DETAILED ACTION
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 .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on 6/03/2025. Claims 1-17 are pending and are examined below.
PRIORITY
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of foreign priority to DE102022132508.3, filed on 12/07/2022.
SPECIFICATION
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities.
The acronym “rpm” is written throughout the specification but is never explicitly defined. Examiner suggests amending the first instances of “rpm” in the Abstract and the Description, respectively, to read “revolutions per minute (rpm)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 17 is/are objected to because of claim informalities.
As to claims 1 and 17, the acronym “rpm” is written though the claims but is never defined. Examiner suggests amending the first instances of the term in claims 1 and 17, respectively, to: “revolutions per minute (rpm)”.
As to claim 3, claim element “the actual rpm of the inverter” lacks antecedent basis. Note that claim 1 defines: “the actual rpm of the electric drive,” which is consistent with the specification. Hence, Examiner suggests amending claim 3 to follow the language of claim 1 – i.e., “the actual rpm of the electric drive”.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6 and 8-18 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Semsey (DE102011088729B4; “Semsey”) in view of Talja (EP2792532A1; “Talja”)
As to claim 1, Semsey discloses: a method for torque-based operation of an inverter of a vehicle set up for regenerative braking (“Modern electric motors … are supplied with electrical energy by frequency converters (also called converters or inverters, which convert a direct current into an alternating current of the desired frequency) and thus controlled with regard to the torque to be delivered.” ¶ 2. “The inverter receives control data … which … may include data about a torque setpoint. The torque setpoint can be seen as a target value that defines a torque to be delivered by the electric machine to a drive shaft.” ¶ 3. “Embodiments of the invention also support … recuperation (electric braking).” ¶ 22.) with a controller different from the inverter, the controller being for controlling at least one of the electric drive and being connected to the inverter (“A motor control unit is provided for controlling an electric machine, in particular for driving a vehicle, wherein the motor control unit comprises: an input port for inputting a desired setpoint indicative of a desired torque to be delivered by the electric machine …, and a processor for outputting an actual setpoint indicative of a torque actually to be delivered by the electric machine.” ¶ 9.“The local additional control in the inverter can be remotely controlled by a control unit responsible for drive and/or vehicle dynamics control.” ¶ 33.), the method comprising:
detecting an actual rpm of the electric drive by the inverter (“An actual speed signal 165 (RPM) … [is] supplied to both the processor 117 and the calculation module 121.” ¶ 60.);
ascertaining an rpm limit on a basis of a target rpm specified for a wheel configured to be driven by the electric drive via the controller (“[T]he input terminal is provided for inputting a limit value indicative of a mechanical operating limit of the electric machine, wherein the limit value can in particular define a speed interval (especially by an upper and a lower limit) …, thereby defining a momentary permissible operating range of the electric machine.” ¶ 13. “[T]he upper limit speed can be set to a speed value that corresponds to the permissible drive slip, and the lower limit speed can be set to a speed value that reflects the permissible brake slip.” ¶ 33.);
determining an adjusted rpm limit (“[T]he upper limit speed can be set to a speed value that corresponds to the permissible drive slip, and the lower limit speed can be set to a speed value that reflects the permissible brake slip.” ¶ 33. “[T]he limit value (which can indicate in particular a permissible speed range and a permissible torque range) can be continuously changed depending on the driving situation.” ¶ 78.); and
operating the inverter with a reduced torque based on the adjusted rpm limit (“If the actual speed during operation of the electric machine is outside the permitted speed range, the actual target torque is regulated or adjusted (within the permitted torque range) so that the actual speed falls within the permitted speed range.” ¶ 29. “[T]he upper limit speed can be set to a speed value that corresponds to the permissible drive slip, and the lower limit speed can be set to a speed value that reflects the permissible brake slip.” ¶ 33. “[T]he limit value (which can indicate in particular a permissible speed range and a permissible torque range) can be continuously changed depending on the driving situation.” ¶ 78. Note: That is, the rpm limit may be adjusted based on driving conditions, and based on an adjusted rpm the inverter may be operated with a reduced torque in at least the case that the speed value is greater than the permitted speed range.).
Semsey fails to explicitly disclose: determining an adjusted rpm limit as a function of the rpm limit and the actual rpm.
Nevertheless, Talja teaches: determining an adjusted rpm limit as a function of the rpm limit and the actual rpm (“[S]peeds v1, v2, v3, v4 of the wheels are obtained in block 21. The speeds may be obtained as rotational speeds.” ¶ 13. “After the speeds of the wheels are obtained, the maximum value vmax and the minimum value vmin of these speeds are determined in block 12.” ¶ 14. “[A] first speed tolerance vt1 and a second speed tolerance vt2 are defined. The speed tolerances may be constant values that define the allowable difference in speeds between the wheels.” ¶ 15. “After the speed tolerances are defined, the upper limit vhigh for the speed of each of the driving wheels is set by adding the first speed tolerance vt1 to the determined lowest speed vmin in block 14.” ¶ 16. Note: Here, vhigh represents an adjusted rpm limit which is adjusted as a function of an rpm limit (vmin) and an actual rpm (vt1, which is a value ultimately determined from the actual rpm’s of the wheels).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Semsey with the feature of: determining an adjusted rpm limit as a function of the rpm limit and the actual rpm, as taught by Talja, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this feature is useful for achieving “optimal accelerating or braking force” over conventional methods in the context of wheel slip. (See Talja, ¶ 6.)
Independent claim 17 is rejected for at least the same reason as claim 1.
As to claim 2, Semsey discloses: wherein the reduced torque is determined depending on a difference between the adjusted rpm limit and the actual rpm of the electric drive (“The desired target value can, for example, correspond to a desired torque (propulsion or braking effect) indicated by a driver of the vehicle.” ¶ 11. “Taking the limit value into account, the desired target value can be corrected in certain driving situations to determine the actual target value, which may deviate from the desired target value (upwards or downwards).” ¶ 16. “[T]he processor of the inverter (i.e., the processor of the motor control) can take the four limit values (upper limit speed, lower limit speed, upper limit torque, lower limit torque) into account in such a way that when a speed limit is reached, a torque correction is introduced which counteracts the unwanted change in speed.” ¶ 31. “[T]he limit value (which can indicate in particular a permissible speed range and a permissible torque range) can be continuously changed depending on the driving situation.” ¶ 78.).
As to claim 3, Semsey discloses: wherein the adjusted rpm limit is determined such that the actual rpm of the inverter corresponds to the rpm limit (“If the actual speed during operation of the electric machine is outside the permitted speed range, the actual target torque is regulated or adjusted (within the permitted torque range) so that the actual speed falls within the permitted speed range.” ¶ 29. “[T]he upper limit speed can be set to a speed value that corresponds to the permissible drive slip, and the lower limit speed can be set to a speed value that reflects the permissible brake slip.” ¶ 33. “The motor control can (or needs) only make a correction to the desired setpoint in order to determine an actual setpoint that differs from the desired setpoint if either the actual speed is at the limits of the allowed speed range or is outside the allowed speed range. It must always be ensured that the actual torque is at the limits of the permissible torque range or within the permissible torque range.” ¶ 45.).
As to claim 4, Semsey fails to explicitly disclose: wherein said ascertaining the rpm limit is carried out while taking into account an actual wheel rpm related to the wheel and an actual vehicle speed of the vehicle.
Nevertheless, Talja teaches: wherein said ascertaining a rpm limit is carried out while taking into account an actual wheel rpm related to the wheel and an actual vehicle speed of the vehicle (“After the speeds of the wheels are obtained, the maximum value vmax and the minimum value vmin of these speeds are determined in block 12.” ¶ 14. “[A] first speed tolerance vt1 and a second speed tolerance vt2 are defined.” ¶ 15. “After the speed tolerances are defined, the upper limit vhigh for the speed of each of the driving wheels is set by adding the first speed tolerance vt1 to the determined lowest speed vmin in block 14. Similarly, the lower limit vlow for the speed of each of the driving wheels is set by subtracting the second speed tolerance vt2 from the determined highest speed vmax.” ¶ 16. “[T]he speed tolerances vt1 and vt2 are calculated as a function of body speed of the vehicle.” ¶ 22.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Semsey with the feature of: wherein said ascertaining a rpm limit is carried out while taking into account an actual wheel rpm related to the wheel and an actual vehicle speed of the vehicle, as taught by Talja, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this feature is useful for achieving “optimal accelerating or braking force” over conventional methods in the context of wheel slip. (See Talja, ¶ 6.) In fact, Talja’s teaching enables more accurate calculation of an rpm limit vis-à-vis permissible wheel slip, which aligns with Semsey’s context of performing torque control in view of wheel slip.
As to claim 6, Semsey discloses: wherein the torque is a driving torque or a braking torque (“The desired target value can, for example, correspond to a desired torque (propulsion or braking effect) indicated by a driver of the vehicle.” ¶ 11.).
As to claim 8, Semsey discloses: wherein the controller is a drive controller (“The local additional control in the inverter can be remotely controlled by a control unit responsible for drive and/or vehicle dynamics control.” ¶ 33.).
As to claims 9, 11, 15 and 16, Semsey discloses: wherein the vehicle is a commercial vehicle (Truck - ¶ 10.).
As to claim 10, Semsey discloses: wherein the inverter is configured to carry out the method of claim 1 (“The inverter receives control data … which … may include data about a torque setpoint. The torque setpoint can be seen as a target value that defines a torque to be delivered by the electric machine to a drive shaft.” ¶ 3.).
As to claim 12, Semsey discloses: an electric drive comprising the inverter of claim 10 (“[T]he inverter receives control data via signal lines or data buses, which... B. may include data about a torque setpoint. The torque setpoint can be seen as a target value that defines a torque to be delivered by the electric machine to a drive shaft.” ¶ 3.).
As to claim 13, Semsey discloses: a vehicle comprising the inverter of claim 10 (“vehicle” - ¶ 10. See also ¶ 3.).
As to claim 14, Semsey discloses: a vehicle comprising the electric drive of claim 12 (“vehicle” - ¶ 10. See also ¶ 3.).
As to claim 18, Semsey discloses: a non-transitory computer readable medium having the computer program of claim 17 stored thereon (“processor” - ¶ 9.)
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Semsey in view of Talja as applied to claim 4 — further in view of Yamane et al. (US20200247244A1; “Yamane”)
As to claim 5, the combination of Semsey and Talja fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the adjusted rpm limit is determined such that a speed of the wheel of the vehicle that slips more than another wheel corresponds to the target rpm.
Nevertheless, Yamane teaches: wherein an adjusted rpm limit is determined such that a speed of the wheel of the vehicle that slips more than another wheel corresponds to the target rpm (“[A] control device of an electric vehicle including a driving motor, and a rotation speed detecting unit that detects a rotation speed of the motor, includes: a target rotation speed calculation unit that calculates a target rotation speed of a drive wheel on the basis of a vehicle body speed of the electric vehicle; and a slip control unit that detects a slip of the drive wheel in a case where a wheel speed exceeds the target rotation speed of the drive wheel and that controls motor torque of the motor in such a manner that the wheel speed becomes an appropriate rotation speed in detection of the slip. Further, the slip control unit controls the motor torque by feedback control according to a difference between the rotation speed of the motor and the target rotation speed of the drive wheel in detection of the slip.” ¶ 5; see also ¶¶ 22-24. Note: When a wheel is determined to be slipping and requires individual slip control, said wheel is necessarily sipping more than the other wheels of the vehicle.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Semsey and Talja with the feature of: wherein an adjusted rpm limit is determined such that a speed of the wheel of the vehicle that slips more than another wheel corresponds to the target rpm, as taught by Yamane, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “providing a control device of an electric vehicle so as to control a slip appropriately.” (Yamane, ¶ 4.)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Semsey in view of Talja as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Fukasawa (US6086166A1; “Fukasawa”)
As to claim 7, the combination of Semsey and Talja fails to explicitly disclose: transmitting the reduced torque from the inverter to a friction brake controller.
Nevertheless, Fukasawa teaches: transmitting torque from an inverter to a friction brake controller (“Data transmitted from the electric motor controller 42 to the total braking torque controller 46 can refer not only to actual regenerative braking torque, but can also refer to the controlling value to be provided to the inverter 40 from the electric motor controller.” Col. 25, ll. 33-37.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Semsey and Talja with the feature of: transmitting torque from an inverter to a friction brake controller, as taught by Fukasawa, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for implementing friction braking. Indeed, Semsey establishes that its inverter functions as motor control unit and outputs reduced torque pertaining to friction braking. (See ¶¶ 11, 17-20; 29.) Fukasawa provides the explicit teaching that an inverter may output reduced torque to a friction brake controller.
CONCLUSION
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon pertains to Applicant’s disclosure. Amemiya et al. (US2016022010A1; “Amemiya”), disclosing: operating an inverter with a reduced torque based on an adjusted rpm limit (See at least ¶ 97.).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/MARIO C GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights