CTNF 19/077,083 CTNF 96572 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. No action is requested at this time. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on March 26, 2025 and January 2, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 07-30-03-h AIA 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. 07-30-05 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses 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: “ motor control unit ,” “ electronic stability program ,” and “ vehicle control unit ” as they appear in Claims 1-20. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. However, Examiner did not find sufficient structure. Applicant specification describes that the units are logical divisions within a hardware and/or software of generic computer technology. However, the description is unclear in what constitutes the ‘logical function division,’ and thus does not sufficiently explain the structure by which software or hardware may embody the claimed units (Paragraph [0142-0143], “It should be noted that division into the modules in the foregoing embodiments is an example, is merely logical function division, and may be other division in an actual implementation. In addition, functional units in embodiments of this application may be integrated into one processing unit, or may exist alone physically, or two or more units may be integrated into one unit. The integrated unit may be implemented in a form of hardware, or may be implemented in a form of a software functional unit. When the integrated unit is implemented in the form of a software functional unit and sold or used as an independent product, the integrated unit may be stored in a computer- readable storage medium” ). If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding Claims 1-20, Claims 1-20 recite a “motor control unit, ” “vehicle control unit,” and “electronic stability program,” and these limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant specification describes that the units are logical divisions within a hardware and/or software of generic computer technology (Paragraph [0142-0143]). However, the description is unclear in what constitutes the ‘logical function division,’ and thus does not sufficiently explain the structure by which software (or hardware) may embody the claimed units. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). 07-34-23 Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Regarding Claims 1 and 9, Claims 1 and 9 recite, respectively, a “vehicle control unit,” and a “motor control unit,” in the preamble of each claim. However, the aforementioned units are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Therefore, it is unclear whether the preamble is reciting a means- (or step-) plus- function limitation or whether the preamble is merely stating the intended use of the claimed invention. (MPEP §§ 2181). Furthermore, claim 9, on lines 3-7, states that “the MCU is configured to… send a second signal” however, the specification states that the Electronic Stability Program (ESP) sends a second signal (e.g., Paragraph [020], “According to a second aspect, the embodiments provide a motor control unit. The motor control unit is connected to a vehicle control unit and sends a first signal to the vehicle control unit, an electronic stability program is connected to the motor control unit or the vehicle control unit and sends a second signal;” and Paragraph [0102], “An electronic stability program 105 is connected to the motor control unit 103 or the vehicle control unit 104 and sends a second signal.” ) and therefore the scope of the claim is unclear (MPEP §§ 2173.03). Claim 9 further states, on Line 7, that the motor control unit, “sends a second signal…” and then later states, on Line 11, “after receiving the second signal…” - First, it is unclear if the motor control unit does or does not send a control signal to another destination, and further, it is unclear how it sends and receives a second signal if it presumably already has a second signal. This is further compounded by Claim 10, where on Line 4, it is instead stated that the vehicle control unit receives the second signal. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting the claim language as referring to an embodiment where the stability control program is part of the motor control unit, and sends a second signal to the vehicle control unit. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 10, Claim 9, on Lines 10-12, states the motor control unit may output a control signal “before or after receiving the second signal or the third signal.” Claim 10, on Line 3, then states to output the control signal “in response to the third signal…” - it is not clear how the control signal can be in response to the third signal if it is created before or after receiving the third signal. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting Claim 10 as referring the scenario where a motor control signal is output in after receiving the third signal. Appropriate correction is required. Finally, Claim 10 depends on a claim which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and is thus also rejected on that basis. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 11, Claim 9, on Lines 10-12, states the motor control unit may output a control signal “before or after receiving the second signal or the third signal.” Claim 11, on Lines 3-4, then states to output the control signal “in response to the second signal and the third signal…” - it is not clear how the control signal can be in response to the third signal if it is created before or after receiving the third signal. Further, as with the rejection of Claim 9 explained above, it is unclear how the motor control unit receives the second control signal if it creates (and already possesses) the second control signal. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting Claim 11 as referring the scenario where a motor control signal is output in after receiving the third signal, and further, where the second signal is given to a vehicle control unit. Finally, Claim 11 depends on a claim which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and is thus also rejected on that basis. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claims 2-8, 10-13, and 15-20, The dependent claims depend on claims which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and are thus also themselves rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Appropriate correction is required. 07-36 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 07-36-01 AIA Claim s 2-3 and Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding Claims 2 and 3, On Lines 8-9, Claim 1 states that the vehicle control unit is configured to “send a third signal to at least one of the at least one motor control unit before receiving the second signal,” - however, Claim 2 states, on Lines 3-4, that the vehicle control unit sends the third signal “ in response to the second signal,” - Thus, the Claim language does not further limit the control unit as described in Claim 1, which sends a signal before the second signal and not in response to the second signal. Similarly, Claim 3 states, on Lines 3-4, that the vehicle control unit sends the third signal “ in response to the first signal second signal,” - Thus, the Claim language does not further limit the control unit as described in Claim 1, which sends a signal before the second signal and not in response to the second signal. Regarding Claims 15 and 16, Claims 14-16 recite essentially the same limitations to that of Claims 1-3, and thus Claims 15 and 16 are rejected for similar rationale as that which is explained above . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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 1-3, 5-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Cotgrove (US 20170203756 A1), further in view of Wright (US 20110238251 A1), herein after referred to simply as Cotgrove and Wright. Regarding Claim 1, Cotgrove discloses the following limitations, A vehicle control unit c onnected to at least one motor control unit (Figure 1, element 16, “VCU”, and further, element 12_4, “Powertrain Subsystem”, and further, Paragraph [0024], “the method and system described herein may be used with any type of vehicle having an automatic, manual, or continuously variable transmission, including traditional vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), extended-range electric vehicles (EREVs), battery electrical vehicles (BEVs) , passenger cars, sports utility vehicles (SUVs), cross-over vehicles, and trucks, to cite a few possibilities.” – the powertrain may be comprised entirely of electric motors, a powertrain subsystem constitutes a motor control unit. Figure 1 shows the units are connected.) and is configured to: receive a first signal sent by the at least one motor control unit, wherein the first signal indicates a running status of a motor; (Paragraph [0033], “One or more of subsystems 12 may be under at least a certain degree of control by VCU 16 (a detailed description of which will be provided below). In such an embodiment, those subsystems 12 are electrically coupled to, and configured for communication with, VCU 16 to provide feedback to VCU 16 relating to operational or operating parameters of vehicle 10, as well as to receive instructions or commands from VCU 16” - the VCU receives data from the powertrain subsystem, and further, Paragraph [0038], “ engine torque sensor(s); driveline torque sensor(s) ;” and see Figure 1, element 14, “Sensors” - the powertrain subsystem, which can be for an all-electric vehicle, can receive torque data, and this data may then be processed or shared directly with the VCU) receive a second signal sent by an electronic stability program, wherein the second signal indicates a traveling status of a vehicle; (Figure 1, element 12_1, “Stability Control Subsystem” and further, Paragraph [0026-0027], “ For example, subsystem 12_1 may receive readings or information from one or more of sensors 14 and/or subsystems 12 described or identified herein (e.g., gyro sensors, vehicle acceleration sensors, etc.) to evaluate the pitch, roll (or roll rate), yaw (or yaw rate), lateral acceleration, and/or vibration (e.g., amplitude and frequency) of vehicle 10 (and/or the vehicle body, in particular), and therefore, the overall attitude, or change in overall attitude, of vehicle 10. Subsystem 12 1 may be further configured to monitor other stability-related parameters, such as, for example and without limitation, the longitudinal acceleration of vehicle 10, the speed of one or more wheels of vehicle 10, and the steering angle (e.g., steering wheel angle) of vehicle 10. … In any event, the information received or determined by stability control system 12_1 may be utilized solely thereby or may alternatively be shared with other subsystems 12 or components (e.g., VCU 16) of vehicle 10” and in response to the first signal, send a third signal to at least one of the at least one motor control unit … so that the at least one motor control unit that receives the third signal is configured to adjust torque, to perform stability control on the vehicle (Paragraph [0065], “In any event, step 122 of applying brake control to one or more wheels of vehicle 10 may comprise adjusting one or more characteristics of the components of brake subsystem 12 3 and/or powertrain subsystem 12 5 associated with one or more wheels of vehicle 10. This may include, for example, actuating or de-actuating one or more brake devices associated with the wheel(s) of vehicle 10, a djusting (e.g., reducing) the drive torque applied to one or more wheels of vehicle 10 by powertrain subsystem 12 5 , or taking some other suitable action.” And these commands may originate from a VCU (Paragraph [0033], “In such an embodiment, those subsystems 12 are electrically coupled to, and configured for communication with, VCU 16 to provide feedback to VCU 16 relating to operational or operating parameters of vehicle 10, as well as to receive instructions or commands from VCU 16 .” The system enacts a stability control, Abstract, “A method of controlling the stability of a vehicle.” ) and in response to the first signal, send a third signal to at least one of the at least one motor control unit, before receiving the second signal , so that the at least one motor control unit that receives the third signal is configured to adjust torque, to perform stability control on the vehicle The stability subsystem of Cotgrove applies stability control in exceptional circumstances (Paragraph [0007], “In an embodiment, when the occurrence of an over-steer or under-steer condition is predicted, the method further includes applying active damping control to one or more wheels of the vehicle to counteract the predicted over-steer or under-steer condition.” ), thus it cannot be said to send a third signal to adjust torque to perform stability control before the vehicle control unit receives a second signal. However, Wright, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a continuous stability control system (Paragraph [0028], “most existing systems employ a form of exception-based closed-loop control, wherein the traction control, ABS, and stability control programs do not intervene until an anomaly is detected, such as a sudden change in wheel speed or yaw rate. At this point, the control system intervenes until the anomaly disappears. The VDCS of the invention includes a completely differently control strategy.” which can have a modified control during the exceptional circumstance (Paragraph [0043-0044], “In instances where understeer defines the vehicle's behavior, the understeer may be excessive under certain conditions. … The VDCS of the invention can compensate for the above-identified problems using (i) t he natural operation of the yaw control and slip rate limit mechanisms , and (ii) certain control algorithms discussed herein.“ ). Thus, stability control is performed before the stability subsystem control algorithm is activated. It can be said that two forms of a second signal based on an electronic stability program are created by the combination, those which are created by a stability subsystem of Cotgrove during exceptional circumstances, and the second signal created by Wright’s VDCS insofar as it is incorporated into the continuously operational powertrain subsystem of Cotgrove, as is subordinated to the VCU of Cotgrove. The motor control unit can thus be an origin of the second control signals sent to the VCU (e.g., from Wright, Paragraph [0039], “If the vehicle yaws too far to the right, the reverse will happen. In particular, the VDCS will apply a high positive torque on the right wheels, low or negative (braking) torque on the left wheels, and a left yaw moment. If the driver is also commanding acceleration or braking while turning, the VDCS also considers this in the calculation of target wheel speeds, and delivers the desired acceleration or braking within the limits of the available traction and torque/power.” And Paragraph [0045], “The VDCS can monitor each motor and modify overall motor commands as any individual motor approaches torque, current, temperature, or other physical limits.” and Paragraph [0022], “One EDM 130 is provided for each wheel 260, 270 of the vehicle. Each EDM 130 also includes an integral motor speed sensor and the power electronics to drive the motor. The EDMs 130 also report the output shaft speed back to the VDCS 210, which may be used to determine actual wheel speed” ). In the combination, first signals are reports of motor status given by the VDCS to the VCU, and second signals is data that reports on the yaw, vehicle acceleration, driver inputs, etc., which may also pass through the VDCS to the VCU (As per Cotgrove, Paragraph [0027], “In any event, the information received or determined by stability control system 12 1 may be utilized solely thereby or may alternatively be shared with other subsystems 12 ” and Paragraph [0033], “subsystems 12 are electrically coupled to, and configured for communication with, VCU 16 to provide feedback to VCU 16 relating to operational or operating parameters of vehicle 10, as well as to receive instructions or commands from VCU 16 .” – Cotgrove envisions that a subsystem, including the powertrain subsystem 12_4, may include features of the data being collected continuously by the stability control system 12_1, as is now taught and enabled by the inclusion of the VDCS of Wright.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonably likelihood of success, to have modified the powertrain subsystem of Cotgrove with the VDCS of Wright, as this improves vehicle stability through a continuous operation (Paragraph [0028], “As set forth above, most existing systems employ a form of exception-based closed-loop control, wherein the traction control, ABS, and stability control programs do not intervene until an anomaly is detected, such as a sudden change in wheel speed or yaw rate. At this point, the control system intervenes until the anomaly disappears. The VDCS of the invention includes a completely differently control strategy.” ). Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding Claim 2, The combination of Cotgrove and Wright, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Cotgrove further discloses the following limitations, wherein the vehicle control unit is further configured to: send the third signal to the at least one of the at least one motor control unit in response to the second signal, so that the at least one motor control unit that receives the third signal is configured to adjust the torque to perform stability control on the vehicle. (Figure 1, element 12_1, “Stability Control Subsystem” and further, Paragraph [0026-0027], “ For example, subsystem 12_1 may receive readings or information from one or more of sensors 14 and/or subsystems 12 described or identified herein (e.g., gyro sensors, vehicle acceleration sensors, etc.) to evaluate the pitch, roll (or roll rate), yaw (or yaw rate), lateral acceleration, and/or vibration (e.g., amplitude and frequency) of vehicle 10 (and/or the vehicle body, in particular), and therefore, the overall attitude, or change in overall attitude, of vehicle 10. Subsystem 12 1 may be further configured to monitor other stability-related parameters, such as, for example and without limitation, the longitudinal acceleration of vehicle 10, the speed of one or more wheels of vehicle 10, and the steering angle (e.g., steering wheel angle) of vehicle 10. … In any event, the information received or determined by stability control system 12_1 may be utilized solely thereby or may alternatively be shared with other subsystems 12 or components (e.g., VCU 16) of vehicle 10” – the VCU may then command the motor via the powertrain subsystem, Paragraph [0033], “In such an embodiment, those subsystems 12 are electrically coupled to, and configured for communication with, VCU 16 to provide feedback to VCU 16 relating to operational or operating parameters of vehicle 10, as well as to receive instructions or commands from VCU 16 .” Thus, the motor command sends a third signal in response to the second signal, to perform stability control.) Regarding Claim 3, The combination of Cotgrove and Wright, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Cotgrove further discloses the following limitations, The vehicle control unit according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle control unit is further configured to: send the third signal to the at least one of the at least one motor control unit in response to receiving the first signal and the second signal, so that the at least one motor control unit that receives the third signal is configured to adjust the torque; to perform stability control on the vehicle. (Figure 1, element 12_1, “Stability Control Subsystem” and further, Paragraph [0026-0027], “ For example, subsystem 12_1 may receive readings or information from one or more of sensors 14 and/or subsystems 12 described or identified herein (e.g., gyro sensors, vehicle acceleration sensors, etc.) to evaluate the pitch, roll (or roll rate), yaw (or yaw rate), lateral acceleration, and/or vibration (e.g., amplitude and frequency) of vehicle 10 (and/or the vehicle body, in particular), and therefore, the overall attitude, or change in overall attitude, of vehicle 10. Subsystem 12 1 may be further configured to monitor other stability-related parameters, such as, for example and without limitation, the longitudinal acceleration of vehicle 10, the speed of one or more wheels of vehicle 10, and the steering angle (e.g., steering wheel angle) of vehicle 10. … In any event, the information received or determined by stability control system 12_1 may be utilized solely thereby or may alternatively be shared with other subsystems 12 or components (e.g., VCU 16) of vehicle 10” – the VCU may then command the motor via the powertrain subsystem, Paragraph [0033], “In such an embodiment, those subsystems 12 are electrically coupled to, and configured for communication with, VCU 16 to provide feedback to VCU 16 relating to operational or operating parameters of vehicle 10, as well as to receive instructions or commands from VCU 16 .” Thus, the motor command sends a third signal in response to the second signal, to perform stability control. Note, further, the VCU 16 receives feedback from the subsystems. Thus, the motor control is based on motor feedback, such as torque data which may be provided to VCU 16 via the powertrain subsystem. The data will at least indicate a running status of the at least one motor in some capacity, Paragraph [0039], “Further, these sensors may be directly coupled to VCU 16 and/ or to one or more of vehicle subsystems 12, ” ) Regarding Claim 5, The combination of Cotgrove and Wright, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Cotgrove further discloses the following limitations, and the third signal indicates a magnitude of the torque output by the motor control unit. (Paragraph [0065], “In any event, step 122 of applying brake control to one or more wheels of vehicle 10 may comprise adjusting one or more characteristics of the components of brake subsystem 12 3 and/or powertrain subsystem 12 5 associated with one or more wheels of vehicle 10. This may include, for example, actuating or de-actuating one or more brake devices associated with the wheel(s) of vehicle 10, a djusting (e.g., reducing) the drive torque applied to one or more wheels of vehicle 10 by powertrain subsystem 12 5 , or taking some other suitable action.” A third signal can be the adjustment of a powertrain subsystem to alter the driving torque of the motor control unit. The torque command can originate from the VCU Paragraph, [0033], “In such an embodiment, those subsystems 12 are electrically coupled to, and configured for communication with, VCU 16 to provide feedback to VCU 16 relating to operational or operating parameters of vehicle 10, as well as to receive instructions or commands from VCU 16 .” The VCU’s ultimate role in the control signal sent to control a powertrain subsystem, i.e., the motor control unit, at least indicates a magnitude of torque.) Wright further already teaches the following limitations, wherein the first signal indicates that the motor of the vehicle reaches a torque saturation state; the second signal comprises any one or more of the following parameters: an acceleration , a yaw angle , a wheel speed, and a driver input parameter ; (Paragraph [0039], “If the vehicle yaws too far to the right , the reverse will happen. In particular, the VDCS will apply a high positive torque on the right wheels, low or negative (braking) torque on the left wheels, and a left yaw moment. If the driver is also commanding acceleration or braking while turning, the VDCS also considers this in the calculation of target wheel speeds, and delivers the desired acceleration or braking within the limits of the available traction and torque/power.” . In the combination, first signals are reports of motor status given by the VDCS to the VCU of Cotgrove, and second signals is data that reports on the yaw, vehicle acceleration, driver inputs, etc., which may also pass through the VDCS, to the VCU. In other words, first signals are entirely motor dependent, and second signals involve the motor’s interaction with other systems. The first signal here is via the detection of the available traction of a motor, and the relation of the current motor status to that limit.) Regarding Claim 6, The combination of Cotgrove and Wright, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Cotgrove further discloses the following limitations, and the third signal indicates a magnitude of the torque output by the motor control unit. (Paragraph [0065], “In any event, step 122 of applying brake control to one or more wheels of vehicle 10 may comprise adjusting one or more characteristics of the components of brake subsystem 12 3 and/or powertrain subsystem 12 5 associated with one or more wheels of vehicle 10. This may include, for example, actuating or de-actuating one or more brake devices associated with the wheel(s) of vehicle 10, a djusting (e.g., reducing) the drive torque applied to one or more wheels of vehicle 10 by powertrain subsystem 12 5 , or taking some other suitable action.” A third signal can be the adjustment of a powertrain subsystem to alter the driving torque of the motor control unit. The torque command can originate from the VCU Paragraph, [0033], “In such an embodiment, those subsystems 12 are electrically coupled to, and configured for communication with, VCU 16 to provide feedback to VCU 16 relating to operational or operating parameters of vehicle 10, as well as to receive instructions or commands from VCU 16 .” The VCU’s ultimate role in the control signal sent to control a powertrain subsystem, i.e., the motor control unit, at least indicates a magnitude of torque.) Wright further already teaches the following limitations, wherein the first signal comprises a motor rotational speed of the vehicle, the second signal comprises any one or more of the following parameters: an acceleration, a yaw angle, a wheel speed, and a driver input parameter; (Paragraph [0039], “If the vehicle yaws too far to the right , the reverse will happen. In particular, the VDCS will apply a high positive torque on the right wheels, low or negative (braking) torque on the left wheels, and a left yaw moment. If the driver is also commanding acceleration or braking while turning, the VDCS also considers this in the calculation of target wheel speeds, and delivers the desired acceleration or braking within the limits of the available traction and torque/power.” . In the combination, first signals are reports of motor status given by the VDCS, including the motor speed, “One EDM 130 is provided for each wheel 260, 270 of the vehicle. Each EDM 130 also includes an integral motor speed sensor and the power electronics to drive the motor. The EDMs 130 also report the output shaft speed back to the VDCS 210, which may be used to determine actual wheel speed” and second signals is data that reports on the yaw, vehicle acceleration, etc., which may also pass through the VDCS to the VCU.) Regarding Claim 7, The combination of Cotgrove and Wright, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Cotgrove further discloses the following limitations, and the vehicle control unit is further configured to: send the third signal to the at least one any one or more of the at least one motor control unit in response … and at least one of the first signal and and/or the second signal. (Paragraph, [0033], “In such an embodiment, those subsystems 12 are electrically coupled to, and configured for communication with, VCU 16 to provide feedback to VCU 16 relating to operational or operating parameters of vehicle 10, as well as to receive instructions or commands from VCU 16 .” ) Wright further already teaches the following limitations, The vehicle control unit according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle control unit receives a fourth signal sent by the at least one motor control unit, the fourth signal indicates actual torque of the motor of the vehicle, and the vehicle control unit is further configured to: send the third signal to the at least one any one or more of the at least one motor control unit in response to the fourth signal and at least one of the first signal and the second signal. (Paragraph [0045], “The VDCS can monitor each motor a nd modify overall motor commands as any individual motor approaches torque, current, temperature, or other physical limits .” and the vehicle control unit is further configured to: send the third signal to the at least one any one or more of the at least one motor control unit in response to the fourth signal and at least one of the first signal and and/or the second signal. Regarding Claim 8, The combination of Cotgrove and Wright, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Wright further already teaches the following limitation, herein the vehicle control unit is further configured to: send a fifth signal to the electronic stability program, wherein the fifth signal indicates the actual torque of the motor of the vehicle. (While the subsystems of Cotgrove may share data, the exceptional stability control subsystem of Cotgrove does not explicitly receive torque data, however, the continuous stability control of Wright does receive torque data, Paragraph [0039], “If the vehicle yaws too far to the right, the reverse will happen. In particular, the VDCS will apply a high positive torque on the right wheels, low or negative (braking) torque on the left wheels, and a left yaw moment. If the driver is also commanding acceleration or braking while turning, the VDCS also considers this in the calculation of target wheel speeds, and delivers the desired acceleration or braking within the limits of the available traction and torque/power .” The stability program is interpreted as that aspect of the VDCS which operates with respect to yaw control.) Regarding Claim 9 Cotgrove discloses the following limitations, A motor control unit, configured to control a drive motor of a vehicle, wherein the motor control unit is connected to a vehicle control unit (Figure 1, Powertrain subsystem 12_4 and VCU 16, and Paragraph [0003], “a subsystem configured or operable to perform stability control-related functionality may be operable to detect vehicle instability, for example, a potential loss of steering control (i.e., the vehicle is not going in the direction the driver is steering), and to intervene in an effort to correct the instability. This intervention may include, for example, commanding the application of brake torque to one or more wheels of the vehicle, and/or adjusting the drive torque being applied to the vehicle wheels by the vehicle powertrain subsystem. ” - the motor control unit 12_4 controls the drive motor of a vehicle.) and configured to: send a first signal to the vehicle control unit, wherein the first signal indicates a running status of a motor; (Paragraph, [0033], “In such an embodiment, those subsystems 12 are electrically coupled to, and configured for communication with, VCU 16 to provide feedback to VCU 16 relating to operational or operating parameters of vehicle 10,” and further Paragraph [0038], “engine torque sensor(s); driveline torque sensor(s);” ) the vehicle control unit is configured to send a third signal to the motor control unit; (Paragraph, [0033], “In such an embodiment, those subsystems 12 are electrically coupled to, and configured for communication with, VCU 16 to provide feedback to VCU 16 relating to operational or operating parameters of vehicle 10, as well as to receive instructions or commands from VCU 16 .” - when the VCU intervenes on the powertrain subsystem, this constitutes a third signal. and after sending the first signal, output a control signal to the drive motor before or after receiving… the third signal to perform stability control on the vehicle. (Paragraph [0003], “This intervention may include, for example, commanding the application of brake torque to one or more wheels of the vehicle, and/or adjusting the drive torque being applied to the vehicle wheels by the vehicle powertrain subsystem. ” – the control of the vehicle is based on a continuous feedback loop, thus, it will output control signals before or after the VCU intervenes. Further, when the VCU third signal is limited to the manner in which the VCU embodies the stability subsystem, then third signals are only intermittently created during an exception control scenario, as per Paragraph [0003], “For example, in an instance wherein vehicle instability in the nature of an under-steer condition is detected, the application of brake torque to the inner rear wheel may be commanded in order to generate an opposing over-steer moment that counters the under-steer condition.” and Paragraph [0033], “For example, in an embodiment, VCU 16 may be configured to perform some or all of the functionality of stability control subsystem 12 1 described above.” ) However, Cotgrove does not disclose the following limitation, sends a second signal, based upon an electronic stability program, wherein the second signal indicates a traveling status of the vehicles, output a control signal to the drive motor before or after receiving the second signal or the third signal to perform stability control on the vehicle. The stability subsystem of Cotgrove does not exist within its motor control unit. However, Wright, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a continuous stability control system (Paragraph [0028], “most existing systems employ a form of exception-based closed-loop control, wherein the traction control, ABS, and stability control programs do not intervene until an anomaly is detected, such as a sudden change in wheel speed or yaw rate. At this point, the control system intervenes until the anomaly disappears. The VDCS of the invention includes a completely differently control strategy.” - A second signal and the electronic stability program originate from the VDCS insofar as it the VDCS is incorporated into the continuously operational powertrain subsystem of Cotgrove, as is subordinated to the VCU of Cotgrove. The motor control unit can thus be an origin of the second control signals sent to the VCU (e.g., from Wright, Paragraph [0039], “If the vehicle yaws too far to the right, the reverse will happen. In particular, the VDCS will apply a high positive torque on the right wheels, low or negative (braking) torque on the left wheels, and a left yaw moment. If the driver is also commanding acceleration or braking while turning, the VDCS also considers this in the calculation of target wheel speeds, and delivers the desired acceleration or braking within the limits of the available traction and torque/power.” and Paragraph [0045], “The VDCS can monitor each motor and modify overall motor commands as any individual motor approaches torque, current, temperature, or other physical limits.” and Paragraph [0022], “One EDM 130 is provided for each wheel 260, 270 of the vehicle. Each EDM 130 also includes an integral motor speed sensor and the power electronics to drive the motor. The EDMs 130 also report the output shaft speed back to the VDCS 210, which may be used to determine actual wheel speed” ). In the combination, first signals are reports of motor status given by the VDCS to the VCU, and second signals is data that reports on the yaw, vehicle acceleration, driver inputs, etc., which may also pass through the VDCS to the VCU (As per Cotgrove, Paragraph [0027], “In any event, the information received or determined by stability control system 12 1 may be utilized solely thereby or may alternatively be shared with other subsystems 12 ” And Paragraph [0033], “subsystems 12 are electrically coupled to, and configured for communication with, VCU 16 to provide feedback to VCU 16 relating to operational or operating parameters of vehicle 10, as well as to receive instructions or commands from VCU 16 .” – Cotgrove envisions that a subsystem, including the powertrain subsystem 12_4, may include features of the data being collected continuously by the stability control system 12_1, as is now taught and enabled by the inclusion of the VDCS of Wright.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonably likelihood of success, to have modified the powertrain subsystem of Cotgrove with the VDCS of Wright, as this improves vehicle stability through a continuous operation (Paragraph [0028], “As set forth above, most existing systems employ a form of exception-based closed-loop control, wherein the traction control, ABS, and stability control programs do not intervene until an anomaly is detected, such as a sudden change in wheel speed or yaw rate. At this point, the control system intervenes until the anomaly disappears. The VDCS of the invention includes a completely differently control strategy.” ). Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding Claim 10, The combination of Cotgrove and Wright, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 9. Cotgrove further discloses the following limitation, wherein, after the motor control unit sends the first signal, the motor control unit is further configured to: output the control signal to the drive motor in response to the third signal output by the vehicle control unit … to perform stability control on the vehicle. (Paragraph [0003], “This intervention may include, for example, commanding the application of brake torque to one or more wheels of the vehicle, and/or adjusting the drive torque being applied to the vehicle wheels by the vehicle powertrain subsystem. ” and Paragraph [0033], “One or more of subsystems 12 may be under at least a certain degree of control by VCU 16 (a detailed description of which will be provided below). In such an embodiment, those subsystems 12 are electrically coupled to, and configured for communication with, VCU 16 to provide feedback to VCU 16 relating to operational or operating parameters of vehicle 10, as well as to receive instructions or commands from VCU 16 … For example, in an embodiment, VCU 16 may be configured to perform some or all of the functionality of stability control subsystem 12 1 described above.” - when the VCU intervenes, a third signal is sent to the powertrain subsystem, which is under a degree of control from the VCU. The powertrain subsystem ultimately provides direct control to the physical motor itself. Because the system is dynamic and operates recursively in real-time, control signals are created before and after the output of first signals.) Wright further already teaches the following limitation, the vehicle control unit after receiving the second signal, (In the combination, first signals are reports of motor status given by the VDCS to the VCU, and second signals is data that reports on the yaw, vehicle acceleration, driver inputs, etc., which may also pass through the VDCS to the VCU) Regarding Claim 11, The combination of Cotgrove and Wright, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 9. Cotgrove further discloses the following limitation, wherein, after the motor control unit sends the first signal, the motor control unit is further configured to: output the control signal to the drive motor in response to … the third signal … received by the motor control unit to perform stability control on the vehicle. (Paragraph [0003], “This intervention may include, for example, commanding the application of brake torque to one or more wheels of the vehicle, and/or adjusting the drive torque being applied to the vehicle wheels by the vehicle powertrain subsystem. ” and Paragraph [0033], “One or more of subsystems 12 may be under at least a certain degree of control by VCU 16 (a detailed description of which will be provided below). In such an embodiment, those subsystems 12 are electrically coupled to, and configured for communication with, VCU 16 to provide feedback to VCU 16 relating to operational or operating parameters of vehicle 10, as well as to receive instructions or commands from VCU 16 … For example, in an embodiment, VCU 16 may be configured to perform some or all of the functionality of stability control subsystem 12 1 described above.” - when the VCU intervenes, a third signal is sent to the powertrain subsystem, which is under a degree of control from the VCU. The powertrain subsystem ultimately provides direct control to the physical motor itself. Because the system is dynamic and operates recursively in real-time, control signals are created before and after the output of first signals.) Wright further already teaches the following limitation, in response to the second signal and the third signal that are received by the motor control unit (In the combination, first signals are reports of motor status given by the VDCS to the VCU, and second signals is data that reports on the yaw, vehicle acceleration, driver inputs, etc., which may also pass through the VDCS to the VCU. Further, as per the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Examiner is interpreting the vehicle control unit as receiving the second signal.) Regarding Claims 12 and 13, Claims 12 and 13 recite essentially the same limitations as Claims 5 and 6. The combination of Cotgrove and Wright, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claims 5 and 6. Therefore, Claims 12 and 13 are also taught. Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 recites essentially the same limitations to that of Claim 1, except where the vehicle control unit is as aspect of a vehicle powertrain. The overall system of the computer control system, or VCU, of the combination of Cotgrove and Wright can be considered an extension of the powertrain, e.g., by merely recentering the focus of Figure 1 of Cotgrove onto the powertrain subsystem 12_4. Therefore, the limitations of Claim 14 are also taught. Regarding Claims 15-16 and 18-20, Claims 15-16 and 18-20 recite essentially the same limitations as Claims 2-3 and Claim 5-7. The combination of Cotgrove and Wright, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claims 2-3 and 5-7. Therefore, Claims 15-16 and 18-20 are also taught. Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over the combination of Cotgrove and Wright as applied to Claims 1 and 14 above, further in view of Wang (US 20210323564 A1), herein after referred to simply as Wang. Regarding Claim 4, The combination of Cotgrove and Wright, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. However, the combination does not teach the following limitation, wherein a signal sending period of the first signal sent by the at least one motor control unit is less than a signal sending period of the second signal sent by the electronic stability program. However, Wang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that a motor feedback may operate at different rates for an inner and outer loop (Paragraph [0067], “The system 500 includes a vehicle system 505 controller and an actuation system 550. … Vehicle system 505 can be considered an “outer loop” with respect to actuation system 550 being an “inner loop” which can iterate as fast, or faster, than the vehicle systems 505 “outer loop.” The outer loop addresses vehicle lateral dynamics. The inner loop addresses the vehicle actuation dynamics, e.g. … throttle actuation dynamics.” See also, Figure 5A and Figure 7A) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the powertrain subsystem of Cotgrove to operate based on a conjoint inner and outer loops of Wang, as this improves vehicle control (Paragraph [0001], “More particularly, embodiments of the disclosure relate to an efficient, real-time process for addressing time-latency and actuation dynamic delay in autonomous vehicle control subsystems, to improve autonomous vehicle control.” ) Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 recites essentially the same limitations to that of Claim 4. The combination of Cotgrove, Wang, and Wright, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 4. Therefore, Claim 17 is also taught. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tang (US 20150175010 A1) discloses an electric vehicle which controls a front and rear axle motor (Figure 1A), where a VCU receives thermal data indicating a torque saturation, as well as estimated torque and motor speeds, from the motor units (Figure 1E) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN LYNELLE FURGASON whose telephone number is (571)272-5619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 6 PM. 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, Erin Bishop, can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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. /K.L.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/077,083 Page 2 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/077,083 Page 3 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/077,083 Page 4 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/077,083 Page 5 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/077,083 Page 6 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/077,083 Page 7 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/077,083 Page 8 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/077,083 Page 9 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/077,083 Page 12 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/077,083 Page 13 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/077,083 Page 14 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/077,083 Page 15 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/077,083 Page 16 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/077,083 Page 17 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/077,083 Page 18 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/077,083 Page 19 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/077,083 Page 20 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/077,083 Page 21 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/077,083 Page 22 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/077,083 Page 23 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/077,083 Page 24 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/077,083 Page 25 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/077,083 Page 26 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/077,083 Page 27 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/077,083 Page 28 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/077,083 Page 30 Art Unit: 3665
Prosecution Insights