DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-10, 12-21 filed as preliminary amendment, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 13 has been objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 13, line 1, “claim 11” should be changed to –claim 1--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
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.
5. Claims 1-4, 13, 16, 17,18-20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger et al. (USP 2011/0130935) in view of GU et al. (CN-108569168) in view of LI eta l. ( CN-103475190).
As Per Claim 1, Krueger et al. ( Krueger) teaches, a control method ( via method for calibrating a braking system of a vehicle, Abstract)
, comprising: obtaining reference information, comprising a driving mode of a vehicle and a gear of the vehicle; (via processor 120 of computer system of brake controller 110 being equipped with brake pedal travel sensor 104, brake pedal force sensor 105, gear sensor 106, wheel speed sensor 108, obtaining vehicle driving mode , [0030], [0031], also see [0014], [0017-0020], [0022], [0024], [0028], [0029], Figs. 1-2).
However, Krueger does not explicitly teach, controlling, based on the reference information, first motor to be turned on or turned off.
In an analogous art, GU et al. ( Gu) teaches, an electric vehicle control system , being equipped with vehicle controller 101 configured to front shaft motor controller 103 and rear shaft motor control 104 and also being equipped with IGBT switch
Comparing requested torque if it is greater than or less than a threshold value;
And comparing vehicle speed whether it is greater than or less than a threshold value and making the motor to go into sleep mode. (See Abstract, page 7, last para; Page 9 3rd para, Figs. 1 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kreuger and Gu before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Kreuger, to include the teachings ( vehicle controllers and IGBT switch) of GU and configure with the system of Krueger in order to compare the torque and speed and make motor go to sleep. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, motor control base on vehicle speed.
However, Krueger and GU does not explicitly teach, controlling, motor to be turned on or turned off.
In an analogous art, Li et al. ( Li) teaches, High efficiency electric source of electric automobile motor control and drive circuit, comprising UP power output unit switch power unit and an IGBT driving push-pull circuit unit etc. Wherein, the new energy electric vehicle motor control , driving IGBT switches between turn-on and turn-off two states, supplying power to the motor controller and the control circuit.( See Abstract, Page 2, 1st para, Page 5 Fig.2, and Page 8, 3rd para, Fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kreuger and Gu and Li before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Kreuger, to include the teachings ( the IGBT push-pull circuit unit ) of Li and configure with the system of Krueger in order to IGBT switches controlling the motor in two states turn-on and turn-off . Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to execute motor power control (i.e., an added safety feature to regulate vehicle motor operation).
As per Claim 2, Krueger as modified by GU and Li teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Krueger in view of GU and Li teaches, wherein the reference information further comprises a traveling speed of the vehicle.( Krueger : [0018], GU : Page 9, 3rd apar).
As per Claim 3, Krueger as modified by GU and Li teaches the limitation of Claim 2. However, Krueger in view of GU and Li teaches, wherein the reference information further comprises a status of the vehicle ( Krueger : [0018], GU : Page 9, 3rd apar).
As per Claim 4, Krueger as modified by GU and Li teaches the limitation of Claim 3. However, Krueger in view of GU and Li teaches,, wherein controlling the first motor to be turned off comprises: making a determination that the traveling speed is 0, the driving mode is an energy saving mode or a normal mode, and the status is a non-drivable state; and, controlling, in response to the determination, the first motor to be turned off. (GU : (See Abstract, page 7, last para; Page 9 3rd para, Figs. 1 and 7).
(See claim 1 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
As per Claim 13, Krueger as modified by GU and Li teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Krueger in view of GU and Li teaches, wherein the reference information further comprises at least one of a traveling speed , a status of a second motor of the vehicle,( Krueger : [0014], [0018], [0019]), Fig. 1); a requested torque of the first motor; ( GU : Page 7, last para –Page 9 3rd para).
(See claim 1 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
Claim 16 is being rejected using the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 17 is being rejected using the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 18 is being rejected using the same rationale as claim 1.
As Per Claim 19, Krueger et al. (Krueger) teaches, a control apparatus
(via a braking system 100 for use in a brake-by-wire system, [0014], Fig.1)
comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; [(0020]-[0021], Fig.1);
and one or more processors coupled to the memory, wherein when executed by the one or more processors, the instructions cause the control apparatus ([0020]-[0021], Fig.1)
to: obtain reference information comprising a driving mode of a vehicle and a gear of the vehicle; (via processor 120 of computer system of brake controller 110 being equipped with brake pedal travel sensor 104, brake pedal force sensor 105, gear sensor 106, wheel speed sensor 108, obtaining vehicle driving mode , [0030], [0031], also see [0014], [0017-0020], [0022], [0024], [0028], [0029], Figs. 1-2).
However, Krueger does not explicitly teach, controlling, based on the reference information a motor of the vehicle to be turned on or turned off.
In an analogous art, GU et al. ( Gu) teaches, an electric vehicle control system , being equipped with vehicle controller 101 configured to front shaft motor controller 103 and rear shaft motor control 104 and also being equipped with IGBT switch
Comparing requested torque if it is greater than or less than a threshold value;
And comparing vehicle speed whether it is greater than or less than a threshold value and making the motor to go into sleep mode. (See Abstract, page 7, last para; Page 9 3rd para, Figs. 1 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kreuger and Gu before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Kreuger, to include the teachings ( vehicle controllers and IGBT switch) of GU and configure with the system of Krueger in order to compare the torque and speed and make motor go to sleep. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, motor control base on vehicle speed.
However, Krueger and GU does not explicitly teach, controlling, motor to be turned on or turned off.
In an analogous art, Li et al. ( Li) teaches, High efficiency electric source of electric automobile motor control and drive circuit, comprising UP power output unit switch power unit and an IGBT driving push-pull circuit unit etc. Wherein, the new energy electric vehicle motor control , driving IGBT switches between turn-on and turn-off two states, supplying power to the motor controller and the control circuit.( See Abstract, Page 2, 1st para, Page 5 Fig.2, and Page 8, 3rd para, Fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kreuger and Gu and Li before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Kreuger, to include the teachings ( the IGBT push-pull circuit unit ) of Li and configure with the system of Krueger in order to IGBT switches controlling the motor in two states turn-on and turn-off . Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to execute motor power control (i.e., an added safety feature to regulate vehicle motor operation).
As Per Claim 20, Krueger et al. (Krueger) teaches, a computer program product comprising computer-executable instructions that are stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and that, (via a braking system 100 for use in a brake-by-wire system, being equipped with memory [0014], [0020],[0021]Fig.1)
when executed by one or more processors, [0020],[0021]Fig.1) cause a control apparatus (via a braking system 100 for use in a brake-by-wire system, [0014], Fig.1) to: obtain reference information comprising a driving mode of a vehicle and a gear of the vehicle; (via processor 120 of computer system of brake controller 110 being equipped with brake pedal travel sensor 104, brake pedal force sensor 105, gear sensor 106, wheel speed sensor 108, obtaining vehicle driving mode , [0030], [0031], also see [0014], [0017-0020], [0022], [0024], [0028], [0029], Figs. 1-2).
However, Krueger does not explicitly teach, controlling, based on the reference information, a motor of the vehicle to be turned on or turned off.
In an analogous art, GU et al. ( Gu) teaches, an electric vehicle control system , being equipped with vehicle controller 101 configured to front shaft motor controller 103 and rear shaft motor control 104 and also being equipped with IGBT switch
Comparing requested torque if it is greater than or less than a threshold value;
And comparing vehicle speed whether it is greater than or less than a threshold value and making the motor to go into sleep mode. (See Abstract, page 7, last para; Page 9 3rd para, Figs. 1 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kreuger and Gu before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Kreuger, to include the teachings ( vehicle controllers and IGBT switch) of GU and configure with the system of Krueger in order to compare the torque and speed and make motor go to sleep. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, motor control base on vehicle speed.
However, Krueger and GU does not explicitly teach, controlling, motor to be turned on or turned off.
In an analogous art, Li et al. (Li) teaches, High efficiency electric source of electric automobile motor control and drive circuit, comprising UP power output unit switch power unit and an IGBT driving push-pull circuit unit etc. Wherein, the new energy electric vehicle motor control , driving IGBT switches between turn-on and turn-off two states, supplying power to the motor controller and the control circuit.( See Abstract, Page 2, 1st para, Page 5 Fig.2, and Page 8, 3rd para, Fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kreuger and Gu and Li before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Kreuger, to include the teachings ( the IGBT push-pull circuit unit ) of Li and configure with the system of Krueger in order to IGBT switches controlling the motor in two states turn-on and turn-off . Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to execute motor power control (i.e., an added safety feature to regulate vehicle motor operation).
As per Claim 21, Krueger as modified by GU and Li teaches the limitation of Claim 20. However, Krueger in view of GU and Li teaches, wherein the reference information further comprises a traveling speed of the vehicle., (Krueger : via [0014], [0018]-[0019], Fig.1).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 5-10, 12 and 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD SHAFI whose telephone number is (571)270-5741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am -5:00 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, Scott Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/MUHAMMAD SHAFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
Prosecution Insights