system is responsible for managing performance, a charge-discharge function rate, and the like of the battery, and may adjust charging and discharging performance of the battery in response to a request from the external controller. Yang as modified by Nakatsu 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 Yang as modified by Nakatsu, determining the braking application based on the charge reception capability of the battery, as taught by Modak, as Yang, Nakatsu 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 at the rejection to claim 7 above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Yang (US 20250083741 A1) in view of Nakatsu (US 20170106755 A) in view of Modak (US20230226927 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Yang 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]), Yang as modified by Nakatsu 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 Yang as modified by Nakatsu, using wireless connections between vehicle controllers, as taught by Modak, as Yang, Nakatsu 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
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
Prosecution Insights