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 is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-6 are currently pending and addressed below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement that was filed on 18 December 2024 is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner.
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.
The following title is suggested: “TORQUE CONTROLLER FOR ROTARY ELECTRIC MACHINE”. The Applicant may select a new title as deemed appropriate. Please see MPEP 606 for further guidance on proper form for the title of an invention.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitations use 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 limitations are: “monitoring unit” as recited in claims 1, 5, and 6, “torque demand determination unit” as recited in claim 1, “setting unit” as recited in claims 2-4, “reliability determination unit” as recited in claim 5, and “torque correction unit” as recited in claim 6.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In view of the specification of the instant application, the functions performed by the monitoring unit, torque demand determination unit, setting unit, reliability determination unit, and torque correction unit are interpreted as being performed by at least a dedicated computer including a processor and a memory (see at least paragraph 0105 of the specification of the instant application).
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The independent claims 1, 5, and 6 each recite a “first gradual change process” and a “second gradual change process”. The scope of these limitations is considered to be indefinite because it is unclear as to what is intended to occur during the first gradual change process and the second gradual change process.
With regard to the first gradual change process, claims 1, 5, and 6 each recite that the first gradual change press is performed to “limit a change in the demanded torque”. However, demanded torque is a calculated value (i.e., dependent on other values) and, as best understood by the examiner, cannot be directly controlled. It is therefore unclear how the change in the demanded torque is being limited if it cannot be controlled.
As recited in the claims, the demanded torque is calculated “based on operation information indicating operation status of the moving object”. Referring to the written description of the claimed invention, “In the present embodiment, the operation information is the amount of accelerator operation Ac, the vehicle speed Vs, and the shift position Sp” (see at least paragraph 0031 of the specification of the instant application). As such, as best understood by the examiner, since the demanded torque is calculated based on vehicle operation information including parameters corresponding to the amount of accelerator operation, the vehicle speed, and the shift position, then limiting the change in demanded torque would seemingly be performed by controlling these parameters (e.g., by reducing the amount of accelerator operation). However, the claims do not clearly include any steps in which these parameters of the vehicle operation are controlled.
While the claims do recite performing “torque control”, there is nothing in the claims to suggest that the amount of accelerator operation, the vehicle speed, and the shift position of the vehicle are controlled by the controller. Since the demanded torque is dependent on these parameters which seemingly cannot be controlled by the controller, it is unclear how the change in demanded torque is intended to be limited as required by the claims.
The specification of the instant application references “annealing” as an example of a first gradual change process in paragraphs 0009 and 0014. As best understood by the examiner, “annealing” refers to a heat treatment process including heating a material to a specific temperature for a specific amount of time and then cooling it, for the purposes of increasing the ductility of the material. It is unclear how this process relates to torque control for a rotary electric machine, and these sections of the specification are therefore not considered to provide additional clarification regarding the intended scope of the “first gradual change process”.
As per the second gradual change process, claims 1, 5, and 6 each recite that this second gradual change process is performed on the monitoring torque. The monitoring torque is described in the claims as being calculated based on the operation information, similarly to how the demanded torque of the rotary electric machine is calculated as set forth above. Therefore, the monitoring torque is also interpreted as being a calculated value rather than a controlled value, just as the demanded torque of the rotary electric machine as set forth above.
The claims recite that the second gradual change process is different from the first gradual change process, but the claims do not appear to provide other additional limitations on the second gradual change process to clarify the scope of this term. As such, the second gradual change process as claimed faces the same issues as the first gradual change process with regard to lack of clarity of the scope of this term.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) at least due to their dependence on rejected claim 1. Since the first gradual change process and the second gradual change process appear to be critical components of the claimed invention, and the scope of these components are indefinite as set forth above, the scope of the invention as a whole is also indefinite. For instance, each of the independent claims includes a limitation of “compare the command torque of the rotary electric machine with the monitoring torque after performing the second gradual change process and monitor the torque control of the rotary electric machine based on the result of the comparison”. Since the scope of the second gradual change process is indefinite, the scope of this comparison step is also indefinite.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claims have been examined based on the examiner’s best understanding of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior art to the claimed invention is considered to be the reference by Wang et al. (US 2012/0109431), hereinafter referred to as Wang. Wang teaches a robust motor torque performance diagnostics algorithm for electric drive systems in hybrid vehicles, including methods for controlling a powertrain having an electric motor (i.e., a rotary electric machine). The methods taught by Wang include monitoring a torque command to the motor, predicting a motor torque for the motor based upon the torque command, monitoring an actual motor torque of the motor, comparing the actual motor torque to the predicted torque, and indicating a motor fault when the actual motor torque and the predicted torque differ by more than a calibratable threshold (see at least paragraph 0005 of Wang). Wang further teaches monitoring a raising rate limitation for the motor, which describes a limit to how quickly the motor torque can change (see at least paragraph 0016 of Wang).
Wu et al. (US 2008/0119320), hereinafter referred to as Wu, teaches a method and apparatus for controlling an electro-mechanical transmission during a shift execution, including limiting a change in operation of the electrical machine by limiting a time-rate change in the output torque and limiting a magnitude of the output torque (see at least paragraph 0006 of Wu), wherein the limits on the change in output torque and absolute output torque are dynamically determined based upon operating conditions of the powertrain (see at least paragraph 0048 of Wu). With particular relevance to claim 6, Wu further teaches managing torque inputs in order to optimize system efficiencies to improve fuel economy (see at least paragraph 0044 of Wu).
Syed et al. (US 2021/0171006), hereinafter referred to as Syed, teaches a method for operating a vehicle having a torque converter, including a step of limiting a rate of change of the torque converter impeller speed request in order to provide a smooth driveline torque progression (see at least paragraph 0051 of Syed).
None of Wang, Wu, Syed, or any of the other cited prior art references are considered to fully teach the limitations of the independent claims. In particular, none of the cited prior art is considered to teach “a monitoring unit configured to compare the command torque of the rotary electric machine with the monitoring torque after performing the second gradual change process and monitor the torque control of the rotary electric machine based on the result of the comparison” as recited in the independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINICK ANTHONY MULDER whose telephone number is (571)272-3610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, RAMYA P BURGESS can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/D.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661