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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-2, 4-6, 9, 12, 14-15, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (US 2026/0008355) in view of Semenov(US 2022/0097700)
As to claim 1 Oh discloses a system, comprising a processor and a memory, the memory storing instructions executable by the processor to control a speed of a vehicle, including instructions to:
while the vehicle is moving with negative wheel torque, apply a first motion rate limit upon detecting an input to positively accelerate the vehicle(Paragraph 16 “…in which the controller determines whether there is a change request of a direction of the required torque for the vehicle driving, and determines, in response that the controller concludes that there is the change request of the direction of the required torque, the front-wheel torque command and the rear-wheel torque command determined from the required torque as values for sequential zero-crossing while the required torque determined in real time changes while performing zero-crossing of passing through 0 torque for direction change.”);
upon detecting, after responding to the input to positively accelerate the vehicle according to the first motion rate limit, that the vehicle has achieved a neutral acceleration state, apply a second motion rate limit to cause positive wheel torque for acceleration of the vehicle (Paragraph 62 “That is, while passing through the backlash band, the change rates of the front-wheel torque command and the rear-wheel torque command are limited to values equal to or smaller than the maximum allowable change rate, respectively, so that the change rates of the front-wheel torque command and the rear-wheel torque command do not exceed the maximum allowable change rate.”);
wherein the first motion rate limit applied during the negative wheel torque is greater than the second motion rate limit that is applied during the positive wheel torque (Paragraph 117 “Similarly, in the zero-crossing of the rear-wheel torque command, a backlash shock reduction control process of limiting the change rate (gradient) of the distributed rear-wheel torque command is performed using a change rate limiter or the like, instead of direct application of the rear-wheel torque command that does not take backlash shock into account, that is, the rear-wheel torque command distributed and determined from the required torque according to the front and rear-wheel torque distribution logic.”, Paragraph 125 “Specifically, in a case where the front-wheel torque command passes through the backlash band to perform zero-crossing, the controller 20 is configured to determine and corrects the change rate (gradient) of the front-wheel torque command to become a value limited to the maximum allowable change rate, and compensates for the rear-wheel torque command with the torque correction value determined using the front-wheel torque command.”).
Oh does not explicitly disclose that the first motion rate limit is selected based on a determination that the vehicle is in a negative acceleration state;
Semenov teaches that the first motion rate limit is selected based on a determination that the vehicle is in a negative acceleration state(Paragraph 33 “In this example, the powertrain is providing braking and thus the driver-demanded torque 202 has negative values. At time T1, raw driver-demanded torque changes to zero as the vehicle comes to a stop. The raw torque 202 abruptly changes from a negative torque to zero in a very short amount of time. If the vehicle were to command such an abrupt change in torque to the powertrain, jerkiness and other disturbances may result. To avoid this, rate limits and filters are applied to the raw driver-demanded torque to produce the final torque command to the powertrain. Plot 204 illustrates the shaped torque when a rate limit and filter of the SLSC is applied. These filter and rate limit are fairly low and result in a relatively lengthy delay of the commanded torque becoming zero. As explained above, this delay can cause problems when in the one-pedal mode. Plot 206 illustrates the shaped torque when a rate limit and filter of the 1PLSC is used. The rate limit of plot 206 is substantially higher than the rate limit of plot 204 resulting in the commanded torque becoming zero at time T2. This results in a more responsive powertrain that enables the vehicle to come to a stop sooner compared to the SLSC.”); It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Oh to include the teaches of different motion rate limits for the purpose of preventing jerkiness or abrupt changes in the power train by adjust the rate at which the torque is provided.
As to claim 2 Oh discloses a system wherein the input is a user input (Paragraph 80).
As to claim 4 Oh discloses a system wherein the first motion rate limit includes a wheel torque rate change limit or an acceleration rate change limit (Paragraph 61).
As to claim 5 Oh discloses a system wherein the neutral acceleration state is defined by a continuous range of wheel torque that includes zero wheel torque (Paragraph 18).
As to claim 6 Oh discloses a system wherein the neutral acceleration state is defined by a continuous range of vehicle acceleration that includes zero acceleration (Paragraph 18).
As to claim 9 Oh discloses a system wherein the first motion rate limit and the second motion rate limit are based on user input (Paragraph 80).
As to claim 12 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 1.
As to claim 14 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 4.
As to claim 15 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 5 and 6.
As to claim 18 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 9.
Claims 3, 7-8, 13, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (US 2026/0008355) in view of Semenov(US 2022/0097700) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Falcone (US 2024/0096144)
As to claim 3 Falcone teaches a system wherein the user input is provided while the vehicle is in a one-pedal mode(Paragraph 43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Falcone to include the teachings of an one-pedal mode for the purpose of providing a single pedal to control the acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle.
As to claim 7 Falcone teaches a system wherein values in the lookup table, including the first motion rate limit and the second motion rate limit, are populated from empirical testing(Paragraph 53).
As to claim 8 discloses a system wherein the first motion rate limit is selected from a first lookup table and the second motion rate limit is selected from a second lookup table (Paragraph 53).
As to claim 13 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 3.
As to claim 16 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 7.
As to claim 17 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 8.
Claims 10, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (US 2026/0008355) in view of Semenov(US 2022/0097700) as applied to claim 1 above , and in further view of Dextreit (US 2015/0314771)
As to claim 10 Dextreit teaches a system wherein the first motion rate limit and the second motion rate limit are based on a distance to a forward vehicle defined for an adaptive cruise control in the vehicle(Paragraph 46). It would have been obvious to one of one ordinary skill to modify Oh to include the teachings of limiting the motion limit using an adaptive cruise control for the purpose of controlling the vehicle maintain a desire distance from the preceding vehicle.
As to claim 19 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 10.
Claims 11,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (US 2026/0008355) in view of Semenov(US 2022/0097700) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kelly (US 2016/0244057)
As to claim 11 Kelly teaches a system wherein the first motion rate limit and the second motion rate limit are based on a trajectory of an object detected by data from a vehicle sensor (Paragraph 37). It would have been obvious to one of one ordinary skill to modify Oh to include the teachings of limiting the motion limit using a trajectory of an object for the purpose of maintaining a safe distance from the preceding vehicle.
As to claim 20 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 IMRAN K MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1471. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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.
IMRAN K. MUSTAFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/IMRAN K MUSTAFA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
8/27/2026
Prosecution Insights