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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method of generating an optimal torque profile (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method for optimizing traction control in an electric vehicle with multiple e-axles, comprising:
receiving look-ahead information about upcoming road conditions;
generating an optimal torque profile based on the look-ahead information; and [mental process/step]
optimally allocating the requested torque between multiple e-axles to minimize energy losses.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “generating…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at data collected regarding upcoming road conditions, and forming a simple judgement as to the optimal torque allocation between axles of the vehicle based on such. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A method for optimizing traction control in an electric vehicle with multiple e-axles, comprising: [generic linking to technical field, 2106.05(h), Apply it, 2106.05(f)]
receiving look-ahead information about upcoming road conditions; [pre-solution activity (data gathering) 2106.05(g)]
generating an optimal torque profile based on the look-ahead information; and
optimally allocating the requested torque between multiple e-axles to minimize energy losses. [insignificant post-solution activity (outputting results of the mental process) 2106.05(g)].
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving…” and “optimally allocating…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering upcoming road data for generating an optimal torque profile), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the “optimally allocating…” step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting the results without implementation), and amounts to mere post solution output of data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. While the implementation of the requested torque to control the vehicle is a practical application that renders the claim(s) patent-eligible (see Claims 8 & 14 which are not rejected under 35 USC 101, which recite allocation and implementation of the torque commands as separate steps), the allocation of the requested torque appears under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim to be an assignment of requested torque to each of the axles of the vehicle, or in other words, the mere output of the data result without practical implementation.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computing element to generate the optimal torque profile amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “receiving…” and “optimally allocating…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Dependent claim(s) 2 – 6 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically:
Claim 2 recites wherein the look-ahead information comprises road grade and speed limits, which merely narrows the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering to specific embodiments, and does not render the claim patent-eligible.
Claim 3 recites wherein generating the optimal torque profile comprises calculating load forces and optimizing a cost function, which are mathematical evaluations, and therefore abstract ideas, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 4 recites wherein solving the optimization problem comprises using a nonlinear optimization technique, which is a mathematical operation under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 5 recites wherein generating the optimal torque profile comprises calculating power losses and optimizing a cost function, which are mathematical evaluations, and therefore abstract ideas, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 6 recites wherein calculating power losses comprises considering losses in electric machines, gearboxes, and differential gears which are mathematical evaluations, and therefore abstract ideas, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Therefore, dependent claims 2 – 6 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Independent Claim 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 1 – 6 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 & 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liang (CN 117301888 A).
Regarding Claim 1:
Liang discloses: A method for optimizing traction control in an electric vehicle with multiple e-axles, comprising: (Liang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0006 & 0067 a torque distribution method for a vehicle for improving the power performance of the vehicle [i.e. a method for optimizing traction control]. At least Paragraphs 0081, 0094, & 0145 of Liang disclose wherein the vehicle may be an electric vehicle with multiple drive motors located at multiple drive axles [i.e. the vehicle is an electric vehicle with multiple e-axles])
receiving look-ahead information about upcoming road conditions; (Liang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0086 & 0087 wherein road conditions of a target road section in front of the vehicle are obtained by a map navigation system of the vehicle [i.e. look-ahead information about upcoming road conditions is received])
generating an optimal torque profile based on the look-ahead information; and (Liang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0088 & 0089 wherein based on the type of road conditions, a torque distribution ratio may be modified to obtain a suitable torque distribution ratio [i.e. generating an optimal torque profile based on the look-ahead information]. Liang further discloses in at least Paragraphs 0103 & 0104 specific examples of determining the optimal torque distribution ratio, including adjusting the torque distribution between the front and rear axle based on if the upcoming road condition requires a higher vehicle speed)
optimally allocating the requested torque between multiple e-axles to minimize energy losses. (Liang discloses in at least Paragraph 0090 wherein based on the determined torque distribution ratio, the front and rear axle may be controlled to perform torque output [i.e. optimally allocating the requested torque between multiple e-axles] in order to drive the vehicle in an optimal energy consumption range as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0094 & 0095 of Liang [i.e. to minimize energy losses])
Regarding Claim 8:
Liang discloses: A system for optimizing traction control in an electric vehicle with multiple e-axles, comprising: (Liang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0006 & 0067 a torque distribution system for a vehicle for improving the power performance of the vehicle [i.e. a system for optimizing traction control]. At least Paragraphs 0081, 0094, & 0145 of Liang disclose wherein the vehicle may be an electric vehicle with multiple drive motors located at multiple drive axles [i.e. the vehicle is an electric vehicle with multiple e-axles])
a vehicle control unit configured to receive look-ahead information and (Liang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0086 & 0087 wherein road conditions of a target road section in front of the vehicle are obtained by a map navigation system of the vehicle coupled to a hybrid or vehicle control unit [i.e. look-ahead information about upcoming road conditions is received by a vehicle control unit])
generate an optimal torque profile; (Liang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0088 & 0089 wherein based on the type of road conditions, a torque distribution ratio may be modified to obtain a suitable torque distribution ratio [i.e. generating an optimal torque profile based on the look-ahead information]. Liang further discloses in at least Paragraphs 0103 & 0104 specific examples of determining the optimal torque distribution ratio, including adjusting the torque distribution between the front and rear axle based on if the upcoming road condition requires a higher vehicle speed)
an e-axles supervisory controller configured to optimally allocate torque between multiple e-axles; and electric machine controllers configured to implement the allocated torque commands. (Liang discloses in at least Paragraph 0090 wherein based on the determined torque distribution ratio, the front and rear axle may be controlled by the HCU [i.e. electric machine controllers] to perform torque output [i.e. optimally allocating the requested torque between multiple e-axles] in order to drive the vehicle in an optimal energy consumption range as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0094 & 0095 of Liang)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 11, & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (CN 117301888 A) as applied to claims 1 & 8 above, and further in view of Borhan (US 2025/0137414 A1).
Regarding Claim 2:
The method of claim 1, wherein the look-ahead information comprises road grade and speed limits.
Liang does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the look-ahead information comprises road grade and speed limits.
However Borhan teaches in at least Paragraphs 0038 & 0062 wherein a vehicle controller may receive information on upcoming road conditions, including road grade and speed limit changes, in order to optimize vehicle energy management for the powertrain system as taught in at least Paragraph 0032.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Liang by incorporating the use of road grade and speed limit changes as upcoming information as taught by Borhan.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Borhan in at least Paragraphs 0038 & 0062, the vehicle may appropriately optimize control outputs based on the environmental conditions about to be traversed.
Regarding Claim 11:
The system of claim 8, wherein the electric vehicle comprises a heavy-duty electric truck with dual e-axles.
Liang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0081, 0094, & 0145 wherein the vehicle may be an electric vehicle with multiple drive motors located at multiple drive axles [i.e. the vehicle is an electric vehicle with dual e-axles]. Liang however appears to be silent regarding wherein the vehicle is specifically a heavy-duty electric truck.
However Borhan teaches in at least Paragraph 0021 wherein the vehicle may be a fully electric vehicle, including a line haul or midrange truck [i.e. the electric vehicle comprises a heavy-duty electric truck].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Liang by incorporating the implementation in a line haul or midrange truck as taught by Borhan.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Borhan in at least Paragraph 0021, and as would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, the optimization may be implemented in any relevant vehicle system, improving the utility of the optimization system.
Regarding Claim 12:
The system of claim 8, wherein each e-axle comprises an electric machine, a gearbox, and a differential gear.
Liang does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the vehicle includes an electric machine, a gearbox, and a differential gear.
However Borhan teaches in at least Paragraphs 0021 & 0041 wherein the vehicle may comprise a geared transmission containing a plurality of gears, coupled to the engine in order to provide rotational power to the wheels of the vehicle, the system further comprising an electric motor [i.e. wherein each e-axle comprises an electric machine, a gearbox, and a differential gear].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Liang by incorporating the configuration of the vehicle to include an electric motor and variable transmission as taught by Borhan.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Borhan in at least Paragraph 0041 and as would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, the vehicle may provide power to the vehicle wheels at an appropriate toque ratio, improving the performance of the vehicle.
Claim(s) 3, 4, & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (CN 117301888 A) as applied to claims 1 & 8 above, and further in view of Wu (CN 113093708 A) and Borhan (US 2025/0137414 A1).
Regarding Claim 3:
The method of claim 1, wherein generating the optimal torque profile comprises: calculating vehicle load forces based on the look-ahead information; formulating a cost function that considers energy consumption and speed tracking; and solving an optimization problem to determine the optimal torque profile.
Liang does not appear to specifically disclose wherein generating the optimal torque profile comprises calculating vehicle load forces based on the look-ahead information, nor formulating and minimizing a cost function.
However Wu teaches in at least Paragraphs 0022 – 0024 wherein load information of each wheel of a vehicle is acquired, with at least Paragraphs 0025 & 0026 of Wu teaching wherein the load information, as well as look-ahead data of the road conditions ahead of the vehicle, are input to determine an optimal torque distribution to achieve a target slip rate for each wheel of the vehicle [i.e. calculating vehicle load forces based on the look-ahead information].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Liang by incorporating the determination of vehicle wheel load as taught by Wu.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Wu in at least Paragraphs 0025 & 0026, an optimal torque distribution to achieve a target slip rate for each wheel of the vehicle may be determined, improving look-ahead vehicle control.
However Borhan teaches in at least Paragraphs 0051 & 0054 wherein an optimal control problem may be solved to predict the future state of the vehicle, the cost function being minimized to determine control inputs for the vehicle system, and taking as input engine speed while accounting for fuel efficiency in the output as taught in at least Paragraph 0053 [i.e. formulating a cost function that considers energy consumption and speed tracking; and solving an optimization problem to determine the optimal torque profile].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Liang by incorporating the formulation an optimization of a cost function to determine torque as taught by Borhan.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Borhan in at least Paragraph 0054, the control inputs of the vehicle system may be optimized in a manner that minimizes a desired parameter, improving the determination of output torque for the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 4:
The method of claim 3, wherein solving the optimization problem comprises using a nonlinear optimization technique.
Liang does not appear to specifically disclose solving the optimization problem comprises using a nonlinear optimization technique.
However Borhan teaches in at least Paragraphs 0055 & 0069 wherein the optimization function may take a non-linear form [i.e. solving the optimization problem comprises using a nonlinear optimization technique].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Liang by incorporating the nonlinear optimization of a cost function to determine optimal torque as taught by Borhan.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Borhan in at least Paragraphs 0055 & 0069, performance of the vehicle system may be accurately modeled for optimization, improving the assessment of optimal torque output by the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 9:
The system of claim 8, wherein the vehicle control unit is configured to: calculate vehicle load forces based on the look-ahead information; formulate a cost function that considers energy consumption and speed tracking; and solve an optimization problem to determine the optimal torque profile.
Liang does not appear to specifically disclose wherein generating the optimal torque profile comprises calculating vehicle load forces based on the look-ahead information, nor formulating and minimizing a cost function.
However Wu teaches in at least Paragraphs 0022 – 0024 wherein load information of each wheel of a vehicle is acquired, with at least Paragraphs 0025 & 0026 of Wu teaching wherein the load information, as well as look-ahead data of the road conditions ahead of the vehicle, are input to determine an optimal torque distribution to achieve a target slip rate for each wheel of the vehicle [i.e. calculating vehicle load forces based on the look-ahead information].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Liang by incorporating the determination of vehicle wheel load as taught by Wu.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Wu in at least Paragraphs 0025 & 0026, an optimal torque distribution to achieve a target slip rate for each wheel of the vehicle may be determined, improving look-ahead vehicle control.
However Borhan teaches in at least Paragraphs 0051 & 0054 wherein an optimal control problem may be solved to predict the future state of the vehicle, the cost function being minimized to determine control inputs for the vehicle system, and taking as input engine speed while accounting for fuel efficiency in the output as taught in at least Paragraph 0053 [i.e. formulating a cost function that considers energy consumption and speed tracking; and solving an optimization problem to determine the optimal torque profile].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Liang by incorporating the formulation an optimization of a cost function to determine torque as taught by Borhan.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Borhan in at least Paragraph 0054, the control inputs of the vehicle system may be optimized in a manner that minimizes a desired parameter, improving the determination of output torque for the vehicle.
Claim(s) 5, 6, & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (CN 117301888 A) as applied to claims 1 & 8 above, and further in view of Hancock (US 2019/0263413 A1).
Regarding Claim 5:
The method of claim 1, wherein optimally allocating the requested torque comprises: calculating power losses for each e-axle at different torque split ratios; formulating an objective function to minimize total power losses; and determining an optimal torque split ratio that minimizes the objective function.
Liang does not appear to specifically disclose wherein optimally allocating the requested torque comprises: calculating power losses for each e-axle at different torque split ratios; formulating an objective function to minimize total power losses; and determining an optimal torque split ratio that minimizes the objective function.
However Hancock teaches in at least Paragraphs 0040 & 0041 wherein power loss for multiple propulsion units being operated in a distributed torque manner may be estimated for one or more different torque distributions, with the controller performing an optimization to minimize power costs and inefficiency in the operation of the propulsion units by estimating power loss for operating each propulsion unit as taught in at least Paragraphs 0045 & 0046 [i.e. calculating power losses for each e-axle at different torque split ratios, formulating an objective function to minimize total power losses, and determining an optimal torque split ratio that minimizes the objective function].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Liang by incorporating the minimization of total power cost for various torque split values as taught by Hancock.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Hancock in at least Paragraph 0121, an overall power cost in the system to operate an electric machine at a particular torque level may be better determined, improving the optimization of the vehicle torque split.
Regarding Claim 6:
The method of claim 5, wherein calculating power losses comprises considering losses in electric machines, gearboxes, and differential gears.
Liang does not appear to specifically disclose wherein calculating power losses comprises considering losses in electric machines, gearboxes, and differential gears.
However Hancock teaches in at least Paragraphs 0106 & 0121 wherein power losses in a vehicle system may be assessed for differentials, gearboxes, and electric machine drive units in determining power losses for optimizing torque split in a vehicle system [i.e. calculating power losses comprises considering losses in electric machines, gearboxes, and differential gears].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Liang by incorporating the consideration of losses in electric machines, gearboxes, and differential gears when determining an optimal torque split for a vehicle as taught by Hancock.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Hancock in at least Paragraph 0121, an overall power cost in the system to operate an electric machine at a particular torque level may be better determined, improving the optimization of the vehicle torque split.
Regarding Claim 10:
The system of claim 8, wherein the e-axles supervisory controller is configured to: calculate power losses for each e-axle at different torque split ratios; formulate an objective function to minimize total power losses; and determine an optimal torque split ratio that minimizes the objective function.
Liang does not appear to specifically disclose wherein optimally allocating the requested torque comprises: calculating power losses for each e-axle at different torque split ratios; formulating an objective function to minimize total power losses; and determining an optimal torque split ratio that minimizes the objective function.
However Hancock teaches in at least Paragraphs 0040 & 0041 wherein power loss for multiple propulsion units being operated in a distributed torque manner may be estimated for one or more different torque distributions, with the controller performing an optimization to minimize power costs and inefficiency in the operation of the propulsion units by estimating power loss for operating each propulsion unit as taught in at least Paragraphs 0045 & 0046 [i.e. calculating power losses for each e-axle at different torque split ratios, formulating an objective function to minimize total power losses, and determining an optimal torque split ratio that minimizes the objective function].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Liang by incorporating the minimization of total power cost for various torque split values as taught by Hancock.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Hancock in at least Paragraph 0121, an overall power cost in the system to operate an electric machine at a particular torque level may be better determined, improving the optimization of the vehicle torque split.
Claim(s) 7 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (CN 117301888 A) as applied to claims 1 & 8 above, and further in view of Poull (US 2023/0064358 A1).
Regarding Claim 7:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: adapting vehicle speed based on road grade, wherein the vehicle slows down on higher grades and speeds up on lower grades.
Liang does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the vehicle slows down on higher grades and speeds up on lower grades.
However Poull teaches in at least Paragraph 0049 wherein a vehicle may receive route characteristics, including road grade, of an upcoming route, and further teaches in at least Paragraphs 0060, 0125, & 0126 wherein the vehicle may be controlled according to grade variation of the route to improve energy efficiency, including lowering a cruising speed of the vehicle while on an incline [i.e. adapting vehicle speed based on road grade, wherein the vehicle slows down on higher grades and speeds up on lower grades].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Liang by incorporating the adjustment of vehicle speed based on road grade as taught by Poull.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Poull in at least Paragraph 0126, vehicle energy efficiency may be improved by lowering the speed of the vehicle while operating on an incline.
Regarding Claim 13:
The system of claim 8, wherein the vehicle control unit is further configured to adapt vehicle speed based on road grade.
Liang does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the vehicle adapts vehicle speed based on road grade.
However Poull teaches in at least Paragraph 0049 wherein a vehicle may receive route characteristics, including road grade, of an upcoming route, and further teaches in at least Paragraphs 0060, 0125, & 0126 wherein the vehicle may be controlled according to grade variation of the route to improve energy efficiency, including lowering a cruising speed of the vehicle while on an incline [i.e. adapting vehicle speed based on road grade].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Liang by incorporating the adjustment of vehicle speed based on road grade as taught by Poull.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Poull in at least Paragraph 0126, vehicle energy efficiency may be improved by lowering the speed of the vehicle while operating on an incline.
Claim(s) 14 & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (CN 117301888 A) in view of Borhan (US 2025/0137414 A1).
Regarding Claim 14:
Liang discloses: A method for extending the range of an electric vehicle, comprising: (Liang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0006 & 0067 a torque distribution system for a vehicle for improving the power performance of the vehicle [i.e. a method for extending the range of a vehicle]. At least Paragraphs 0081, 0094, & 0145 of Liang disclose wherein the vehicle may be an electric vehicle with multiple drive motors located at multiple drive axles [i.e. the vehicle is an electric vehicle with multiple e-axles])
optimizing a torque profile based on look-ahead information…; (Liang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0086 & 0087 wherein road conditions of a target road section in front of the vehicle are obtained by a map navigation system of the vehicle [i.e. look-ahead information about upcoming road conditions is received] Liang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0088 & 0089 wherein based on the type of road conditions, a torque distribution ratio may be modified to obtain a suitable torque distribution ratio [i.e. optimizing a torque profile based on the look-ahead information]. Liang further discloses in at least Paragraphs 0103 & 0104 specific examples of determining the optimal torque distribution ratio, including adjusting the torque distribution between the front and rear axle based on if the upcoming road condition requires a higher vehicle speed)
determining an optimal torque split between multiple e-axles to minimize energy losses; and controlling the electric machines according to the optimal torque split. Liang discloses in at least Paragraph 0090 wherein based on the determined torque distribution ratio, the front and rear axle may be controlled to perform torque output [i.e. optimally allocating the requested torque between multiple e-axles and controlling the electric machines according to the optimal torque split] in order to drive the vehicle in an optimal energy consumption range as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0094 & 0095 of Liang [i.e. to minimize energy losses])
Liang however appears to be silent regarding:
Wherein the look-ahead information comprises information about road grade and speed limits
However Borhan teaches wherein a vehicle’s powertrain system may be optimized based on upcoming road grade and speed limit information.
Wherein the look-ahead information comprises information about road grade and speed limits (However Borhan teaches in at least Paragraphs 0038 & 0062 wherein a vehicle controller may receive information on upcoming road conditions, including road grade and speed limit changes, in order to optimize vehicle energy management for the powertrain system as taught in at least Paragraph 0032)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Liang by incorporating the use of road grade and speed limit changes as upcoming information as taught by Borhan.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Borhan in at least Paragraphs 0038 & 0062, the vehicle may appropriately optimize control outputs based on the environmental conditions about to be traversed.
Regarding Claim 17:
The method of claim 14, wherein controlling the electric machines comprises: operating one electric machine at a higher torque and the other at a lower torque or zero torque based on the optimal torque split.
Liang discloses in at least Paragraph 0090 wherein based on the determined torque distribution ratio, the front and rear axle may be controlled by the HCU [i.e. electric machine controllers] to perform torque output [i.e. operating one electric machine at a higher torque and the other at a lower torque or zero torque based on the optimal torque split] in order to drive the vehicle in an optimal energy consumption range as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0094 & 0095 of Liang.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (CN 117301888 A) in view of Borhan (US 2025/0137414 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Wu (CN 113093708 A).
Regarding Claim 15:
The method of claim 14, wherein optimizing the torque profile comprises: dividing a look-ahead distance into multiple segments; calculating road load for each segment based on road grade, vehicle speed, and other parameters; formulating a cost function considering energy consumption and speed tracking; and solving the optimization problem to determine the optimal torque profile.
Liang does not appear to specifically disclose wherein generating the optimal torque profile comprises calculating vehicle load forces based on the look-ahead information, nor formulating and minimizing a cost function.
However Wu teaches in at least Paragraphs 0022 – 0024 wherein load information of each wheel of a vehicle is acquired, with at least Paragraphs 0025 & 0026 of Wu teaching wherein the load information, as well as look-ahead data of the road conditions ahead of the vehicle, are input to determine an optimal torque distribution to achieve a target slip rate for each wheel of the vehicle [i.e. calculating vehicle load forces based on the look-ahead information].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Liang by incorporating the determination of vehicle wheel load as taught by Wu.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Wu in at least Paragraphs 0025 & 0026, an optimal torque distribution to achieve a target slip rate for each wheel of the vehicle may be determined, improving look-ahead vehicle control.
However Borhan teaches in at least Paragraphs 0051 & 0054 wherein an optimal control problem may be solved to predict the future state of the vehicle, the cost function being minimized to determine control inputs for the vehicle system, and taking as input engine speed while accounting for fuel efficiency in the output as taught in at least Paragraph 0053 [i.e. formulating a cost function that considers energy consumption and speed tracking; and solving an optimization problem to determine the optimal torque profile].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Liang by incorporating the formulation an optimization of a cost function to determine torque as taught by Borhan.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Borhan in at least Paragraph 0054, the control inputs of the vehicle system may be optimized in a manner that minimizes a desired parameter, improving the determination of output torque for the vehicle.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (CN 117301888 A) in view of Borhan (US 2025/0137414 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Hancock (US 2019/0263413 A1).
Regarding Claim 16:
The method of claim 14, wherein determining the optimal torque split comprises: calculating efficiency of each e-axle at different operating points; formulating a cost function to minimize total powertrain losses; and solving the optimization problem to determine the optimal torque split.
Liang does not appear to specifically disclose wherein optimally allocating the requested torque comprises: calculating power losses for each e-axle at different torque split ratios; formulating an objective function to minimize total power losses; and determining an optimal torque split ratio that minimizes the objective function.
However Hancock teaches in at least Paragraphs 0040 & 0041 wherein power loss for multiple propulsion units being operated in a distributed torque manner may be estimated for one or more different torque distributions, with the controller performing an optimization to minimize power costs and inefficiency in the operation of the propulsion units by estimating power loss for operating each propulsion unit as taught in at least Paragraphs 0045 & 0046 [i.e. calculating power losses for each e-axle at different torque split ratios, formulating an objective function to minimize total power losses, and determining an optimal torque split ratio that minimizes the objective function].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Liang by incorporating the minimization of total power cost for various torque split values as taught by Hancock.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Hancock in at least Paragraph 0121, an overall power cost in the system to operate an electric machine at a particular torque level may be better determined, improving the optimization of the vehicle torque split.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (CN 117301888 A) in view of Borhan (US 2025/0137414 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN 105015543 A).
Regarding Claim 18:
The method of claim 14, wherein the optimal torque split varies dynamically based on operating conditions, with zero torque split selected most frequently.
Liang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0088 & 0089 wherein based on the type of road conditions, a torque distribution ratio may be modified to obtain a suitable torque distribution ratio [i.e. wherein the optimal torque split varies dynamically based on operating conditions]. Liang however appears to be silent regarding wherein a zero torque split is selected most frequently.
However Zhang teaches in at least Paragraphs 0091 & 0093 wherein when the fuel consumption cannot be improved by a distribution of torque, no torque distribution takes place [i.e. the vehicle defaults to a zero torque split].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Liang by incorporating the default setting of no torque distribution as taught by Zhang.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Zhang in at least Paragraphs 0090 & 0091, the fuel economy of the vehicle may be improved by always running the vehicle at an optimal torque distribution when one is available.
Claim(s) 19 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (CN 117301888 A) in view of Borhan (US 2025/0137414 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Poull (US 2023/0064358 A1).
Regarding Claim 19:
The method of claim 14, wherein the method reduces energy consumption by at least 5% compared to conventional control strategies with even torque split.
Liang does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the method reduces energy consumption by at least 5% compared to conventional control strategies with even torque split.
However Poull teaches in at least Paragraph 0098 wherein using eco modes of a vehicle, which may include target torque splits as taught in at least Paragraph 0060, may increase energy economy by 10% from a normal driving profile in an example [i.e. energy consumption is reduced by at least 5% compared to conventional control strategies with even torque split].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Liang by incorporating the improvement of energy economy of the vehicle by a specified amount as taught by Poull.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Poull in at least Paragraphs 0060 & 0098, the vehicle may maintain an optimal or improved energy consumption while maintaining operator or passenger comfort.
Regarding Claim 20:
The method of claim 14, wherein the method extends driving range by at least 7% compared to conventional control strategies with even torque split.
Liang does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the method extends driving range by at least 7% compared to conventional control strategies with even torque split.
However Poull teaches in at least Paragraph 0098 wherein using eco modes of a vehicle, which may include target torque splits as taught in at least Paragraph 0060, may increase energy economy by 10% from a normal driving profile in an example, which may extend the range of the vehicle by a corresponding amount [i.e. the method extends driving range by at least 7% compared to conventional control strategies with even torque split].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Liang by incorporating the improvement of vehicle range by a specified amount as taught by Poull.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Poull in at least Paragraphs 0060 & 0098, the vehicle may maintain an optimal or improved energy consumption while maintaining operator or passenger comfort.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure:
Dhansri (US 11,216,748 B2): Dhansri recites a ground vehicle control system, including the optimization of vehicle operating information based on detected environmental information. The control of the vehicle may take place based on a determined speed-torque efficiency profile.
Ghandriz (US 2025/0283727 A1): Ghandriz recites a tire wear management system, including the detection of an upcoming vehicle path, and the determination of a vehicle motion profile based on the upcoming path information using an optimization problem.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN CARDIMINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2759. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:00.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R CARDIMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights