DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action on the merits. Claims 1-8 are currently pending and addressed below.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 07/23/2025 has been received and considered.
Title of the Invention
37 C.F.R. 1.72(a) states: “The title of the invention may not exceed 500 characters in length and must be as short and specific as possible” (emphasis added). Thus, the title of the invention is not sufficiently descriptive.
A new title is required that is more clearly and more specifically indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds 15 lines of text and 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 “one pieces of information” should read “one piece of information”
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the another wheel" in “the another wheel driven by the another electric motor.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain
meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as
a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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 limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without
reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded
by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a control information transmission/reception unit” (claims 1, 7)
“an electric motor state acquisition unit” (claim 1)
“a torque command switching unit” (claims 1-8)
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification ([0015]: “Each of the electric motor control devices 3a to 3d may be a local electronic control unit (ECU) that controls each of the electric motors 2a to 2d.”; [0021]: “The electric motor control device 3 includes a control information transmission/reception unit 31, an electric motor state acquisition unit 32, and the torque command switching unit 33.”) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations
recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under
35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0225094 A1, in view of Reuter et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0194233 A1 (hereinafter Reuter).
Regarding claim 1, Hirata discloses an electric motor control device (Hirata Fig. 1)
the electric motor control device comprising: a control information transmission/reception unit that receives, from a higher-level control device, control information including a torque command for the electric motor and driving state information regarding a driving state of the vehicle (see at least Hirata [0047]: “The high-order ECU 66 is a high-order control device for the drive source control device 67, and for example, has a function of performing integrated control and cooperative control for the entire vehicle, and a function of generating braking/driving torque command values for the left and right drive wheels 61L, 61R. The high-order ECU 66 generates braking/driving torque command values (command values for outputs) for left and right, on the basis of an acceleration command outputted from an acceleration manipulation unit (not shown), a deceleration command outputted from a brake manipulation unit (not shown), and a turning command outputted from a steering angle sensor or the like (not shown).”);
an electric motor state acquisition unit that acquires electric motor state information regarding a state of the electric motor (see at least Hirata [0092]: “As shown in FIG. 1 and FIG. 7, in the drive source control device 67, detecting and suppressing overspeed of electric motor 2L, 2R are processed on the basis of the motor rotation speeds of the left and right electric motors 2L, 2R, received from the inverter device 64.”);
and a torque command switching unit that switches between controlling the electric motor according to the torque command and controlling the electric motor according to a corrected torque command (see at least Hirata [0096]: “In accordance with a result of the determination by the overspeed determination module 68, in a normal case, the torque command value switching module 72 outputs the braking/driving torque command values received from the high-order ECU 66 to the torque conversion module 70 without change, and in the case where overspeed has occurred in at least one of the left electric motor 2L and the right electric motor 2R, the torque command value switching module 72 outputs the corrected braking/driving torque command values. The torque conversion module 70 converts the braking/driving torque command values received from the high-order ECU 66, or the corrected braking/driving torque command values, to motor torque command values so as to be outputted to the inverter device 64.”)
obtained by correcting the torque command based on the control information received from the higher-level control device and the electric motor state information acquired by the electric motor state acquisition unit (see at least Hirata [0094]: “The corrected-torque setting module 71 receives braking/driving torque command values for left and right from the command module 66a of the high-order ECU 66, the motor rotation speeds ωM1, ωM2 from the inverter device 64, and a result of the determination by the overspeed determination module 68.”).
Hirata fails to expressly disclose each motor independently drives each wheel of the vehicle. However, Reuter teaches
that controls each electric motor that independently drives each wheel of a vehicle (see at least Reuter [0027]: “In one embodiment, the vehicle is a refrigerated trailer and the wheel end system comprises a wheel hub and a motor for each of a plurality of wheels. The controller is operatively connected to the plurality of motors and independently coordinates operation of the motors to provide regenerative braking or vehicle propulsion as appropriate.”),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the device disclosed by Hirata with Reuter with reasonable expectation of success. Reuter is directed towards the related field of braking assemblies to generate electrical power. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Hirata with Reuter to maximize motor power (see at least Reuter [0022]: “For example, the vehicle system may be configured to provide regenerative braking and the operating condition comprises maximizing the effective motor power.”).
Regarding claim 2, Hirata in view of Reuter teach all elements of the electric motor control device according to claim 1 as explained above. Hirata further teaches wherein
the torque command switching unit determines whether or not the driving state is a stable state in which driving of the vehicle is stable based on the driving state information (see at least Hirata [0112]: “By correcting the torques of the left electric motor 2L and the right electric motor 2R as described above, it is possible to reduce the rotation speed of the electric motor in which overspeed has occurred, e.g., the left electric motor 2L, and further, by preventing increase in the torque of the right drive wheel, occurrence of an unnecessary yaw moment due to motor torque correction is suppressed and thus the vehicle attitude can be stabilized.”; [0024]: “Regarding the determination for whether or not the rotation speed of each drive source 2L (2R) is overspeed, for example, the rotation speed may be determined to be overspeed when the rotation speed of the drive source 2L (2R) is greater than a threshold value.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation determining whether a driving state is a stable state includes determining whether overspeed occurs)
Reuter further teaches
in a case where it is determined that the driving state is the stable state, the torque command switching unit outputs the corrected torque command such that the electric motor to be controlled is controlled according to the corrected torque command corrected so as to have a value smaller than the torque command (see at least Reuter [0094]: “The vehicle control unit 150 may similarly be configured to decrease the torque if the vehicle ECU 170 indicates the vehicle is traveling at the cruise control set speed to decrease the power generated by the motor 140.”; instant application [0027] states that a stable state includes a vehicle cruising),
and in a case where it is determined that the driving state is not the stable state, the torque command switching unit outputs the torque command such that the electric motor to be controlled is controlled according to the torque command (see at least Reuter [0084]: “The vehicle control unit 150 may then send the selected torque value to the motor controller 146 to cause the motor 140 to apply 812 the selected torque to the wheel hub 116. The vehicle control unit 150 may continually or periodically perform method 800 to identify the torque to request from the motor. For example, the vehicle control unit 150 may perform method 800 upon expiration of a timer, upon a change of motor speed greater than a predetermined threshold (e.g. 50 RPM), and/or in response to a vehicle event such as cruise control being turned off.”).
Regarding claim 3, Hirata in view of Reuter teach all elements of the electric motor control device according to claim 2 as explained above. Hirata further teaches wherein
the torque command switching unit determines whether or not the state of the electric motor to be controlled is a high operation state in which an operation rate of the electric motor is high based on the electric motor state information (see at least Hirata [0024]: “Regarding the determination for whether or not the rotation speed of each drive source 2L (2R) is overspeed, for example, the rotation speed may be determined to be overspeed when the rotation speed of the drive source 2L (2R) is greater than a threshold value.”; [0112]: “By correcting the torques of the left electric motor 2L and the right electric motor 2R as described above, it is possible to reduce the rotation speed of the electric motor in which overspeed has occurred, e.g., the left electric motor 2L, and further, by preventing increase in the torque of the right drive wheel, occurrence of an unnecessary yaw moment due to motor torque correction is suppressed and thus the vehicle attitude can be stabilized.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation a high operation state includes overspeed because the rotation speed is greater than a threshold value during overspeed),
in a case where it is determined that the state of the electric motor to be controlled is the high operation state, the torque command switching unit outputs the corrected torque command such that the electric motor to be controlled is controlled according to the corrected torque command corrected so as to have a value smaller than the torque command (see at least Hirata [0028]: “That is, the correction module 69 corrects the command values for outputs of the two drive sources 2L, 2R so that the torque of the drive wheel 61L (61R) that has the greater rotation speed, of the left and right drive wheels 61L, 61R, decreases from the torque before the correction, and the torque of the drive wheel 61R (61L) that has the smaller rotation speed maintains or decreases from the torque before the correction…As a result, overspeed of the drive source 2L (2R) is suppressed.”),
and in a case where it is determined that the state of the electric motor to be controlled is not the high operation state, the torque command switching unit outputs the torque command such that the electric motor to be controlled is controlled according to the torque command (see at least Hirata [0096]: “In accordance with a result of the determination by the overspeed determination module 68, in a normal case, the torque command value switching module 72 outputs the braking/driving torque command values received from the high-order ECU 66 to the torque conversion module 70 without change, and in the case where overspeed has occurred in at least one of the left electric motor 2L and the right electric motor 2R, the torque command value switching module 72 outputs the corrected braking/driving torque command values.”).
Regarding claim 4, Hirata in view of Reuter teach all elements of the electric motor control device according to claim 3 as explained above. Reuter further teaches wherein
in a case where it is determined that the driving state is the stable state and the state of the electric motor to be controlled is the high operation state, the torque command switching unit outputs the corrected torque command such that the electric motor to be controlled is controlled according to the corrected torque command corrected so as to have a value smaller than the torque command (see at least Reuter [0083]: “The vehicle control unit 150 may consider at least one of the vehicle operational variables, battery variables, motor variables other than speed, power consumption variables, and orientation variables to determine whether to apply a different torque via the motor 140 than the torque selected at step 802 or step 806. If there are one or more variables indicating a different torque should be applied, the vehicle control unit 150 adjusts 810 the torque to apply via the motor 140 based on the variables as described above. For instance, if the temperature of the motor 140 is high, the vehicle control unit 150 may further reduce the torque value for the motor 140 to apply to the wheel hub 116.”; [0094]: “The vehicle control unit 150 may similarly be configured to decrease the torque if the vehicle ECU 170 indicates the vehicle is traveling at the cruise control set speed to decrease the power generated by the motor 140.”; instant application [0027] states that a stable state includes a vehicle cruising),
and in a case where it is determined that the driving state is not the stable state, the torque command switching unit outputs the torque command such that the electric motor to be controlled is controlled according to the torque command regardless of whether or not the state of the electric motor to be controlled is the high operation state (see at least Reuter [0075]: “If the vehicle control unit 150 determines the vehicle is traveling at a speed higher than the cruise control set speed the vehicle control unit may reduce the torque assist or provide no torque assist.”; [0054]: “Alternatively or additionally, the vehicle control unit 150 may stop generating electrical power by the motor 140 if the temperature of the battery 160 is above a threshold value to allow the battery 160 to cool off before continuing to charge again. In applications where a torque assist may be provided by the motor 140, the vehicle control unit 150 may determine to not apply a torque assist when the temperature of the battery 160 is above a threshold to allow the battery 160 to cool.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation the electric motor is controlled according to the torque command when no torque assist is provided).
Regarding claim 5, Hirata in view of Reuter teach all elements of the electric motor control device according to claim 2 as explained above. Hirata further teaches wherein
the driving state information includes at least one pieces of information of a torque command for another electric motor different from the electric motor to be controlled, a rotation speed of the another electric motor, and a steering angle of the another wheel driven by the another electric motor (see at least Hirata [0092]: “The motor rotation speeds are respectively detected by rotation detection devices such as resolvers each provided to the corresponding electric motor 2L or 2R, for example.”; Hirata teaches at least rotation speed of another electric motor),
and the torque command switching unit calculates a difference between the electric motor to be controlled and the another electric motor for the at least one piece of information included in the driving state information (see at least Hirata [0024]: “Alternatively, the rotation speeds of the drive sources 2L, 2R may be calculated by applying the rotation speeds of the drive wheels 61L, 61R to the relational expressions between the rotation speeds of the left and right drive wheels 61L, 61R and the rotation speeds of the drive sources 2L, 2R, and when at least one of the calculated rotation speeds of the drive sources 2L, 2R is greater than a threshold value, the rotation speed may be determined to be overspeed.”),
determines that the driving state is the stable state in a case where the calculated difference is less than a threshold, and determines that the driving state is not the stable state in a case where the calculated difference is equal to or more than the threshold (see at least Hirata [0028]: “That is, the correction module 69 corrects the command values for outputs of the two drive sources 2L, 2R so that the torque of the drive wheel 61L (61R) that has the greater rotation speed, of the left and right drive wheels 61L, 61R, decreases from the torque before the correction, and the torque of the drive wheel 61R (61L) that has the smaller rotation speed maintains or decreases from the torque before the correction. The amount of the correction is determined through examination and/or simulation, for example. Correcting the command values for the outputs of the two drive sources 2L, 2R as described above enables the drive wheel 61L (61R) that has the greater rotation speed to decelerate by being subjected to mechanical resistance from the road surface and the driving part. As a result, overspeed of the drive source 2L (2R) is suppressed.”; [0112]: “By correcting the torques of the left electric motor 2L and the right electric motor 2R as described above, it is possible to reduce the rotation speed of the electric motor in which overspeed has occurred, e.g., the left electric motor 2L, and further, by preventing increase in the torque of the right drive wheel, occurrence of an unnecessary yaw moment due to motor torque correction is suppressed and thus the vehicle attitude can be stabilized.”).
Regarding claim 6, Hirata in view of Reuter teach all elements of the electric motor control device according to claim 3 as explained above. Reuter further teaches wherein
the electric motor state information includes at least one piece of information of a temperature of the electric motor, a magnetic flux of a magnet included in the electric motor, a demagnetization rate of the magnet, and a deterioration level of a coil included in the electric motor (see at least Reuter [0039]: “The sensors 148 may also include a temperature sensor that monitors the temperature of the motor 140.”),
and the torque command switching unit determines that the state of the electric motor to be controlled is the high operation state in a case where the at least one piece of information included in the electric motor state information exceeds an allowable value, and determines that the state of the electric motor to be controlled is not the high operation state in a case where the at least one piece of information included in the electric motor state information does not exceed the allowable value (see at least Reuter [0055]: “The motor variables may further include motor temperature variables that indicate the measured temperature of the motor 140 at various portions of the motor 140 such as the rotor 144 and the stator 142 as examples. For example, if the motor 140 reports that the motor is approaching a threshold temperature, or is at or above a threshold temperature, the vehicle control unit 150 may reduce the torque that the motor 140 is applying to the wheel hub 116 to reduce the heat generated by the motor 140 and allow the motor 140 to cool. In some forms, the vehicle control unit 150 determines to apply no torque to the wheel hub 116 until the temperature of the motor 140 has dropped below a certain temperature.”; [0058]: “As another example, the vehicle control unit 150 may include a table indicating the amount of torque that the motor 140 should not exceed based on various temperatures of the motor 140 to ensure the motor 140 does not overheat.”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata in view of Reuter, and further in view of Shinmura et al., U.S. Patent No. 7245094 B2 (hereinafter Shinmura).
Regarding claim 7, Hirata in view of Reuter teach all elements of the electric motor control device according to claim 2 as explained above. Hirata further teaches wherein
the control information transmission/reception unit receives, from the higher-level control device, a determination result as to whether or not a state of another electric motor different from the electric motor to be controlled is a high operation state in which an operation rate of the electric motor is high (see at least Hirata [0024]: “Regarding the determination for whether or not the rotation speed of each drive source 2L (2R) is overspeed, for example, the rotation speed may be determined to be overspeed when the rotation speed of the drive source 2L (2R) is greater than a threshold value.”; [0112]: “By correcting the torques of the left electric motor 2L and the right electric motor 2R as described above, it is possible to reduce the rotation speed of the electric motor in which overspeed has occurred, e.g., the left electric motor 2L, and further, by preventing increase in the torque of the right drive wheel, occurrence of an unnecessary yaw moment due to motor torque correction is suppressed and thus the vehicle attitude can be stabilized.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation a high operation state includes overspeed because the rotation speed is greater than a threshold value during overspeed),
the torque command switching unit determines whether or not the state of the electric motor to be controlled is the high operation state based on the electric motor state information (see at least Hirata [0024]: “Regarding the determination for whether or not the rotation speed of each drive source 2L (2R) is overspeed, for example, the rotation speed may be determined to be overspeed when the rotation speed of the drive source 2L (2R) is greater than a threshold value.”; [0112]: “By correcting the torques of the left electric motor 2L and the right electric motor 2R as described above, it is possible to reduce the rotation speed of the electric motor in which overspeed has occurred, e.g., the left electric motor 2L, and further, by preventing increase in the torque of the right drive wheel, occurrence of an unnecessary yaw moment due to motor torque correction is suppressed and thus the vehicle attitude can be stabilized.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation a high operation state includes overspeed because the rotation speed is greater than a threshold value during overspeed),
in a case where it is determined that the state of the electric motor to be controlled is the high operation state, the torque command switching unit outputs the corrected torque command such that the electric motor to be controlled is controlled according to the corrected torque command corrected so as to have a value smaller than the torque command (see at least Hirata [0028]: “That is, the correction module 69 corrects the command values for outputs of the two drive sources 2L, 2R so that the torque of the drive wheel 61L (61R) that has the greater rotation speed, of the left and right drive wheels 61L, 61R, decreases from the torque before the correction, and the torque of the drive wheel 61R (61L) that has the smaller rotation speed maintains or decreases from the torque before the correction…As a result, overspeed of the drive source 2L (2R) is suppressed.”)
Hirata in view of Reuter fail to expressly disclose when the electric motor to be controlled is not the high operation state and the other electric motor is the high operation state, control the motor according to a corrected torque command larger than the torque command. However, Shinmura teaches
and in a case where it is determined that the state of the electric motor to be controlled is not the high operation state and the state of the another electric motor is the high operation state, the torque command switching unit outputs the corrected torque command such that the electric motor to be controlled is controlled according to the corrected torque command corrected so as to have a value larger than the torque command (see at least Shinmura Col. 13, lines 17-22: “When the inverter temperature Tinv2 reaches the restriction start temperature (Tref−ΔT), which is lower than the frequency switchover temperature Tref, the overheat prevention process gradually decreases the output torque of the motor MG2, simultaneously with a gradual increase of the output torque of the motor MG3.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation a high operation state includes overheating).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the device disclosed by Hirata in view of Reuter with Shinmura with reasonable expectation of success. Shinmura is directed towards the related field of a motor vehicle that outputs power for driving. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Hirata in view of Reuter with Shinmura to optimize driving performance (see at least Shinmura Col. 1, lines 32-47: “This prior art power output apparatus sets the carrier frequency to a lower level when the temperature of the power elements increases to the certain high level. Switching of the power elements at the low carrier frequency undesirably causes the electromagnetic noise. The restricted output of the inverter prevents overheat of the power elements but does not satisfy a power demand required for the vehicle. The non-fulfillment of the power demand undesirably lowers the driving performances on a start of the vehicle or in a hill drive state. The power output apparatus of the invention, the motor vehicle equipped with the power output apparatus, and the control method of the power output apparatus thus aim to eliminate the drawbacks of the prior art power output apparatus and to attain both optimum operations of driving circuits and reduction of driving noise of the driving circuits.”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata in view of Reuter and Shinmura, and further in view of Jarret et al., U.S. Patent No. 4579181 A (hereinafter Jarret).
Regarding claim 8, Hirata in view of Reuter and Shinmura teach all elements of the electric motor control device according to claim 7 as explained above. Hirata in view of Reuter and Shinmura fail to expressly disclose setting an upper limit of the corrected torque such that a wheel tangential force is equal to or less than a maximum. However, Jarret teaches wherein
when computing the corrected torque command so as to have a value larger than the torque command, the torque command switching unit sets an upper limit value of the corrected torque command such that a tangential force generated in the wheel driven by the electric motor to be controlled becomes equal to or less than a maximum tangential force generatable in the wheel (see at least Jarret Col. 3, line 67-Col. 4, line 4: “Furthermore, each wheel 1 and 2 which is driven independently by a motor 3 cannot be subjected to a torque exceeding a maximum value which, taking into account the radius of the wheels 1 and 2, corresponds to a maximum tangential force transmitted to the ground or road surface by the periphery of the wheel.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the device disclosed by Hirata in view of Reuter and Shinmura with Jarret with reasonable expectation of success. Jarret is directed towards the related field of independently controlling torque applied to driving wheels. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Hirata in view of Reuter and Shinmura with Jarret to improve maneuverability and stability (see at least Jarret Col. 1, lines 53-58: “The aim of the invention is thus to construct a vehicle which is guided by independently controlling the torque applied to two lateral driving wheels and has the maneuverability of the first known design while being similar to the second known design in that it is free from the instability associated with swiveling wheels.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tamba et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0310214 A1, directed towards changing a torque based on a correction line.
Zhang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0031173 A1, directed towards performing torque correction using a target torque.
Abe et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0185119 A1, directed towards correcting a driver demanded driving torque.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J SLOWIK whose telephone number is (571)270-5608. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI: 0900-1700.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/ELIZABETH J SLOWIK/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights