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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on August 9, 2026 amends claims 1, 9, and 12. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and corresponding arguments filed on August 9, 2026 regarding the newly presented claim limitations in the independent claims have been fully considered and are unpersuasive and/or moot.
In an attempt to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, the Applicant selectively characterizes passages in the cited references that are unrelated to the claimed language. Applicant alleges that “Wang is directed to high-voltage discharge and isolation in electric vehicles. The relied-upon passages of Wang concern controlling motor speed based on current and inducing a "DC bus isolation state" (a short circuit between windings) responsive to a fault or voltage condition.” It is unclear why the existence of such discharge and isolation in electric vehicles precludes the teaching by Wang of the features claimed in the independent claims. Furthermore, Applicant does not provide a valid reason why the inclusion of a DC bus isolation state to prevent a voltage from exceeding a target voltage, as disclosed in [0028], would have any effect on the teaching of the claimed language. The DC bus isolation state merely detects an undesirable condition, such as when the voltage being generated by the inverter exceeds a target voltage. Applicant further argues that another condition or event, such as “the rise of the voltage of the DC link 120 or an current or rate of change of a current supplied to or from the inverter 118” relates to a “high-voltage discharge and safety system – not for adjusting a motor's current output in response to a speed adjustment signal received from an assisted or autonomous driving controller as recited by claims 1, 9, and 14.” Applicant fails to realize that detecting such changes in voltage, current, or rate of change of a current supplied to or from the inverter prevents a sudden acceleration, deceleration, or other change in torque of the electric vehicle as disclosed in Wang at [0028].
Applicant, without defining a specific deficiency, further alleges that: “Park does not cure this deficiency. Park is expressly directed to a cruise control apparatus for a manual transmission vehicle whose cruise control controller transmits a control signal to an engine controller to adjust the opening of a throttle valve to adjust an engine torque so the vehicle may travel at a target vehicle speed” and references Park at [0002], [0036], [0043], [0050]. Examiner had used Park to show a teaching of “wherein the communication end of the controller is configured to couple to an assisted driving controller or an autonomous driving controller, and wherein the one or more processors of the controller are configured to: receive a speed adjustment signal from the assisted driving controller or the autonomous driving controller”. Absent a specific deficiency with respect to a teaching of the foregoing clause, the Examiner stands by the teachings of Park that were used to teach the foregoing clause.
Applicant characterizes Park by alleging that “Park is a manual-transmission, internal-combustion-engine vehicle cruise control system that adjusts engine throttle position not an electric-vehicle motor control system that adjusts inverter current output to a motor.” Examiner directs the Applicant to Park at [0031] which discloses that: “It is understood that the term "vehicle" or "vehicular" or other similar term as used herein is inclusive of motor vehicles in general such as passenger automobiles including sports utility vehicles (SUV), buses, trucks, various commercial vehicles, watercraft including a variety of boats and ships, aircraft, and the like, and includes hybrid vehicles, electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, hydrogen-powered vehicles and other alternative fuel vehicles ( e.g. fuels derived from resources other than petroleum). As referred to herein, a hybrid vehicle is a vehicle that has two or more sources of power, for example both gasoline powered and electric-powered vehicles.” Examiner notes that Applicant’s argument is flawed because Park discloses that an embodiment of a motor vehicle includes electric vehicles among other types of vehicles. Furthermore, nowhere does Park disclose anything about an “internal-combustion-engine” as alleged by the Applicant. Park at [0003] discloses a cruise control apparatus comprising an automatic speed control apparatus for a vehicle. Furthermore, the use of an automatic speed control apparatus for a vehicle is typically used in vehicles such as electric vehicles, for example.
Applicant alleges that “With respect to claim 9 and its dependents 10, 12, and 13, neither Wang nor Park teaches or suggests that the "speed adjustment signal comprises a target speed and a target acceleration," "calculating . . . a target torque based on the target speed and the target acceleration," or "controlling . . . based on the target torque and a relationship between a torque and a current, a current output by an inverter circuit to a first motor to be a first target current," as recited by claim 9. Park's cruise mode merely adjusts engine throttle to reach a target vehicle speed. See Park at [0050]. Park discloses no target acceleration, no calculation of a target torque from a target speed and a target acceleration, and no torque-current relationship for inverter current control.” Examiner disagrees. Examiner cited Park at [0049-0050] which discloses adjusting engine torque, including the determination of whether the accelerator or the brake is applied, such that the vehicle may be travelled at the target vehicle speed. Examiner notes that an adjustment of engine torque corresponds to adjustment of an acceleration to reach a target acceleration. Examiner maps target vehicle speed to target speed. Examiner notes that Park at [0033] further discloses that the control logic of the present disclosure may be embodied as non-transitory computer readable media on a computer readable medium containing executable program instructions executed by a processor, controller or the like. Park at [0050] further discloses an engine controller 600. Therefore, Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed subject matter.
Applicant further alleges that “At most, Park's stated purpose explains why a driver of a manual-transmission engine vehicle might want Park's cruise control, which does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Wang's high-voltage discharge controller to receive a speed adjustment signal from an assisted or autonomous driving controller and adjust the inverter current output to a motor.” Examiner provided that the motivation to combine Wang with Park was to provide a cruise control method and a cruise control apparatus configured to induce a driver to execute cruise traveling at an optimum gear stage, and suppress frequent changes in a driving mode, as suggested by Park at [0002].
Examiner is not persuaded by the arguments made by the Applicant. Examiner maintains the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on the combination of Wang and Park.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Claim 12 recites “controlling, within the preset periodicity and based on the first torque and the target torque, the current output by the inverter circuit to the first motor to be a fifth target current.” It is unclear what is meant by controlling, within the preset periodicity, the current output …. Exactly how and when, within the preset periodicity, is the current output being controlled? Based on the foregoing, it is unclear what the claim is directed to.
Appropriate amendments are required to address the above-identified issues. No new matter should be added for any amendment.
Claim 13 depends on claim 12. Therefore, claim 13 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because it inherits the limitations and fails to resolve the deficiencies of claim 12, which it depends on.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 9-10, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2024/0088703) in view of Park et al. (US 2022/0001864).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a controller of an electric drive system, comprising: a communication end; an output end; and one or more processors coupled to the communication end and the output end, (see Wang at [0021] which discloses that Fig. 1 depicts a system 100 of an electric vehicle, and that the system, 100 can include at least one controller 108, such as a motor controller 108; see Wang at [0022] which discloses that the electric motor 102, non-propulsion HV component 104, sensor 106, controller 108, energy storage device 110, battery contactor 112, switching component 114, capacitor 116, or inverter 118 can each include at least one processing unit or other logic device such as a programmable logic array engine, or a module configured to communicate with the data repository or database, and that the controller 108 can include hardware elements, such as one or more processors, logic devices, or circuits. Examiner maps system 100 to electric drive system. Examiner maps at least one controller 108, such as the motor controller, to the recited controller.)
and the output end of the controller is configured to output a control signal to control an inverter circuit in the electric drive system, (see Wang at Fig. 1 which illustratively depicts controller 108 outputting signal to inverter 118; see Wang at [0024] which discloses that the DC link 120 can deliver a DC signal to an input port of the inverter 118; see Wang at [0028] which discloses that the inverter can receive an indication (e.g., from the controller 108) to induce a DC bus isolation state (e.g., a short circuit between windings), responsive to a condition or event, that the event can be or include the rise of the voltage of the DC link 120 or an current or rate of change of a current supplied to or from the inverter 118 (e.g., from the electric motor 102), and that for example, a sudden acceleration, deceleration, or other change in torque can induce a back electro-motive force which the controller 108 can detect.)
and in response to the speed adjustment signal, control the inverter circuit to adjust a current output to a first motor (see Wang at [0027] which discloses that the inverter 118 can interface with the electric motor 102 connecting to the DC link 120 and that for example, the inverter 118 can control the motor speed based on the current passed to the electric motor 102, and that the DC link voltage level can affect a motor performance based on a voltage thereof. Wang at [0027] further discloses that for example, a lower DC link 120 voltage can result in lower motor power (e.g., based on a fixed current of the inverter 118 or electric motor 102. Examiner notes that the DC link voltage is an output of the at least one controller 108. Examiner notes that the output of the at least one controller 108 is a function of the input of the controller, as illustratively depicted in Fig. 1.).
Wang does not expressly disclose wherein the communication end of the controller is configured to couple to an assisted driving controller or an autonomous driving controller, and wherein the controller are configured to: receive a speed adjustment signal from the assisted driving controller or the autonomous driving controller; which in a related art Park teaches (see Park at [0036] which discloses that a cruise control apparatus for a manual transmission vehicle according to the present disclosure is composed of an input device 200; see Park at [0039] in conjunction with Fig. 1 which illustratively depicts input signal being input into cruise control controller 400 and which discloses that the cruise control controller 400 receives input signals from the input buttons 210, 220, 230, 240 when the input buttons 210, 220, 230, 240 are operated by the driver. Examiner notes that the cruise control apparatus may correspond to the at least one controller as taught by Wang. Examiner maps one of the input signals taught by Park to the recited speed adjustment signal. Examiner maps cruise control apparatus to one of the assisted driving controller or the autonomous driving controller.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to include wherein the communication end of the controller is configured to couple to an assisted driving controller or an autonomous driving controller, and wherein the one or more processors of the controller are configured to: receive a speed adjustment signal from the assisted driving controller or the autonomous driving controller, as taught by Park.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide a cruise control method and a cruise control apparatus configured to induce a driver to execute cruise traveling at an optimum gear stage, and suppress frequent changes in a driving mode, as suggested by Park at [0002].
Regarding claim 2, the modified Wang teaches the controller according to claim 1, wherein the communication end of the controller is further configured to control a secondary controller, and the one or more processors of the controller are further configured to: in response to the speed adjustment signal, control the secondary controller to adjust a current that is output by an inverter circuit coupled to the secondary controller to a second motor (see Wang at [0021] which discloses that the system 100 can include at least one controller 108, such as a motor controller 108; see Wang at [0031] which discloses that the one or more sensors 106 can convey information to the one or more controllers 108; see Wang at [0032] which further discloses that the system 100 can include at least one controller 108 designed, constructed or operational to exert control signals to one or more components of an electric vehicle; see Wang at [0058] which further discloses that the method 600, and other methods disclosed herein can be performed on a per vehicle basis, or a motor/inverter basis and that for example, a plurality of inverters can perform the method independently or with one or more cross-dependencies. Examiner maps another of the at least one controller or the one or more controllers to the secondary controller. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language.)
Claim 9 is directed toward a method that performs the steps recited in the computing device of claim 1. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the steps recited in the method of claim 9. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejection of claim 1. Furthermore, see Wang at [0056] which discloses that the controller 108 can compare a motor speed or current to a range and that the range can be predefined or can be variable based on one or more vehicle parameters and that for example, the range can be a fixed range related to a maximum current, speed, or rate of change. Also, see Park at [0050] which discloses that the cruise mode causes the engine controller 600 to adjust the opening of the throttle valve to adjust an engine torque so that the vehicle may be travelled at the target vehicle speed. Further, see Park at [0049] which discloses that execute the cruise mode according to the results of determining whether the current vehicle travels within a speed range in which the cruise traveling is possible, whether a change in the vehicle speed is within a predetermined range, whether the intervehicle distance is within a predetermined range, whether the accelerator or the brake is operated, and the like; see Park at [0052] which discloses that the optimal gear stage at this time may be a gear stage which generates an engine RPM which is almost intermediate between the highest allowable engine RPM (REFES) and the peak torque RPM of the engine in the target vehicle speed in the cruise mode and that the cruise control controller 400 may store a predetermined map having the optimal gear stage as a result value, and the vehicle speed and the engine RPM as input values in a separate storage means, and calculate the optimal gear stage through the map using the input target vehicle speed and an engine torque value predicted by the corresponding target vehicle speed as the input values.)
Regarding claim 10, the modified Wang teaches the control method according to claim 9, wherein the controlling, by the one or more processors of the controller based on the target torque and the relationship between the torque and the current, the current output by the inverter circuit to the first motor to be the first target current comprises: in response to that the target torque is less than or equal to a limited torque, controlling, based on the target torque, the current output by the inverter circuit to the first motor to be the first target current (see Wang at [0028] which discloses that the inverter can receive an indication (e.g., from the controller 108) to induce a DC bus isolation state (e.g., a short circuit between windings), responsive to a condition or event, that the event can be or include the rise of the voltage of the DC link 120 or an current or rate of change of a current supplied to or from the inverter 118 (e.g., from the electric motor 102), and that for example, a sudden acceleration, deceleration, or other change in torque can induce a back electro-motive force which the controller 108 can detect Examiner maps the current resulting from a change of current supplied from the inverter based on a change in torque to the current output by the inverter circuit to the first motor to be the first target current.)
Regarding claim 12, the modified Wang teaches the control method according to claim 9, wherein when the inverter circuit outputs the first target current to the first motor, the first motor outputs a first torque, wherein the receiving, by the communication end of the controller, the speed adjustment signal from the assisted driving controller or the autonomous driving controller comprises: receiving, according to a preset periodicity, the speed adjustment signal from the assisted driving controller or the autonomous driving controller, and wherein the controlling, by the one or more processors of the controller based on the target torque and the relationship between the torque and the current, the current output by the inverter circuit to the first motor to be the first target current comprises: controlling, within the preset periodicity and based on the first torque and the target torque, the current output by the inverter circuit to the first motor to be a fifth target current (see Wang at [0031] which discloses that the one or more sensors 106 can convey information to the one or more controllers 108; see Wang at [0032] which discloses that the system 100 can include at least one controller 108 designed, constructed or operational to exert control signals to one or more components of an electric vehicle, that for example, the controller 108 can be or include a motor controller 108, a switching component controller 108, or a communicative connection with an interface, that the controller 108 can control the speed or direction of a motor, such as by adjusting a current limit of one or more inverters 118 associated with (e.g., supplying power to) the electric motors 102; see Wang at [0031], for example, which discloses that one or more sensors 106 can convey information to the one or more controllers 108 and that the information can be conveyed responsive to a request (e.g., polled), periodically, or based on a predefined threshold of the sensor 106. Further, see Wang at Fig. 1 which illustratively depicts output of sensor being input into controller. For the sake of examination, the Examiner interprets “controlling, within the preset periodicity” to be controlling, periodically. Examiner noted that the input of the controller may comprise the speed adjustment signal.)
Claims 14-15 are directed toward a system that performs the steps recited in the controller of claims 1-2. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejections of claims 1-2 teach the steps recited in the systems of claims 14-15. Therefore, claims 14-15 are rejected under the same rationale used in the rejections of claims 1-2.
Claims 3-4 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2024/0088703) in view of Park et al. (US 2022/0001864) and further in view of Michi et al. (US 2005/0228569).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Wang does not expressly disclose the controller according to claim 1, further comprising: an input end coupled to the one or more processors, wherein the input end of the controller is configured to receive a brake signal, and the one or more processors of the controller are further configured to: in response to the brake signal, indicate the assisted driving controller or the autonomous driving controller to stop sending the speed adjustment signal; or in response to the brake signal, stop responding to the speed adjustment signal from the assisted driving controller or the autonomous driving controller which, in a related art, Michi teaches (see Michi at [0002] which discloses that other operational commands from the driver, e.g., pressing the brake pedal, have the effect of deactivating the control functions; see Michi at [0004] which discloses that stopping and preferably also starting may be controlled automatically and that on vehicles having automatic transmission, this may be achieved by means of accelerator and brake control signals; in particular, see Michi at [0019] which discloses that pressing the brake pedal, or pressing button 22, will cause the cruise control system to be deactivated and that the brake control signal is output in order to bring the vehicle to a complete standstill. Examiner maps brake control signal to the recited brake signal. Examiner notes that deactivating the cruise control system corresponds to stop responding to the speed adjustment signal from the assisted driving controller or the autonomous driving controller.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to include wherein the input end of the controller is configured to receive a brake signal, and the one or more processors of the controller are further configured to: in response to the brake signal, indicate the assisted driving controller or the autonomous driving controller to stop sending the speed adjustment signal; or in response to the brake signal, stop responding to the speed adjustment signal from the assisted driving controller or the autonomous driving controller, as taught by Michi.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to ensure that road safety is not jeopardized by vehicle responses which the driver is not expecting, as suggested by Michi at [0004].
Regarding claim 4, the modified Wang teaches control the inverter circuit to adjust the current output to the first motor (As was previously shown, see Wang at [0027] which discloses that the inverter 118 can interface with the electric motor 102 connecting to the DC link 120 and that for example, the inverter 118 can control the motor speed based on the current passed to the electric motor 102.)
The modified Wang does not expressly disclose the controller according to claim 1, wherein the input end of the controller is configured to receive an acceleration signal, and the one or more processors of the controller are configured to: in response to the speed adjustment signal and the acceleration signal, which in a related art Michi teaches (Examiner mapped one of the input signals into a controller, as taught by Park, to the recited speed adjustment signal. Now, see Michi [0014] in conjunction with Fig. 1 which illustratively depicts accelerator button 14 which causes control to be resumed at that desired speed; see Michi at [0019] which discloses that the controller 12 may then act on the vehicle's power system by way of an accelerator control signal which has the same function as the driver pressing the accelerator pedal. Furthermore, Examiner previously showed that Park at [0039] in conjunction with Fig. 1 illustratively depicts input signal being input into cruise control controller 400.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to include wherein the input end of the controller is configured to receive an acceleration signal, and the one or more processors of the controller are configured to: in response to the speed adjustment signal and the acceleration signal, as taught by Michi.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to ensure that road safety is not jeopardized by vehicle responses which the driver is not expecting, as suggested by Michi at [0004].
Claims 16-17 are directed toward a system that performs the steps recited in the controller of claims 3-4. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejections of claims 3-4 teach the steps recited in the systems of claims 16-17. Therefore, claims 16-17 are rejected under the same rationale used in the rejections of claims 3-4.
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2024/0088703) in view of Park et al. (US 2022/0001864) and further in view of Kinoto et al. (US 2023/0174064).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Wang teaches controlling the inverter circuit to adjust the current output to the first motor (As was previously shown, see Wang at [0027] which discloses that the inverter 118 can interface with the electric motor 102 connecting to the DC link 120 and that for example, the inverter 118 can control the motor speed based on the current passed to the electric motor 102.)
The modified Wang does not expressly disclose the controller according to claim 1, wherein the communication end of the controller is further configured to couple to a vehicle control unit, and the one or more processors of the controller are further configured to: receive a torque signal sent by the vehicle control unit; and in response to the speed adjustment signal and the torque signal sent by the vehicle control unit, which in a related art Kinoto teaches (see Kinoto at [0040] which discloses that the ADAS 10 (cruise control unit) that calculates a brake required torque and a drive source required torque necessary for constant speed travel or travel to follow a preceding vehicle, outputs the drive source required torque to the driving force controller 31. Examiner maps ADAS 10 (cruise control unit) to the recited vehicle control unit. Furthermore, Examiner previously showed that Park at [0039] in conjunction with Fig. 1 illustratively depicts input signal being input into cruise control controller 400.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to include wherein the communication end of the controller is further configured to couple to a vehicle control unit, and the one or more processors of the controller are further configured to: receive a torque signal sent by the vehicle control unit; and in response to the speed adjustment signal and the torque signal sent by the vehicle control unit, as taught by Kinoto.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to output the drive source required torque to the driving force controller, as suggested by Kinoto at [0040].
Claim 18 is directed toward a system that performs the steps recited in the controller of claim 5. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejection of claim 5 teach the steps recited in the system of claim 18. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejection of claim 5.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2024/0088703) in view of Park et al. (US 2022/0001864) and further in view of Hao et al. (US 2020/0235440).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Wang teaches controlling the inverter circuit to adjust the current output to the first motor (see Wang at [0027] which discloses that the inverter 118 can interface with the electric motor 102 connecting to the DC link 120 and that for example, the inverter 118 can control the motor speed based on the current passed to the electric motor 102, and that the DC link voltage level can affect a motor performance based on a voltage thereof.)
The modified Wang does not expressly disclose the controller according to claim 1, wherein the input end of the controller is further configured to couple to a battery management system, and the one or more processors of the controller are further configured to: receive a power signal from the battery management system; and in response to the speed adjustment signal and the power signal from the battery management system, which in a related art Hao teaches (see Hao at [0011] which discloses that the electric-drive motor vehicle in the above example also includes a resident or remote vehicle controller or a network of controllers or modules that is communicatively connected to the traction motor(s) and battery packs. Examiner maps one of the network of controllers or modules to the battery management system. Furthermore, see Hao at [0011] which discloses that the vehicle controller is programmed to receive a voltage switch signal to change an output voltage of the battery system from a low (or high) voltage to a high (or low) voltage and that upon receiving the request, the vehicle controller responsively determines if an e-machine speed of each traction motor is less than a calibrated base e-machine speed; if so, the controller automatically transmits a pack isolation signal to a power inverter to open multiple inverter switches thereby causing the traction battery packs to electrically disconnect from the traction motor(s). Examiner maps voltage switch signal to power signal from the battery management system.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to include wherein the input end of the controller is further configured to couple to a battery management system, and the one or more processors of the controller are further configured to: receive a power signal from the battery management system; and in response to the speed adjustment signal and the power signal from the battery management system, as taught by Hao.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to electrically control multiple inverter switches thereby causing the traction battery packs to electrically connect/disconnect from the traction motor(s), as suggested by Hao at [0011].
Claim 19 is directed toward a system that performs the steps recited in the controller of claim 6. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejection of claim 6 teach the steps recited in the system of claim 19. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejection of claim 6.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2024/0088703) in view of Park et al. (US 2022/0001864) and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2016/0325728).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Wang teaches the control the inverter circuit to adjust the current output to the first motor (see Wang at [0027] which discloses that the inverter 118 can interface with the electric motor 102 connecting to the DC link 120 and that for example, the inverter 118 can control the motor speed based on the current passed to the electric motor 102, and that the DC link voltage level can affect a motor performance based on a voltage thereof.)
The modified Wang does not expressly disclose wherein the input end of the controller is further configured to couple to an electronic stability program, and the one or more processors of the controller are further configured to: receive a torque signal from the electronic stability program; and in response to the speed adjustment signal and the torque signal from the electronic stability program, which in a related art Yang teaches (see Yang at [0261] which discloses that the driving motor collects a motor resolver signal and a temperature signal by using sensors and transfers the motor resolver signal and the temperature signal to a motor generator controller (ECN); Yang at [0261] further discloses that an electronic stability program module ESC collects the speed of the vehicle and an anti-lock braking system ABS status signal and transfers the speed of the vehicle and the anti-lock braking system ABS status signal to the ECN; and the ECN determines, according to the input signal (signals such as the depth of an accelerator pedal, the depth of the braking pedal, the gear, and the slope of a road), whether to enter/exit coasting feedback control with the accelerator pedal released, performs coasting feedback control according to a formulated feedback strategy, and at the same time sends the target torque signal of the engine unit to the ECM.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to include wherein the input end of the controller is further configured to couple to an electronic stability program, and the one or more processors of the controller are further configured to: receive a torque signal from the electronic stability program; and in response to the speed adjustment signal and the torque signal from the electronic stability program, as taught by Yang.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide coasting feedback control when an accelerator pedal of a vehicle is released, as suggested by Yang at [0261].
Claim 20 is directed toward a system that performs the steps recited in the controller of claim 7. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejection of claim 7 teach the steps recited in the system of claim 20. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejection of claim 7.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2024/0088703) in view of Park et al. (US 2022/0001864) and further in view of Fuxman et al. (US 10,036,338).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Wang teaches controlling the inverter circuit to adjust the current output to the first motor (see Wang at [0027] which discloses that the inverter 118 can interface with the electric motor 102 connecting to the DC link 120 and that for example, the inverter 118 can control the motor speed based on the current passed to the electric motor 102, and that the DC link voltage level can affect a motor performance based on a voltage thereof.)
The modified Wang does not expressly disclose the controller according to claim 1, wherein the input end of the controller is further configured to couple to a thermal management system, and the one or more processors of the controller are further configured to: receive a power signal from the thermal management system; and in response to the speed adjustment signal and the power signal from the thermal management system, which in a related art Fuxman teaches (see Fuxman at col. 10 which discloses that: A powertrain thermal management system may incorporate a controller with memory, a processor in communication with the memory and an input/output (I/O) port. The I/O port may be in communication with one or more of the memory and the processor. The controller may be configured to receive, via the input/output port, values for one or more variables sensed by sensors monitoring an engine and/or cooling system connected to the engine. Based, at least in part, on the received values for the one or more variables, the controller may determine a set point trajectory for one or more engine component and/or cooling system temperatures. Via the input/output port, the controller may send control signals to adjust positions of engine actuators and/or cooling system actuators to drive values of the engine component temperatures to the determined set point trajectories based, at least in part, on the received values for one or more variables. Examiner maps the foregoing control signals that adjust positions of engine actuators to the power signal from the thermal management system. Furthermore, Examiner previously showed that Park at [0039] in conjunction with Fig. 1 illustratively depicts input signal being input into cruise control controller 400.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to include wherein the input end of the controller is further configured to couple to a thermal management system, and the one or more processors of the controller are further configured to: receive a power signal from the thermal management system; and in response to the speed adjustment signal and the power signal from the thermal management system, as taught by Fuxman.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to adjust positions of engine actuators and/or cooling system actuators to drive values of the engine component temperatures to the determined set point trajectories based, at least in part, on the received values for one or more variables, as suggested by Fuxman at col. 10.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2024/0088703) in view of Park et al. (US 2022/0001864) and further in view of Kondo et al. (US 2021/0053615).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Wang does not expressly disclose the control method according to claim 9, wherein the communication end of the controller is further configured to couple to a secondary controller, and the control method further comprises: dividing, by the one or more processors of the controller, the target torque into a first target sub-torque and a second target sub-torque; controlling, by the one or more processors of the controller based on the first target sub-torque and the relationship between the torque and the current, the current output by the inverter circuit to the first motor to be a fourth target current; and sending, by an output end of the controller, a compensation request to the secondary controller, wherein the compensation request indicates the secondary controller to control, based on the second target sub-torque, an inverter circuit coupled to the secondary controller to output a second target current to a second motor which in a related art Kondo teaches (see Kondo at the Abstract and at [0006], for example, which discloses that each of the two controllers being configured to individually control a corresponding one of the motors, that one of the two controllers is a first controller, and the other one of the two controllers is a second controller, that the first controller is configured to calculate a command value corresponding to a total torque that should be generated in the two motors, that the command value is divided into individual command values using a changeable distribution ratio set for each of the motors, the individual command values respectively corresponding to the motors, and that the two controllers are configured to respectively supply the motors with current corresponding to the individual command values. Further, see Kondo at [0007] which discloses that the steering method includes calculating a command value corresponding to a total torque that should be generated in the two motors, dividing the command value into individual command values using a changeable distribution ratio set for each of the motors, the individual command values respectively corresponding to the motors, and respectively supplying the motors with current corresponding to the individual command value. Examiner maps total torque to the recited target torque.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to include wherein the communication end of the controller is further configured to couple to a secondary controller, and the control method further comprises: dividing, by the one or more processors of the controller, the target torque into a first target sub-torque and a second target sub-torque; controlling, by the one or more processors of the controller based on the first target sub-torque and the relationship between the torque and the current, the current output by the inverter circuit to the first motor to be a fourth target current; and sending, by an output end of the controller, a compensation request to the secondary controller, wherein the compensation request indicates the secondary controller to control, based on the second target sub-torque, an inverter circuit coupled to the secondary controller to output a second target current to a second motor, as taught by Kondo.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to properly steer the steerable wheels, by way of using a steering device includes two motors each configured to generate a drive force that steers a steerable wheel of a vehicle and two controllers respectively corresponding to the two motors, as suggested by Kondo at the Abstract.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2024/0088703) in view of Park et al. (US 2022/0001864) and further in view of Namikawa et al. (JP 2012218693 A).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Wang does not expressly disclose the control method according to claim 12, wherein when the inverter circuit outputs the fifth target current to the first motor, the first motor outputs a second torque, wherein the first torque is in a first preset interval of the target torque, the second torque is in a second preset interval of the target torque, and a range of the second preset interval is less than a range of the first preset interval, which in a related art, Namikawa teaches (see Namikawa at page 10 which discloses that on the other hand, in the second map 71b, the γ-axis current increase / decrease value η is in a range where the torque deviation Δτ is equal to or less than the predetermined value A4 having the “negative value” and larger than the predetermined value A5 having the same “negative value”. Examiner notes that the foregoing range may correspond to the recited first preset interval of the target torque. Also, see Namikawa at page 10 which discloses that in the present embodiment, a range in which the “shortage of actual torque” is allowed is set for the region indicating that the real torque is “insufficient” with respect to the target torque to be generated by the motor 12 (τ). Examiner notes that the preceding range may correspond to a second preset interval of the target torque.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to include wherein when the inverter circuit outputs the fifth target current to the first motor, the first motor outputs a second torque, wherein the first torque is in a first preset interval of the target torque, the second torque is in a second preset interval of the target torque, and a range of the second preset interval is less than a range of the first preset interval, as taught by Namikawa.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide an electric power steering device capable of effectively suppressing a motor current without spoiling stability of motor control, as suggested by Namikawa at the Abstract.
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROY RHEE whose telephone number is 313-446-6593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am to 5:30 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 may contact the Examiner via telephone or 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, Kito Robinson, can be reached on 571-270-3921. 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, one may visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. In addition, more information about Patent Center may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (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 571-272-1000.
/ROY RHEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
